The connection between LGBTQ ordination and Christology-Only bedroom issues?

Recently on the comment section of one of my postings several people complained that the Orthodox Evangelicals in the PC (U.S.A.) were more concerned with bedroom issues than essentials such as the resurrection of Jesus. The complaints were made by both orthodox and progressive believers. They were referring to the issue of the ordination of LGBTQ people as well as same gender marriage.

I want to take issue with them in this posting by looking at the LGBTQ agenda for the Church along side the importance of essential doctrines of the Church. After this, in further postings, I want to look at the Christology of several LGBTQ theologians and/or leaders. That will mean a focus on queer theology.

The three areas I will cover in this posting are (1) the church’s need to address the issue of LGBTQ ordination and same gender marriage, which is being forced upon it, (2)a look at a subject that is frequently ignored, that LGBTQ theology is too often linked to very heretical Christology which is itself based on a poor view of Scripture, (3) and calling sexual sin, including fornication, right, healthy and good, is as damaging to the church as is any denial of basic tenets. Each of these areas overlap.

(1)The Church’s need to address the issue of LGBTQ ordination, same gender marriage and fornication, which is being forced its direction, is really developed further in the other two issues. But here I want to look at the technicalities involved. The reality is, there are no affinity groups connected to the denomination whose main goal is to change the Book of Confessions or the Book of Order in order to make it say the bodily resurrection of Jesus is untrue, or Jesus is not God, etc. There are only groups pushing for lowered sexual standards. While foundational Christian beliefs have priority in the Christian Church the Enemy of souls is pushing his agenda for false teaching by means of sexual liberation and there the Church must face its major battle.

But even here, within the issues of sexuality, the essentials of the faith are under attack. That is true because even some evangelicals have devalued or ignored scripture texts in order to affirm friends, supposedly work for human rights or align with what they see as good cultural norms. On the other hand, many progressives, hold few or no foundational beliefs at all, and easily add to their unbelief advocacy for the ordination of LGBTQ people, same gender marriage and living together without marriage.

(2)Very few theologians who advocate for the ordination of LGBTQ persons or for same gender marriage are orthodox. The few Evangelical teachers and theologians, who do advocate, tend to leave out parts of Scripture when preaching or writing about this issue. They generally begin their exegesis from experience, using only that text which fits their experience. But on the whole most progressives seeking to legitimize gay sexuality or even heterosexual fornication have a poor view of Scripture and a heretical Christology.

For instance, a recent book, Gathering Those Driven Away: A Theology of Incarnation, published by Westminster John Knox Press , a part of the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation, totally tears apart the Christian faith. The author, Wendy Farley is attempting, among other things, to make a case for the faithfulness of the LGBTQ lifestyle.

 And Chris Glaser, a prolific author who writes on LGBTQ issues including past curriculum for the PC (U.S.A.), on his blog, “Progressive Christian Reflections,” a blog connected to "Unbound: An Interactive Journal of Christian Social Justice", writes of Jesus and the Gospel of John:

For example, during different phases of my life I have liked and disliked the Jesus of the Gospel of John. I love that John is a mystic and sees the deepest meaning in the life of Jesus. But at other times I have found the certainty of Jesus portrayed by John unsettling and unfriendly, formal and rigid. “I am the vine, you are the branches.” “I am the bread of life.” “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” These self-affirmations seem audacious and self-centered even in this day and age when self-affirmations are all the rage!

Margaret Aymer, who wrote this year’s Horizon’s Bible Study and who also advocates for LGBTQ ordination and same gender marriage, likewise, combines an alternative view of sexuality and Christology. On her blog, Mayog’s Posterous, Aymer is concerned with biblical exegetics from a feminist and cultural anthropological view.

Going through Acts, she focuses on the eunuch who was led to Christ by Phillip, she writes that he was the first, “explicitly gender-queer convert.” Later, Aymer, shows, through several postings the supposedly evolving identity of Jesus. She writes, “As we get further into Acts, Lesous [Jesus] functions less as a Holy Person and more as a Deity. As such we see the power of the name of Lesous to heal and to raise from the dead.” In another place she suggests that Peter separates Jesus from Deity.

The list of those who both advocate for LGBTQ issues and whose Christology is flawed is long. But the point is the issue of ordaining LGBTQ people as well as advocacy for same gender marriage is so deeply intertwined with unbiblical Christologies that to stand against one is to stand against the other. This should be enough to squelch any argument about the orthodox only reacting strongly to “bedroom” issues. But there is more that should be said.

(3)Sin un-repented of is damaging to any Christian’s spiritual life, and that includes all kinds of sin. Part of the damage is a breach in the relationship between the Christian and God. While God is holding fast to the sinner, the sinner, like Adam, is moving away, hiding and ashamed. Consider; that condition is caused by un-repentant sin.

But what about sin that is considered not-sin, sin that is blessed and even ordained. Sin that is taught and encouraged among those meant to live holy lives. The damaged, hurt lives will be the sin we must all confess. One should never disparage those who are now moving away from the PC (U.S.A.) because of the lowering of sexual standards. They are attempting to protect the people of God.

But one should also never disparage those staying to follow Christ. This, the lowering of sexual standards, is the place where the Church in the West, in this day, is called to do battle for the cause of Christ. It is here, on the issues surrounding deviant sexuality that all the essentials of the Christian faith can and will come tumbling down.

Lost in Jesus

There are profound ideas in the music and the words of the David Crowder Band song "Sometimes." The words "Sometimes every one of us aches/Like we'll never be saved/," are in opposition to the words "we are lost in You."

What a wonderful thought-lost in Jesus. That not only turns the song around it turns our whole world around- we have been so wonderfully bought by his death that we can no longer be found in Satan's lair. God will not let us go because of Jesus. He is our righteousness-we are forever in his care.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me, and I give eternal to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of my hand. (John 10:27-28)
Picture by Ethan McHenry

The redemption of Christ: was his death necessary? # 4 & Final

I give two examples here of groups that became evil when the cross of Christ was neglected. I end with a suggestion about contextulizing the gospel and the cross in a way that helps without denying Christ's redemption.

At this point, in my postings, I will look at an example of a new religious group and how their misunderstanding or neglect of Jesus Christ’s work on the cross caused irrefutable harm. In their very early beginnings in Sacramento, California, Aggressive Christianity, at first known as Free Love Ministries, began by putting more emphasis on demonology and an aberrant teaching known as “Manifested Sons of God,” than on the scriptural teaching of salvation by grace because of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross.

According to Jim and Lila Green, founders of the group, the sins of humanity were caused by demon possession.[20] They also believed that a group of people more spiritual than the average Christian would arise in the last days to overcome God’s enemies and death. This is the manifested Sons of God teaching. The Greens ignored the biblical teaching that Christ has already done the work of overcoming enemies, including death, on the cross.

We live in the already, not yet time, united to Him, waiting for our complete salvation. (Col. 2:13-15) Both of these teachings, Manifested Sons of God and demon possession of Christians, negate the grace of Christ’s death on the cross. That is because both teachings use humans and techniques to rid humanity of sin and problems. For Aggressive Christianity righteousness comes by removing demons from bodies and by becoming more spiritual. They believe that any encounter with God happens through a deeper spirituality and knowledge that is arrived at by such religious techniques as praying in tongues for several hours and fasting for excessively long times.

In order to keep new converts to Aggressive Christianity pure and free from demons, they were encouraged to move into the group’s commune and to not communicate with their families. Eventually several wives were branded as demon possessed and spiritually dead. They were made to live in a small shed and expected to do heavy labor. Their husbands were separated from then and encouraged to have nothing to do with them.

One small boy was tied to his mother’s leg while she worked since it was revealed by a revelation, supposedly given to Lila Green, that he also was demon possessed. Thankfully one of the women walked away and sued the group, which ended their time in Sacramento. This group divorced their concept of Christianity from any real work of grace. [21]

Aggressive Christianity began with strident and harsh concepts and methodologies devoid of the true meaning of the cross. The outcome led to the abusive destruction of families. Starting from a different direction, a kind of sloppy sentimentality, that divorced Christianity from the orthodox teaching of the cross, helped to shape a violent ideology which engulfed a whole nation.

Nineteenth century liberal theology in Germany developed a theology that was devoid of many orthodox Christian doctrines. To Friedrich Schleiermacher, (1768-1834) the father of liberal theology, human consciousness or experience led to knowing God. And that knowledge based on experience was intended to lead to an understanding that Christianity was the highest form of religion. The emphasis was on experience, the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of humanity; original sin and the need for a cross were eliminated.

Adolf Harnack (1851-1930) insisted that “the whole Jesus’ message may be reduced to these two heads—God as the Father, and the human soul so ennobled that it can and does unite with him--” [22] Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923) who William Placher describes as ‘the leading theologian of the ‘history of religions,’ posited a view of religion which insisted that various religions were shaped and held by differing national groups due to their religions dependence on “the intellectual, social, and national conditions among which it exists.”

He did not invalidate other religions but rather insisted that the various religions and civilizations connected the people to various experiences of God in different ways. Troeltsch saw European culture as a product of a “deorientalized Christianity.”[23] Basically all three denied the necessity of Christ’s redemption bought on the cross.

This easy theology, devoid of serious Christology, Atonement, or any other important Christian doctrine was a seedbed ready for the German Christians to spring from. Arthur C. Cochrane in his book, The Church’s Confession Under Hitler, writes:

The “German Christians,” regarded from the standpoint of Christian faith, were a liberal, nationalistic sect which, at the initiative of the National Socialist Party, formed a union of various schools and groups. These schools and groups, in spite of all differences, were united in their nationalistic tendencies and liberal Christianity.[24] (Emphasis mine)

In an attempt to make love and brotherhood the basic doctrines of a reconstituted Christianity Liberal theologians and church leaders backed one of the most tyrannical rulers in history. Walking through a door that eliminated the holiness of God, the sinfulness of humanity and the cross of Jesus Christ, they had no way of comprehending the great evil that was on the other side.

They joined forces with what some have seen as the greatest cultic movement in contemporary times, the Nazis. Interestingly enough the views of this liberal Christianity began with attempts to do apologetics with people involved in enlightenment thinking and then with the Romantic Movement. Which means in contextualing the gospel for a different or diverse culture one should proceed with great care. How do we proclaim the good news to the many diverse new and old theologies and religions in such a way that they will hear the message? How do we do this without leaving behind the truth of God’s word?

So to push this question of contextualization deeper, how, for instance, does one go about offering the gospel to Delores Williams who believes “People do not have to attach sacred validation to a bloody cross in order to be redeemed or to be Christians?” She is not asking the same questions that early Jews and Athenians were asking about God, nor is she seeking the same kind of answers the medieval scholastics was when they formulated their theories about atonement. We might start from her questions or even from her weaknesses. We would surely start from her position as one who is an advocate for the needs of Afro-American women, and as one who is concerned for those who are ancestors of slaves.

Williams sees Afro-American women’s survival in the present, as well as the survival of those who were slaves, rooted in their strengths. She believes the cross, understood as sacrifice, harms her position. So she needs to see the cross as neither advocating for slavery nor wimpishness on the part of women. Nevertheless she still needs to see the cross as Christ’s great sacrifice for sinners. She needs a clear picture of God’ holiness, humanity’s sin, and God’s redeeming love.

Paul the Apostle is an example of a Christian who proclaimed the Gospel contextually. In his preaching in Athens he appealed to his listeners using the words of some of their Greek poets. And he used the many gods they worshipped as an opener to speak of the gospel of Jesus Christ. (Acts 17:22-34) In 1Corinthians 9 verses 19 through 22, Paul speaks of becoming as a Jew, becoming as a Gentile, (those without law) and becoming weak for the sake of the weak, that he, “may by all means save some.” Paul, however, has not denied the Gospel here, he has not compromised the person of Jesus nor found fault with the atonement.

Rather, he is avoiding offending their scruples that he might either bring them to Christ or if they are Christians “win them for greater strength.”[25] But Paul is strong in his emphasis on the doctrines of the faith in particular the cross of Jesus Christ. In 1 Corinthians he writes, “For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God.” (I Corinthians 1:22-24)

Jesus Christ, the one who is fully God and human, who died for us, who carries our sin away on Himself, who stands before God the Father for us, this is the great offer to the religions and cultures of our day. We must come in a spirit of humbleness and empathy, shedding any of our cultural layers that are contrary to the gospel and harmful to Christ’s message. But we cannot compromise the gospel; we must preach only that good news which is scriptural, the crucified and resurrected Christ.

Those in Christ stand before God robed in the righteousness of Christ enjoying and pleasing their creator because of the death of Christ on the cross. Those in the religious world, including those who call themselves Christians, who deny the cross of Christ, stand without, striving to encounter God, and sometimes accepting a doorway toward evil rather than the One who is the Truth, the Life and the Way. (John 14:6)


[20] For a paper refuting the idea of Christians being demon possessed see, Gunther Juncker, “Doctrines of Demons,” at Naming the Grace, .http://www.namingthegrace.org/id60.htm &   A Brief Analysis of Deliverance Ministry Doctrine  by Dr. Robert Wetmore http://www.namingthegrace.org/id62.htm 



[21] For information on Aggressive Christianity when they existed in Sacramento, see Viola Larson, “Aggressive Christianity Missions Training Corps,”  http://www.rickross.com/reference/aggressive/aggressive1.html (Paper also on file at Naming His Grace) This group has moved on. I link here to there new site to the page that is telling- they are more then a New Religion they are a cult-http://aggressivechristianity.net/whonot.htm

[22] Adolf Harnack, What is Christianity, in Placher, Readings, 150.



[23] Ernst Troeltsch, “The Place of Christianity Among the World Religions,” in Placher, Readings, 154,155.


[24] Arthur C. Cochrane, The Church’s Confession Under Hitler, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press 1962), 74.

[25] Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians: Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, revised version, (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company 1996) 135-137.

The redemption of Christ: was his death necessary? # 3

In this my third posting on the redemption of Jesus I look at some of the atonement theories, but mainly at Abelard's exemplar theory. I also look at how evil develops out of a crossless religion.

There exist several theories of atonement theology formulated through more than a thousand years of Church history. Thomas Oden in his book The Word of Life points out “four essential types of atonement exegesis.” He names “exemplar [moral Influence], governor, exchange, and victor motifs.”

Oden believes that these are all incomplete without each other. He writes, “They are best viewed as complementary tendencies rather than as cohesive schools of thought represented by a single theorist.” [9] Although Oden explains each, giving both their usefulness and problems, I want to look at the one connected to Abelard since that is the one which has gained popularity with those wishing to eliminate the atonement as the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.[10]

First, it is true that the death of Jesus Christ for sinners should cause us to want to follow Him and to live a life of self-giving. That is very biblical. However, most of the theologians attempting to use Abelard’s view wish to eliminate God’s part in this act. That is, they do not believe that it was necessary for God the Father to send his Son to die for our sins. Rather they believe Jesus was killed for political reasons because he was friends of the poor and the outcasts of society. (This is of course, not an either/or situation; He was sent to die for our sins and he undoubtedly was killed partly because of His care for the poor and the outcast. It was not only the sins of the whole world that sent Him to the cross, it was also the particular sins of some Jewish and Roman leaders in Palestine two thousand years ago.)

Those who call themselves progressive theologians see Jesus as someone to emulate and one who pictures how God works and moves within a human totally given over to God. They totally reject the classical view that humanity is fallen and Jesus died for our sins.

Oden points out that, “The tradition of Abelard and Socinus, anticipated by Pelagius, is not a consensual tradition, but a distortion that reappears in heavier or lighter tones periodically.”[11] Abelard, in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, questions how God could forgive humanity for killing his Son if he was not able to forgive them before this event. He also questions the goodness of God if it was true that God demanded the death of His son for the sins of the world. Abelard writes:

Indeed, how cruel and wicked it seems that anyone should demand the blood of an innocent person as the price for anything, or that it should please him that an innocent man should be slain—still less that God should consider the death of his Son so agreeable that by it he should be reconciled to the whole world!” Abelard concludes that we are justified, “in that his Son has taken upon himself our nature and persevered therein in teaching us by word and example even unto death-- [12]

At the instigation of Bernard of Clairvaux the Council of Sens condemned Abelard’s view.

Oden offers nine problems with this theory. The first three deal very much with problems in contemporary theology. That Christ was simply a “noble martyr,” and therefore there is no transforming aide for the sinner is the first problem. As an answer to this problem, Oden writes, “Humanity does not need merely to be instructed but to have sins forgiven, not merely enlightened but redeemed from sin, for we are not only ignorant but corrupt, not merely finite but sinners, not merely those who feel guilty but who are guilty.”[13]

Oden’s second problem with the exemplar theory is that it often “does not say enough about who the teacher was.”[14] This is very much in line with both the milder and more radical contemporary theological views that attempt to change or do away with Christ’s work on the cross. In Anna Case-Winters’ speech referred to in my first posting, she not only questions orthodox views of the atonement she also attempts to say that there is more to Christ than Jesus thus separating the person of Jesus from Christ.[15]

Delores S. Williams, (see in the first post) places the incarnation, first in Mary, then in Jesus then in the Church. As she puts it, “Incarnation in a womanist understanding of it in the Christian testament, can be regarded as a continuum of the manifestation of divine spirit beginning with Mary, becoming an abundance in Jesus and later overflowing into the life of the church.” [16]

Carter Heyward, (Likewise in the first posting), totally dismisses the incarnation of Jesus Christ writing:

In making Jesus the sole proprietor of the title ‘Christ,’ we Christians not only have heaped violence upon those who are not Christians (Jews, Moslems, pagans, Buddhists, et al.), but also have disempowered ourselves as Daughters, Sons, People, and Friends of the Sacred, bearers together of the same sacred—Christic—power that jesus experienced in relation to others in the Spirit that drew them together.[17]

Oden’s third problem with the exemplar theory is that its proponents have “too optimistically assumed that the will is not radically bound by sin and that no punishment for sin is required.” He adds that this is often linked to a “humanistic pantheism that views each individual soul as a spark of divinity.”[18] One can note that the above remarks by Heyward falls into this category.

This expectation of the human ability to conform to the holiness of God without the gracious work of Christ is one of the areas that lead to the rise of evil in the religious experience of even Christianity. The desire for an encounter with God, without His provision of the door of encounter, means failure and can be disastrous. I have addressed the problem of evil in religion in a book review of Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suffering, and The Search For What Saves Us.

The two authors, Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker, see Jesus death on the cross for our sins as child abuse. I point out in the review the problem of evil inherent in any religion that minimizes the cross:

“For some, Islam is an example; God is so transcendent, so other, that he would not become human nor could he enter into our suffering. For others, for example Paganism, God is so “us” or “nature” that to know humanity or nature, even with all its/our corruption is to know deity. For still others such as Zen Buddhism, God is all there is and yet a void or emptiness, entered into only with the loss of self-consciousness.

The human propensity to do evil can be nurtured in very human attempts to connect with God by trying to imitate God’s perfection, integrating the good and evil or seeing such dualities as good and evil as unreal. If God is totally other and does not enter into our world in an act of grace and atonement we are left to overcome evil with our own will. If we are deity then all of our nature is divine, the evil included. If God is that which is all and non-dualistic, in the end evil does not matter.

Humans do not have the ability to live by religious moral codes perfectly. In fact, for some the attempt toward perfection leads to the radicalization of their religious beliefs. That is, in an attempt to obey the laws of their religion as a means of connecting with God, they apply the moral code so stringently to themselves and society that they become authoritarian in nature. For instance, in radical Islam women become non-entities, hidden people, in order to prevent lust and adultery. Radical Islamic men reach for God through the suffering and humiliation of their women.

In paganism, since God is seen as creation, the desire to embrace an ethic that honors and cares for nature often leads to nudity and sometimes sex is accepted as religious ritual. Every human protection against vulnerability, including clothing, is removed in order to manifest and connect with the divine in humanity.

A God who comes down in love, who suffers for humanity, is lost in this religious maze. The God who reveals himself in Jesus Christ removes the human effort to connect with God as well as any insistence that somehow evil is necessary or unreal. Jesus Christ’s death on the cross speaks to the awful truth of human sin while at the same time providing a way past humanity’s guilt. Individuals are set free to serve God knowing that it is the work of Christ rather than their own righteousness. Indeed, whenever Christianity moves away from the implicit meaning of the cross—there evil begins to rear its head—whether that means selling indulgences, burning witches at the stake or replacing Jesus as the suffering savior with a Jesus of noble blood as a means of elevating war as the German Christians under Hitler did.[19]

In my next and final posting on the redemption bought by Jesus on the cross, I will look at two examples of how evil arises from  a so-called Christianity that denies the redemption of Christ on the cross.
[9] Thomas Oden’s two chapters, “The death of Jesus,” and “In Our Place,” in his book The Word of Life: Systematic theology: Volume Two, is highly recommended for anyone wishing to understand the atonement. 403. Also for a Reformed view see, louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines,( Grand Rapids:Baker Book House 1937) also, Andrew Purves, “The Ministry of the Priesthood of Jesus Christ: A Reformed View of the Atonement of Christ,” TheologyMatters (Vol3 No 4. Jul/Aug 1997) and , J.S. Whale, Christian Doctrine: Eight Lectures delivered in the University of Cambridge to Undergraduates of all Faculties,reprint, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1984.)



[10] One author who sees the idea of atonement leading to violence does reject Abelard ideas. Speaking of Abelard’s position J. Denny Weaver writes, “The result [of removing the devil from the equation], is an atonement motif in which the Father has one of his children – the Son – killed in order to show love to the rest of the Father’s children, namely us sinners.” “Violence in Christian Theology,” Cross Currents, at www.crosscurrents.org/weaver0701c.htm. 4.


[11] Oden, Word, 404.


[12] Peter Abelard, Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, in Readings in the History of Christian Theology: From its Beginnings to the Eve of the Reformation, vol.1, editor, William c. Placher, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press 1988) 150,151.



[13] Oden, Word, 406.


[14] Ibid.


[15] Case-Winters, “Who Do You Say That I Am,” 4.


[16 ]Williams, Wilderness, 168.


[17] Heyward, Saving, 32.

[18] Oden, Word, 407.

[19] Viola Larson, “A Book Review” on Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suffering, and The Search For What Saves Us, Rita Nakashima Brick and Rebecca Parker, (Beacon Press 2001)

The redemption of Christ: was his death necessary? #2

In this second part of my paper on the redemption of Jesus Christ, I look at sacrifices in the Old Testament and how that relates to the Incarnation. It is really very basic but important before looking at the various views of atonement and how that relates to evil and religion.

The biblical view of atonement and Incarnation begin in the Old Testament. The sacrifices of the Old Testament are looking forward to the coming of Christ and to the work of Christ on the cross. They are incomplete without Him. We find in the first part of Hebrews 10 that the Old Testament sacrifices are a “shadow of the good things to come.” The author of Hebrews weaves the verses of Psalms 40:6-7 into the picture of Jesus’ body as sacrifice.

Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, ‘Sacrifice and offering you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold I have come (In the scroll of the book it is written of me) to do your will, O God.’” (Heb. 10:5-7)

These verses, which seemingly deny the need for sacrifice as a means of salvation, really illustrate the need for the death of Jesus on the cross. F.F. Bruce, writing about these verses, sees the Old Testament sacrifices as requiring the “obedient heart” and Christ offers that “wholehearted obedience.” Quoting J. Denny’s The Death of Christ, Bruce writes, “Our author’s contrast is not between sacrifice and obedience, but between the involuntary sacrifice of dumb animals and ‘sacrifice into which obedience enters, the sacrifice of a rational and spiritual being, which is not passive in death, but in dying makes the will of God its own.’” [6]

Bruce goes on to explain that while it was the Father’s will for Jesus to die, “it was also His own spontaneous choice.”[7] Elaborating further and once again quoting Denny, he writes:

"It is the atonement which explains the incarnation: the incarnation takes place in order that the sin of the world may be put away by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ.” The offering of His body is simply the offering of Himself; if here sanctification and access to God are made available through His body, in verses 19 and 29 they are made available through His blood. Whether our author speaks of His body or His blood, it is His incarnate life that is meant, yielded to God in an obedience which was maintained even to death. So perfect a sacrifice was our Lord’s presentation of His life to God that no repetition of it is either necessary or possible: it was offered “once for all.[8]

Bruce and Denny’s commentary are important in light of the attacks occurring on the theology of atonement and in the context of religious evil. First, God’s desire for Old Testament people is not different than His desires for New Testament people.

His desire is that sacrifice be made with a willing heart; the desire to obey God is all-important. In the Old Testament the willing heart was bound-up with the sacrificial animal. However, only Jesus Christ could offer that perfect willing obedience. He made the perfect sacrifice and was the perfect sacrifice.

To eliminate Jesus as sacrifice on the cross is also to destroy the theology of the Old Testament. Christ’s death on the cross was not just the Father’s will it was the “spontaneous choice” of Jesus Christ. Atonement theology is infused with the doctrine of the Trinity. To redo or give up the meaning of the atonement tends to eliminate the Trinity.

The understanding that “the atonement explains the incarnation” clarifies the biblical understanding of God’s purpose in the incarnation. If a theologian says that for our salvation the incarnation “would be enough,” but fails to acknowledge the redemptive purpose of the cross he simply does not understand the biblical view of the incarnation. The biblical statements of the purposes of God concerning the incarnation are very clear.

Peter’s first sermon emphasizes the purpose and meaning of the incarnation in the death of Christ on the cross. “This Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.” (Acts2: 23) Furthermore, Paul writes to the Colossians:

For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. (Colossians1: 19-20)

The final important note is that the sacrifice is “once for all.” This also speaks about the God of the Old Testament, who is of course the compassionate God of the New Testament. His grace of redemption covers all of the scripture, both old and new. The scripture confirms all of this:

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled we shall be saved by His life. (Romans 5:8-10)

In the next posting I will look at various theories of atonement and how they should work together. I will also explain why using only an "exampler" theory is damaging to Christian faith.

[6]J. Denny, The Death of Christ, (London: 1951), p131, in F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to The Hebrews, The New International Commentary On The New Testament, reprint, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing 1981) 234.

[7] Ibid, 235.

[8] Ibid. Denny, Death, 131. in, and Bruce, Hebrews, 236.

Picture by Stephen Larson

The redemption of Christ: was his death necessary?

Recently, it has been reported that the Presbytery of Coastal Carolina received a Teaching Elder (minister of Word and Sacrament) who does not believe Jesus died for our sins. This is not unusual in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). (See "Did Jesus Die for the Sins of Humanity, Or Not?)

In a similar way, in the Sacramento Presbytery, well over a year ago, we voted for a teaching elder who was uncertain if Christ needed to die. When I asked the Teaching Elder if he believed that the death of Christ was necessary he was unable to answer my question.  I have written elsewhere about this, but as I left the meeting early a retired Teaching Elder, which we had also just voted in, grabbed me by the arm and asked how I would have answered my question. When I said with a “yes,” he started arguing with me. These are just a few examples of a growing problem.

In 2002 I offered a paper for a workshop at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Ministries to New Religions entitled “The Cross: New Religions, New Theologies and the Only Difference in a Pluralistic Society.” Since that time new books and differing theologians have emerged pushing the idea that Jesus’ death on the cross if instigated by the Father would be child abuse.
One book I recently wrote a review of “Gathering Those Driven Away: A Theology of Incarnation,” among its many heresies, defames the atonement of Christ. Another book not nearly so problematic yet still with problems is “Love, Violence, and the Cross: How the Nonviolent God Saves Us through the Cross of Christ.” The former book is published by the Westminster John Knox Press, a publishing arm of the PC (U.S.A.).


The problems are immense. I am posting in parts my essay, with the reminder that it was written in 2002.


The Cross: New Religions, New Theologies and the Only Difference in a Pluralistic Society.


Recently, in her address to the 2002 Covenant Conference,[*] Anna Case-Winters, Professor of Theology at McCormick Theological Seminary, suggests that for our atonement, “‘The incarnation’ would be enough!” She also advocates for the theological position of Abelard, the medieval scholastic who held a position of atonement referred to as moral influence or example. That is, the death of Christ on the cross becomes an example of the willingness to suffer for others and for that reason Jesus Christ is followed and loved. [1]

Other proponents of this view of the cross and salvation were Socinus, a sixteenth century theologian who also denied the Trinity, and Friedrich Schleiermacher the father of nineteenth century liberal theology. [2]Pelagius is seen as an early anticipation of this view, since he believed humanity capable of living up to God’s requirements of holiness. At present, some contemporary theologians are attempting to get rid of the meaning of the cross in far more radical ways. Delores S. Williams, Associate Professor of Theology and Culture at Union Theological Seminary, in her book, Sisters in the Wilderness: the Challenge of Womanist God-Talk, writes, “People do not have to attach sacred validation to a bloody cross in order to be redeemed or to be Christians.”

Going further, Carter Heyward, Professor of Theology at Episcopal Divinity School, pictures atonement on the cross as a feature of a violent aspect of patriarchal Christianity. She writes:

The deity we must reject is the one whose power over us is imagined to be his love, the god who morally can destroy us. Such a concept of deity is evil—a betrayal itself of our power in mutual relation—in a world being torn to pieces by violence done in the names of gods who demand blood sacrifice. Such god-images feed twisted psychospiritualities that normalize sadistic and masochistic dynamics, rape and intimate violence, abuse of children, relationships of domination and control, violence against people and all creatures, and wars justified as holy.

Contrary to these distorted views of the cross and atonement I wish to hold up the orthodox view and show how it is in reality the central difference in a world of diverse religions both old and new. My central theme is that Christ’s atonement on the cross is the place where evil is expelled from religious belief; that where the cross is emphasized in its true biblical meaning there is true transformation.

I also want to emphasize that all religions, including Christianity, hold within their traditions the seeds of evil. Where the cross loses its meaning there Christianity itself stands in danger of being overcome by the evil within humanity. I will begin by examining the biblical and historical views of atonement. I will look at the potential for evil in religion including Christianity and explain the importance of the cross in addressing the new religions and the new theologies of our time.

This entails explaining how Christ’s death on the cross is God’s answer not only for our salvation but cuts through the violence of human attempts to connect with God. I will show how both ruthless violence and sloppy sentimentality in religion are answered by the death of Jesus Christ on the cross.

In the next posting I will look at sacrifice in the Old and New Testaments and how Christians should understand sacrifice.

* The Covenant Network is an independent group within the Presbyterian Church USA whose members advocate for the ordination of LGBTQ persons  and for Progressive Theology.

[1]Anna Case-Winters, “Who Do You Say That I Am? Believing In Jesus Christ in the 21st Century,” Address to the 2002 Covenant Conference, November 9, 2002, http://covnetpres.org/2002/11/who-do-you-say-that-i-am/


[2]For information on Socinus see: I. Breward, “Socinus and Socinianism,” New Dictionary of Theology, The Master Reference Collection, editors Sinclair B. Ferguson, et al, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press 1988) 649.

My church voted to leave PC (U.S.A.) A reason to hurry away (A correction)

Fremont Presbyterian Church, in Sacramento, voted today to leave the PC (U.S.A.). The vote was 427 to leave and 164 to stay. But a question came up that has been asked before in the forums we attended. Why are the orthodox churches, including Fremont, hurriedly leaving for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church rather than wait for the Fellowship of Presbyterians to form a New Reformed Body connected to the PC (U.S.A.)?

Well, of course, there are technical reasons, such as it will take so long, or it may not even happen if the General Assembly votes it down.
Picture by Ethan McHenry

But in my Presbytery I believe there are other reasons. And I address this because if other Presbyterians and Presbyteries listen in they may begin to understand a little bit some of the discouragements and real concerns among many of the orthodox in the denomination. (But first, as I have explained, ad nauseam, I am not leaving because God has not released me.) Also my explanation focuses on my own presbytery; I just believe it may image other places.

This is the discouragement part and it can only be understood by those who have been a part of Presbytery by being either a Minister of Word and Sacrament or a commissioned Ruling Elder: The utter weariness of fighting battles that contain such a dark side. One can debate or dialogue in good faith still expecting disagreement, and yet to have arguments and decisions mean nothing because of unconstitutional actions destroys all trust.

After the Peace, Unity, and Purity Task Force recommendations were adopted one of the churches in my Presbytery ordained two gay elders. (This was when we still had a fidelity and chastity clause in the Book of Order) The Sacramento Presbytery sent a committee to look into the matter and make recommendations. The committee ended by sending a letter of apology to the church and when a very faithful pastor complained in presbytery the head of that committee made fun of him on the floor of presbytery. He immediately apologized when many of us more or less booed. (Correction-I removed this last sentence because after doing a great deal of research, speaking to the faithful pastor, and finding no records, I am not sure that the person I linked to is the same person who made fun of the pastor in presbytery. I do not want to slander anyone.)

One of the gay elders, before 10-A was adopted, was elected by our Presbytery to be a commissioner at the General Assembly that voted in 10-A to be voted on by all of the presbyteries. All of this came about, not originally because of voting in the presbytery, but because a committee led by someone who wanted ordination for LGBT people, failed to apply biblical and constitutional correction and instead made fun of those who were concerned about that failure.

This is one evolving instance. There are many others. Another: a church deciding to marry same gender couples when it was lawful in California but still unconstitutional in the PC (U.S.A) - and no-I am not writing about that other person but about my presbytery.

Another is the speech made by one of the members of the discernment team today. He stated that contrary to Fremont the Danville Church in the San Francisco Presbytery had taken 16 months for discernment. He failed to state that part of that time was because an "ecclesiastical litigation was filed by three minister members against the presbytery (not the Danville church directly),complaining that the presbytery was letting the church go under terms that were too lenient. That case is now in mediation." They have been waiting for a long time and under great duress. (I have corrected this section with the help of a friend.-the outcome is the same.)

All of this has to do with the reason that many in leadership in orthodox/evangelical/reformed PC (U.S.A.) churches are inclined to hurry to a place where mission, fellowship and honest love can envelop them rather than fighting wearisome battles whose victory can be so easily thwarted simply by ignoring constitutional laws. This is a plea to all- In Christ’s high priestly prayer he not only called his church to unity but also to truth. Unity without truth would be a false unity—perhaps that is because Jesus is truth.