The other day I blogged about the issue of penal substitutionary theories of atonement. Lo and behold within days there's a minor spat in the UK about it, not in response to my writing (naturally, not enough important people read what I say), but in response to the remarks of one dean which were then leaked to a couple of bishops likely to disagree with the bit that was presumably presented to them. They reacted to what was presented and the media had created a stir of ecclesiastical disagreement. In fact though, when you look at what Jeffrey John said, you realise that he actally agrees with those who were manipulated and probably selectively (mis)quoted into taking an apparently other position. Jeffrey John wrote.
Which actually is no problem to well-read and thought out evangelicals who would entirely agree. However, I'm not sure whether I've just been a bit overoptimistic, but I do think that the real problem here is that the media have manipulated the situation to make the difference of opinion bigger that it really is. It is interesting, though, that that last sentence of John's is almost exactly the same thing that JI Packer wrote about the matter thirty years ago defending a traditional evangelical view of 'propitiation' in a UCCF monograph under the TSF banner.
What I learn from this is to be wary of the way the media present issues and to understand how they make controversy appear out of nowhere. In this case by selective quoting and asking for comment on those quotes. Presumably also it is not counted 'inaccurate' to miss out any of those annoying riders that people often add such as "If that is a fair representation of what he said...", "Not having seen the whole thing I am not sure how much I can say, but if he said X, then the problem with that might be ...".
Church Times - Dean stands by Radio 4 talk on cross
Technorati Tags: atonement, penal_substitution, theology, Christian, UK, evangelical
“Why should God forgive us through punishing someone else? It was worse than illogical. It was insane. It makes God sound like a psychopath. If any human being behaved like this, we’d say they were a monster." The explanation “just doesn’t work, though sadly it’s one that’s still all too often preached ... The most basic truth about God’s nature is that he is Love, not wrath and punishment.” Some Christians went all through their lives without grasping that, Dr John said. “The cross is not about Jesus reconciling an angry God to us; it’s almost the opposite. . . On the cross, Jesus died for our sins; the price of our sin is paid; but it is not paid to God, but by God. . .”
Which actually is no problem to well-read and thought out evangelicals who would entirely agree. However, I'm not sure whether I've just been a bit overoptimistic, but I do think that the real problem here is that the media have manipulated the situation to make the difference of opinion bigger that it really is. It is interesting, though, that that last sentence of John's is almost exactly the same thing that JI Packer wrote about the matter thirty years ago defending a traditional evangelical view of 'propitiation' in a UCCF monograph under the TSF banner.
What I learn from this is to be wary of the way the media present issues and to understand how they make controversy appear out of nowhere. In this case by selective quoting and asking for comment on those quotes. Presumably also it is not counted 'inaccurate' to miss out any of those annoying riders that people often add such as "If that is a fair representation of what he said...", "Not having seen the whole thing I am not sure how much I can say, but if he said X, then the problem with that might be ...".
Church Times - Dean stands by Radio 4 talk on cross
Technorati Tags: atonement, penal_substitution, theology, Christian, UK, evangelical
No comments:
Post a Comment