You are absolutely right. There is room for appreciation of some of the criticisms of the Emergent church and co. without accepting their theology. I think D.A. Carson has done a good job of pointing this out for us in his book “Becoming Conversant With the Emergent.” They ask many of the right question but do not provide good answers.

Thanks for your comment. I do believe that Penal Substitutionary Atonement is crucial for understanding the gospel. In fact I would go so far as to say that without it one loses the gospel itself. This has been the position of the church for over 2,000 years. Those few who denied this doctrine throughout history have done so without the support of the church. Your question about whether or not it should define evangelicalism is a good one, though. It is also part of the problem with calling oneself an “Evangelical” these days. For some Evangelicalism must clearly be defined by one’s position on Penal Subsitutionary Atonement (among other things), for others there is much more flexibility. This all comes down to how important you think the doctrine is. If it’s crucial for the gospel then you shoudl define Evangelicalism with it in mind, if not then you can flex on it.

katherine pfeifers last blog post..my Lenten trials…

Whether we agree with the emergent church types or not, they have helped raise awareness of passages in the Bible that many evangelicals (myself included) seem to look over (particularly social justice) and they do emphasize the importance of community and situated experience, both of which are essential to Biblical Christianity. That is not to say that we need to accept heresies; my point is simply that we can acknowledge, as Kiel does, that Bell and others have made helpful contributions to the Body even while we acknowledge that there are problems with their theologies.

Kiel Hauck: I have read a fair amount of his work and his views gut the heart of the salvation gospel and replace it with the same social gospel of the liberal theology of 100 years ago. His views are essentially the same as those of McLaren, who equates the teachings of Gandhi and Jesus – to the point of saying the Gandhi was a Christ-follower without knowing it (A Generous Orthodoxy). There are many who can articulate and promote the social responsibility and compassion – but whose teachings / philosophy will do no more than send comforted people to hell because they have not been redeemed – because they have not heard enough of the gospel to know that they need to be – or how to be.

There’s plenty of good authors out there that we all know of and love discussing the atonement and other orthodox, evangelical Christian issues. But if you’re looking for frank and honest discussions of mercy, social action, and just practicalities of living out the Christian life, I think Rob Bell is a very good place to start.

Given what they say, or according to what they say?

Given what Bell, McLaren and others are saying about the atonement and salvation, I don’t see how anyone could have become a born-again believer over the past 2000 years.

I agree with your post.

Dave James
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity

mikes last blog post..2,000 year-old hebrew papyrus found