Cross talk!

Thinking Anglicans has an unpublished (?) article by Guardian Correspondent Stephen Bates... on what could have been an interesting discussion on the question of the Crucifixion and Penal Substitution, had it not become another case of polarised "mud slinging"... sometimes I despair!

Evangelical Anglican bishops yesterday expressed their dismay that the BBC had allowed Dr Jeffrey John, the dean of St Albans who four years ago was hounded out of a bishopric because of his homosexuality, to give a “tragic” Lenten talk criticising their view of the Good Friday crucifixion by claiming it made God out to be a psychopath.  Insisting that their attack had nothing to do with renewing their assault on Dr John, the two suffragan bishops, the Rt. Revs. Pete Broadbent of Willesden and Wallace Benn of Lewes, claimed their criticism was theological not personal. They admitted, however, that they had not read the talk before launching their attack.

Jeffrey John had said in the broadcast...

What sort of God was this, getting so angry with the world and the people He created and then, to calm himself down, demanding the blood of His own son? And anyway, why should God forgive us through punishing someone else? It was worse than illogical, it was insane. It made God sound like a psychopath. If any human being behaved like this we’d say they were a monster.

...we (the CofE) have a history of provocative Bishops, making statements intended to fuel debate... something I quite like... I think his argument seems somewhat stark, but I do think that there is a need for the church to explore this particular dogma/doctrine... interesting that due to his contribution to a book raising this same issue, Steve Chalke has forever more become known in the states as "the Leader of the Emerging Church in the UK"!?  I'm not saying it isn't part of the story, but it may not be as "carved from bedrock" as has become accepted by the majority of Christians... it may not be the whole story.

The trouble is that because penal/substitutionary atonement has been the popular understanding of the "Passion" it has become "received wisdom" that it is and can be the only understanding of the narrative, the theology and the reality... a bit like something my (avowed atheist) former Geology and Philosophy tutor once said "Darwin has done more damage to popular understanding of the process of Evolution than good... people read the word "evolution" and their brain cannot see beyond simple "survival of the fittest"... it is far more complex and mysterious than that!  If only they would question and look deeper!"

Technorati Tags: News: Religion: theology

Comments

[Nick]

I wonder if a good bit of our problem with substitutionary atonement is that when we deal with what happens at the cross we suspend our understanding of the trinity? By no means do I think that an appropriate understanding of the cross stops at any one view of the atonement, but it is a far different thing for God to offer Himself as a sacrifice for His children than for Him to "kill" His "Son" in an act of vengance. Thinking about the Trinity makes my head hurt, but it would seem to me that we cannot understand the cross without taking into account the trinity.

[Mark]

Thats a relly good thought... I'll ponder on that, I think it may go further than just the Cross situation... we are generally aware of the Creation story and the interplay of the Trinity... but I wonder if we really think that deeply about the nature of the community of God?

[linzc]

To be fair, I don't think public misunderstanding with evolution has anything to do with Darwin who had a quite subtle and insightful view of the process of evolution which is still inspiring researchers today. The Origin of Species is still worth a read today.

[Mark]

Linz, He didn't mean there was anything wrong with "TOOTS" ;) per se.... what he meant was popular understanding got stuck with Darwin, (probably even a understanding of Darwin which doesn't actually reflect "TOOTS"... because they haven't looked into it themselves)... pure survival of the fitest, smooth curve evolution etc. as is the want of professors he was being provocative. The "public" believe that Darwin solved it once and for all, the book is closed... wheras he would say that Darwin was a great starting point, but there have been many more discovires and theories since, indeed there are still many many more questions and mysteries about the "process" and reality of evolution - the eye, trilobytes complex exoskeleton etc etc (interestingly many of the anomalies that the creationists point to too!) An example being the recieved wisdom that humans developed from Chimps and other contemporary apes... as opposed to a proto-primate that was probably very different to both humans and contemporary apes... The point I was making was that "penal substitution" may be the recieved wisdom, but a)it raises as many questions as it answers, b)just because it is the popular understanding doesn't mean that the book HAS to be closed c)that whilst it may be part (perhaps a starting point) of the answer it isn't nescessarily the whole picture/truth.