Friday, 13 April 2007

What Southern Baptists think of Jeffrey John and Giles Fraser

What gets said here gets heard everywhere. A Southern Baptist broadcaster in the US has picked up on Jeffrey John's radio broadcast and makes his own response: listen here, (it's about 2/5 way through).

1 comment:

Daniel Roe said...

Q
Second Corinthians 5:21 – there you then, go penal substitution in a nutshell
A
Well not quite – I mean penal substitution is repulsive and insane
Q
Hey?
A
Well it’s obvious, innit – I mean it is repulsive and insane
Q
So how do you account for Second Corinthians 5:21?
A
Well there are two ways of looking at it: firstly, it is obviously wrong
Q
You mean there are mistakes in the Bible?
A
Apparently so – I mean, most denominations, churches and Christians are quite happy with evolution and women’s ordination, for example, so there are obviously mistakes in Genesis and First Timothy
Q
Well no – I mean it depends how you interpret Genesis and First Timothy – in the case of Genesis people have suggested that ‘day’ could mean ‘age’
A
Exactly – lack of evidence notwithstanding, evolution is a ‘scientific fact’ and it took zillions of years, so ‘day’ must mean ‘age’ – obvious innit. And as discrimination on the grounds of gender is repulsive and insane, then you have to remember that whoever wrote First Timothy was writing to people in a first century culture, and we have to reinterpret for today – I mean, pace, First Corinthians 11:3-4, how many women wear hats in church?
Q
Hey – I’ve seen a few guys in baseball caps
A
And at ordinations and confirmations I’ve seen bishops with hats (a bit like Gandalf in mediƦval highCamp) – but there you go – interpretation, hermeneutics, whatever – have your cake and eat it – affirm the inspired, infallible inerrant word of God and at the same time go along with modern fashion
Q
Is that what they call postmodernism?
A
Well no actually – I mean this has a time-honoured history. I mean take a gander through Acts and epistles – how do you account for the hierarchies and structures of mediƦval Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy?
Q
Well they were obviously unbiblical
A
I don’t think the popes and patriarchs would have agreed with you, but let’s fastBackward say 400 years, say – are episcopacy and infant baptism biblical? I dare say evangelical Anglicans and evangelical Baptists of the time would come up with conflicting answers – and the Bible references to back them up. I mean these guys were ministers of the gospel
Q
Well, now we’re talking about secondary issues here – I mean on primary issues we are all one
A
Depends what you mean by primary and secondary – I mean I said ‘evangelical Anglicans’ and ‘evangelical Baptists’ to make clear we were talking gospel ministry, but during the last 100 years it has been clear that there are non-evangelical Anglicans and non-evangelical Baptists
Q
That’s why the Anglican Communion is in disarray
A
Interesting that – for years people with conflicting views on so-called primary issues have been happy to be in the one Anglican Communion, but what do you think is splitting AngCom plc? Not penal substitution, but homosexuality.
Q
But homosexuality is important – I mean Christian morals, marriage and family c’mon
A
OK – point taken, but take and evangelical Anglican and an evangelical Baptist – they meet in different places on Sundays – why? Because of infant baptism and episcopacy – I mean each of them is quite happy to be in a denomination in which there is a wide variety of views on penal substitution, say – so what exactly do we mean by primary and secondary issues.
Q
Or even what we mean by Christian
A
Aye – fascinating – I mean if you went to Diocesan Synod and worked defined Anglicanism as what everyone had in common – I mean forget the Articles and Creeds – forget the theory and look at the practice – aye – and look at yer local Churches Together for a definition of Christianity
Q
It probably wouldn’t be what the New Testament understood as Church
A
Exactly – which brings us back to the original point – the age old penchant for reinterpreting (contorting) the Bible to conform to what’s acceptable
Q
And rule out what’s repulsive and insane
A
I find it fascinating – and scary. I mean the way the Bible has been steadily in retreat. The first assault has been on its ecclesiology – we’re so used to our current and diverse ways of doing Church, we don’t see this – aye – isn’t it funny how we don’t often get coherent and systematic teaching on Acts and Epistles – I dare say, taken seriously, they would appear absurd and irrelevant – even in some evangelical circles
Q
I dare say the Apostle would look at the modern church in all its diversity and find it, er…
A
Repulsive and insane – anyway, move on and we find the next assault is in the world of science – Darwinist evolution – and the current battle is in morality – feminism and homosexuality. And even before this battle is over, the heart of the gospel, penal substitution is under assault
Q
Hmm – it’s not looking good – and now there’s lots of new legislation which seems to target Christians – now what?
A
Second Corinthians 5:21 – I mean forget all the nonsense about interpretation – it’s concise and plain – I mean even you and I can understand it
Q
Yes
A
Second Corinthians as a whole an’t quite so easy
Q
Nor is First Corinthians
A
Or Romans – I mean take a gander at the average sermon – I mean, sermons are freely available on the internet – I mean on the Beeb you can read transcripts and hear recordings – ditto for church and diocesan websites – quite a representative sample of contemporary teaching – the point is would you be any the wiser about, say, Romans?
Q
Well I dare say a lot of the preaching would be from people who believed the Bible was full of mistakes
A
OK – stick to evangelical stuff – I don’t think it would make a lot of difference
Q
So why don’t these guys – I mean the evangelical guys – why don’t they teach the Bible?
A
Pass – perhaps they don’t understand either. I mean that’s why when someone comes along and tells them Second Corinthians 5:21 is repulsive and insane, they don’t have an answer
Q
Coz they don’t understand the whole of Second Corinthians – hey, but there must be someone out there who does
A
Aye – there are a few – apparently they understand the whole of the Bible
Q
So shouldn’t they be teaching the others?
A
Good thinking, Batman