christ's death

I still don't get what folks that call themselves Emerging think that is about. One friend recently wrote in reference to the Manhattan Declaration, "there [are] some things "emerging" about the declaration, with emphasis on human dignity." I don't get that. Human dignity as in we are God's creation is not Emerging, that's Christianity 101 (granted it is missed by many). On the other hand, human dignity as in we get to do what we want because God just loves us and feels all squishy and nice in spite of our rebellion and we should reinforce that so as to not offend ... well that does feel consistent with what I read from some postmodern innovators ... but then that's not new either, is it? So anyway, I just don't get it.

Which brings me to the real point this morning, I read with interest one leading Emergent voice quote someone else, "The cross was not necessary, and yet it was inevitable." He then explained that, "She's talking about Barth's view of atonement, and that Jesus saves us not just in the cross, but in the whole fact of Incarnation. He rejected the idea that the cross was some sort of metaphysical necessity so that God would be able to forgive us (contra Anselm), but rather was the inevitable outcome of Jesus' life which was lived as a demonstration of God's unconditional forgiveness and acceptance of us." And later, "I'm ambivalent on whether it was necessary or not, but if it was, I think it's important to say WHY it was necessary. Is it necessary because God was pissed off about sin and needed to punish someone before he could forgive us? Or was it necessary because God had to go to the ultimate extreme of suffering our rejection of him in order to fully demonstrate the depths of his already-offered forgiveness?"

In effect, this leading thinker in the conversation is saying that the purpose of the cross was to demonstrate ultimate love (which by the way I agree with) but not to actually accomplish anything. Oh, and he is saying that there is forgiveness (in the final sense?) without the cross. Then, in an effort to dance out of the contradiction to Scripture, he adds, "I agree that the cross and resurrection are all part of the biblical drama that the OT points to, and that the gospel narratives all build up to, and that they are essential parts of the work God did in and through Jesus. But again, Barth's point is to ask "essential in what way?" Was God constrained by some necessity to make it play out exactly this way in order to achieve his goal of reconciliation? Or is God free to work in whatever way God wants, and in that freedom chose the cross as the fullest expression of what was already true from eternity - i.e. our redemption in and through the humanity of Jesus Christ?"

So I'm left with, God said it was necessary, therefore it is, but because he's God he didn't have to do it that way, so it isn't. Which brings me what is this Emerging thing about. All I see are statements counter to Scripture followed by a bunch of babble to make it not sound so. I remain unclear why the folks in the conversation cannot just align with Scripture ... oh now I remember, they think sola Scriptura is dead ... whatever that's supposed to mean ...