Emergent Christians warned parents about violence in the Bible while also urging pacifism at a conference for mostly liberal evangelicals in Washington, D.C. in early May.

Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, and Shane Claiborne were featured speakers at “Children, Youth, and a New Kind of Christianity.” Although hosted by Mainline Protestant groups such as United Methodist, Episcopal, and Mennonite organizations; the speakers and much of the audience came from the Evangelical Left.

Carl Stauffer, professor of Development and Justice Studies at Eastern Mennonite University, warned against the Bible’s “seemingly divinely ordained violence.”

Emergent Church guru Brian McLaren similarly worried about how church-going parents can give their children “loaded guns” in the form of “texts of terror” condoning war and other violence. He wondered whether unfiltered Bible-reading could “leave them with the idea that God is violent.” And he warned: “Bible-preaching/teaching/reading people are the most dangerous in the world for Muslims.”

After McLaren advised emergent parents to seek out the “texts of healing” in the Bible, he talked about how the Bible’s economic teachings could help stave off violence in society. The Old and New Testament narratives “focus on desire—especially competitive desire—as the root of violence.” The best-selling author complained, “Our entire economic system is based on rivalrous desire.”

Author, educator, and panelist Ivy Beckwith explained: “Desire is another word for self-interest.”

McLaren urged careful use of the Bible: “When we as evangelicals come across problems with human authority, we respond by calling on the Bible without asking about interpretation.” And he brought up the vital distinction between “whether God is violent or God uses violence for His purposes.”

Duke Divinity professor of Theology and Christian nurture John H. Westerhoff pushed further into doctrinal assumption. The author of Will Our Children Have Faith?—heralded as a prophet by conference organizers—asserted: “I have a problem with using a single verse for any single thing…By talking so literally, we undermine the book as a Holy Book.” If God actually uses violence, then other violence might be justified if under proper authorities and situations. For pacifists like McLaren and his colleagues, al violence is unacceptable. In pursuit of a nonviolent God, the speakers had to challenge some deep-seated theological positions within American Christianity.

Their discussion eventually addressed Christ’s atonement. Almeda Wright, professor of Religion and Youth Ministry at Pfeiffer University, confessed a worry about “a Gospel narrative of redemptive suffering…I have a problem with redemptive suffering.”

She summarized: “We are saved when we suffer; we are saved when violence is done.” And she asked: “Am I willing to participate in death that is supposed to save us?”
Westerhoff responded: “I know of no one who opposes peace and justice. It depends on what you mean by that…There is a difference between redemptive violence and redemption for violence.”

Long-time children’s minister, educator, and conference moderator Melvin Bray joined in: “We have this metaphor of lamb to the slaughter…‘You need to be like Jesus.’” He expressed his frustration with this literary trope as applied to salvation, declaring, “Force is not the same as violence. Not all force is violence and not all violence is force. We need to reclaim the distinction.” He also admitted that he struggled with Isaiah 53, the “suffering servant” passage of the prophet.

McLaren tried to clarify the argument. “This is something we need to talk about,” he proclaimed, “Baptism and the Eucharist can be tools for violence or for peace.” He explicitly called out the theory of penal substitutionary atonement, where “the Father inflicts violence [on Christ] for the forgiveness of sins.” This doctrinal stance affects ritual for sacramentalists: “Is the Eucharist an altar of sacrifice that made God better or is it a table where the oppressors and oppressed…come to name their oppressions and find forgiveness?…[I believe] the Eucharist table is a gathering of the oppressed and the oppressor. It is where the oppressors can confess their oppression and the oppressed can be validated in their sufferings.” McLaren warned, “If you keep [penal substitutionary atonement], make sure you have a safety on it.”

Westerhoff likewise intoned, “The good thing of the church is that it has never come down universally on one view of the atonement…In recent years, there’s been a good trend where theologians are looking to Abelard’s view of the atonement…Historically, there have been about four views of the atonement.”

“Some people view justice as retribution,” Westerhoff explained. “I do not. Justice is equity. Justice is everyone getting their need, and everyone giving up what they don’t need. Justice is reconciliation and equity, not retribution.” Stauffer observed, “This changes the very nature of God in the discussion.” At this point, the conversation turned to the theories of René Girard, who condemned a theology that espouses a “scapegoating mechanism.”

The discomfort with atonement and violence encapsulated the emerging postmodern theology of many disaffected evangelicals and old Mainliners alike. Emergents like McLaren hope to lead them into a new, more pacifist direction.

Bart Gingerich holds a B.A. in History from Patrick Henry College and serves as a Research Assistant at the Institute on Religion and Democracy He attends Holy Trinity Reformed Episcopal (ACNA) Church in Fairfax. This article first appeared on the IRD website and is used with permission.

[Editor’s note: Some of the original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid; those links have been removed.]