So.
Much.
Heresy.Lutheran impastor Dawn Hutchings explains “radical 21st century theology empowers us to move beyond atonement theologies, beyond worship which relies on penal sacrificial teaching…beyond singing hymns which inculcate medieval theologies.” pic.twitter.com/zkL2Z26kM0
— Protestia (@Protestia) August 21, 2025
Introduction
A compelling argument to address the concerning theological trajectory presented by Rev. Dawn Hutchings in her advocacy for what she terms “radical 21st century theology.” While she may have a desire for relevance, her theological positions represent a fundamental departure from historic Christianity, undermining the very foundation of the faith she claims to serve.
The Problem of Divine Mystery Without Divine Person
Rev. Hutchings consistently refers to “the DIVINE MYSTERY which we call ‘GOD’ is BEYOND the BEYOND and BEYOND that also” while simultaneously rejecting “theistic notions of ‘GOD'” and declaring that we “no longer believe in a supernatural being which requires placating.” This represents a fundamental theological error that reduces God to an abstract concept rather than the personal, relational being revealed in Scripture.
The biblical witness consistently presents God as personal – one who speaks (Genesis 1:3), grieves (Genesis 6:6), loves (John 3:16), and enters into a covenant relationship with humanity. While God certainly transcends human comprehension, the reduction of the Divine to an impersonal “MYSTERY” strips Christianity of its distinctly relational character and makes prayer, worship, and personal faith meaningless exercises.
The Rejection of Atonement: Dismantling Christianity’s Core
Perhaps most troubling is Rev. Hutchings’ explicit rejection of atonement theology. She states: “Once you no longer believe Jesus was or is a sacrifice for sin, the various atonement theories which have undergirded so many of our Lenten practices fail to lead us into or out of the wilderness toward RESURRECTION.” This position fundamentally contradicts the New Testament’s clear teaching about Christ’s sacrificial death.
Biblical Evidence for Penal Substitution
The doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement is not a “medieval concept” but emerges directly from biblical revelation:
- Isaiah 53:5-6: “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
- 2 Corinthians 5:21: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
- 1 Peter 2:24: “He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.”
These passages, and many others, clearly present Christ’s death as substitutionary – he bore the penalty for sin that rightfully belonged to humanity.
The Necessity of Sin and Redemption
Rev. Hutchings’ rejection of sacrificial atonement stems from a broader denial of human sinfulness and divine justice. However, without a proper understanding of sin, the gospel becomes merely a message of social improvement rather than divine rescue. The biblical narrative consistently portrays humanity as fallen, in rebellion against God, and in desperate need of redemption (Romans 3:23, Ephesians 2:1-3).
The Problem of Christological Reductionism
Throughout her writings, Rev. Hutchings reduces Jesus to a moral example or social revolutionary rather than the incarnate Son of God. She refers to “the radical teachings, life, and death of Jesus” but consistently avoids affirming his divine nature or unique role as Savior. This represents a return to 19th-century liberal theology that has been thoroughly critiqued and found wanting.
The Uniqueness of Christ
Christianity stands or falls on the unique person and work of Jesus Christ. He is not merely a teacher or example, but “the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6). The apostolic witness consistently presents Jesus as both fully God and fully human, uniquely qualified to serve as mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5).
The Danger of Cultural Accommodation
Rev. Hutchings’ call to move “BEYOND atonement theologies, BEYOND worship which relies on penal sacrificial thinking” represents a capitulation to contemporary cultural sensibilities rather than faithful biblical interpretation. While the church must certainly engage with culture, it cannot allow cultural preferences to determine theological truth.
The Timeless Nature of God’s Word
The gospel message is not subject to cultural revision. While our methods of communication may adapt, the content of the faith “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) remains constant. The atonement, far from being outdated, addresses the timeless human condition of sin and separation from God.
The Ecclesiological Implications
Rev. Hutchings’ theology inevitably leads to a redefinition of the church itself. She writes of hoping “the church does not survive” so that something new might emerge. While church renewal is always necessary, her vision represents not reformation but replacement – the creation of something fundamentally different from historic Christianity.
The Church as Body of Christ
The New Testament presents the church not as a human institution to be discarded but as the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27), bought with his blood (Acts 20:28). While the church is certainly imperfect and in need of ongoing reformation, it remains God’s chosen instrument for advancing his kingdom in the world.
The Problem of Theological Authority
Underlying all of these issues is a fundamental question of authority. Rev. Hutchings appears to prioritize contemporary experience and cultural relevance over biblical revelation. This approach inevitably leads to a faith that is more reflective of current philosophical trends than divine truth.
Scripture as Final Authority
Protestant theology has always affirmed the principle of sola scriptura – Scripture alone as the final authority for faith and practice. While tradition, reason, and experience all play important roles in theological reflection, they cannot supersede the clear teaching of God’s Word.
Conclusion: A Call to Biblical Fidelity
While we might appreciate Rev. Hutchings’ pastoral concern for making faith relevant to contemporary seekers, her theological methodology represents a fundamental departure from Christian orthodoxy that ultimately undermines the very gospel she seeks to proclaim. The solution to the church’s challenges is not the abandonment of biblical truth but its faithful proclamation in ways that are both culturally engaged and theologically sound.
The gospel of Jesus Christ – including the reality of sin, the necessity of atonement, and the unique person and work of Christ – remains as relevant today as it was two thousand years ago. Our task is not to reinvent Christianity for the 21st century but to faithfully proclaim the timeless truth of God’s Word to each new generation.
As the apostle Paul warned Timothy: “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Timothy 4:3). In an age of theological confusion, the church needs pastors who will faithfully proclaim “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27), not those who would reshape the faith to accommodate contemporary sensibilities.
The gospel is not ours to revise – it is ours to proclaim, defend, and live out in faithful obedience to the One who gave his life for our redemption.
Final Assessment: The Reality of Heretical Teaching
In the final analysis, Rev. Hutchings’ theological position must be recognized for what it is: a fundamental departure from Christian orthodoxy that constitutes heretical teaching. By denying the substitutionary atonement of Christ, reducing the personal God of Scripture to an impersonal cosmic force, and rejecting the uniqueness of Christ as the divine Son who died for our sins, she has abandoned the essential doctrines that define Christianity itself. Her theology bears more resemblance to modern Unitarianism or religious humanism than to the apostolic faith delivered once for all to the saints. While the term “heresy” may sound harsh to contemporary ears, it is precisely the word the New Testament uses to describe teachings that “deny the Master who bought them” (2 Peter 2:1). The church must lovingly but firmly recognize that what Rev. Hutchings promotes is not progressive Christianity but a different religion altogether – one that retains Christian vocabulary while emptying it of Christian meaning. For the sake of those under her influence and the integrity of the gospel witness, these errors must be named, confronted, and corrected with both theological precision and pastoral care.