A coalition of members of the Church of England in the Diocese of Chelmsford drawn from across the Anglo-Catholic, Charismatic and Evangelical traditions.
This is a news blog, covering matters of general interest to Mainstream Anglicans, as well as the current crisis in the Anglican Communion.
Maintained by Revd John Richardson
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).
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 mediæval 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 mediæval 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
Q
ReplyDeleteSecond 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 mediæval 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 mediæval 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