Emerging Church leader Brian McLaren: The Atonement is only a “facet” of the Gospel

In an interview posted on his website following his sharp criticism of “postmodern” churches, Emerging Church movement leader, Brian McLaren, made some rather unorthodox statements about the biblical Gospel. Below is an excerpt from the interview:

(Q): Hold on. That bothered me too. You [McLaren] wrote, “Which reminds us that none of us has a complete grasp of the gospel…. It's very dangerous to assume you've perfectly contained the gospel in your little formula.” I think with all the other change going on, one thing we’ve got to hold firm on is the gospel.

(A): What do you mean when you say “the gospel?"

(Q): You know, justification by grace through faith in the finished atoning work of Christ on the cross.

(A): Are you sure that’s the gospel?

(Q): Of course. Aren’t you?

(A): I’m sure that’s a facet of the gospel, and it’s the facet that modern evangelical protestants have assumed is the whole gospel, the heart of the gospel. But what’s the point of that gospel?

(Q): What do you mean? I guess it’s so that people can spend eternity with God in heaven in an intimate personal relationship as opposed to … the alternative. You don’t seem to agree.

(A): Well, for Jesus, the gospel seemed to have something to do with the kingdom of God.

(Q): Which is the kingdom of heaven, which is going to heaven after you die.

(A): Are you sure about that?

(Q): Aren’t you?

(A): This is exactly the point I was trying to make in the article. Many of us are sure we’re “postmodern” now with our candles and hipness and so on, but we haven’t asked some important and hard questions – not about postmodernity, but about modernity and the degree to which our theology and understanding of the gospel have been distorted or narrowed or made “gospel lite” by modernity.

(Q): If you were intending to make me feel better, you’re not succeeding.

(A): Well, I hope you’ll at least think about this. And search the Scriptures, you know, to see if there’s any validity to the question I’m raising.

McLaren whether intentionally or not minimizes the atonement by referring to it as a mere “facet” of an uncertain gospel, a gospel that according to him, “none of us has a complete grasp of.” Yet he is content to criticize others for being “gospel lite.” Seems rather absurd to criticize others for being “gospel lite” while advancing an uncertain gospel. I Corinthians 15:1-4 clearly defines the biblical Gospel. If, however, one employs McLaren’s logic then one must conclude that Paul was “gospel lite,” right?