In his reply to my concern about the use of bad language that is condoned by the emergent church leadership in its teaching of the purpose of our Lord’s death, Murray Sheard (NZ Baptist, June) says that the Emergent Church makes sense to the unbeliever. And I agree with him.

However to dispense with the biblical view of the crucifixion of our Lord as an atoning death for sin we must dismiss the Bible as a special revelation and then create a god after our own imagination, one that we could live with.

If we go down this track, everything is up for grabs. If we lived in a Muslim culture, as I once did, and desired a message that made sense to Islam, we could present an Arian view of Jesus: a good man, filled with the Spirit of God (simplified for the sake of this conversation) and so just another prophet. And so to the followers of the Koran this would make good sense and the Church could rapidly grow.

It is impossible to read the Bible without being confronted with “sacrifice.” John the Baptist’s description of Jesus was the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” Such a description could only make sense to his hearers in the light of their knowledge of the Old Testament.

The significance of the crucifixion taking place on the celebration of Passover needs no comment. At the Last Supper, Jesus took the cup and said, “This is the blood of the covenant poured for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

The clear biblical teaching of our Lord’s death as an atoning sacrifice for sin may not be culturally sensitive for post-modern man, but when was it?

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:18, “The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it’s the power of God. Where is the wise man, where is the scholar, where is the philosopher of this age?” (The emergent church is heavily dependent on them). “Has not God make foolish the wisdom of the world? God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs, Greeks look for wisdom but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.”

Yes, the cross, Christ crucified, as the heart of the Faith has always and will always be offensive to natural man.

By supporting Brian McLaren, Laidlaw College promotes a gospel that is acceptable to all men everywhere.

Any biblical expression that divides humanity is offensive. That some should be saved and others not is divisive. That the Christian faith should claim to be the only true religion is arrogant, that Jesus should claim to be the only way (“no man comes to the Father but by me”) is totally unacceptable. That we should have to have our sins forgiven by a sacrificial Christ is not the Christ that the world wants.

To post-modern theologians, special revelation, that is the Bible, no longer has a unique place in informing us about God and the world he created. It is a “participant” only in any discussion.

The Bible tells us that God spoke rationally with words (see Hebrews 1:1 ff). Emergent leaders do not believe that God the Creator, who made man in his own image, is able to communicate clearly with His own creation.

The authority of the Bible is under attack as never before in my lifetime. Christians in local churches would be wise to assess carefully what is presented as the Gospel in what they read and hear.

– Bruce Richmond
Hamilton