A number here may have run across this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ster01.xml
Just to let you know, folks, that there are quite a few moderate and progressive Anglicans/Episcopalians who have found Jeffrey John's comments here truly unfortunate, if not dismaying (assuming he's being quoted accurately).
Yes, of course, "penal substitution" is only one theory of the Atonement - and quite a late one, at that, considerably later even than the fairly late "satisfaction" theory articulated by Anselm of Canterbury (late 11th/early 12th century). But all the historic theories of how the Atonement works, all the classic images used in speaking of the same, have affirmed that Christ died for our sins -- most certainly including the earliest and most broadly used "ransom" models (a version of which, of course, is found in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe*). I've always especially appreciated Lewis' remarks (in Mere Christianity), in which he strongly cautions against the simple equation of any one theory/image here with Christianity itself. They all convey something of the reality, but some (at least by some, some of the time) can be experienced as unhelpful, and none - by themselves - can contain the whole Mystery of Christ's Cross.
However, Jeffrey John's highly publicized comments, referenced in the above link, seemed to me to be confusing, counter-productive, and uncharitable, to say the least - and rather out of line with what I had understood to be previous efforts of his to articulate and foster a progressive traditionalism.
Other comments?
Anyone here heard the BBC interview in question?
Adam Linton
*For me, personally, the version of the ransom theory expressed in Eastern Christian liturgy and theological reflection has seemed especially compelling; the ransom being "paid" to the condition of death itself [see also Gustav Aulen's classic Christus Victor].
Additional Note: Along with my genuine primary interest in generating discussion on this topic, I also am offering this as a trial-run in carrying out a conversation on a controversial matter - within mindfulness of the Wardrobe's recently renewed commitment both candor and courtesy!
