Stephen Bates on Jeffrey Johns and Atonement

My reading was light over the weekend due to both Church and family events, but I just ran across Stephen Bates' comment last week on the Jeffrey Johns atonement episode. (Bates is the religion reporter for the Guardian.) He confirms that most of the critics have admitted that they commented without even hearing what Johns had to say. Bates also comes to the same conclusion that I came to--that this attack was a renewal of the attacks on Johns that ultimately lead him to withdraw as the new Bishop of Reading:


Insisting that their attack had nothing to do with renewing their assault on Dr John because of his stance on homosexuality, the two suffragan bishops, the Right Rev Pete Broadbent of Willesden and Wallace Benn of Lewes, claimed their criticism was theological not personal.

Along with Bishop Tom Wright of Durham, who earlier criticised the BBC for allowing Dr John on, the bishops admitted that they had not read the talk before launching their attack. They based their criticism of what Dr John said on an extract read to them over the telephone by a Sunday newspaper journalist who is the son of a leading evangelical vicar. Dr Wright said he was "fed up" with the BBC for allowing such "unfortunate" views as Dr John's to be given air time.

. . .

"I am not being homophobic. It's not a war on Jeffrey John. I've got nothing against him at all."


No, no, of course not. Broadbent - who used to be a Labour councillor in Islington - and Benn were two of the leaders of the campaign to oust John four years ago.


In an entry on this site, the Right Rev Giles Fraser, vicar of Putney and a friend of Dr John's, wrote:


"Easter is a time for stringing up the innocent and this year once again the sacrificial victim is the dean of St Albans. We all know the reason why he's hated by conservatives ... not because he's gay but because he's honest ... he has been saying nothing but the truth known by most people in the pews: that the idea of God murdering his son for the salvation of the world is barbaric and morally indefensible."

Dr John himself has insisted his remarks were in line with the Church of England's doctrinal commission on the subject, drawn up, among others, by Dr Williams and the same evangelical bishop of Durham, Dr Wright.

Dr John said:
"

One of the reasons I wanted to give the talk was that the doctrine of the cross I was taught as a child kept me from faith for a long time and I have met very many others who have reacted in the same way."

Read it all.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Giles Fraser on Gay Marriage

Image
The Rev. Gileas Fraser offers thoughtful piece on gay marriage on BBC Radio this morning: Back in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as the Book of Common Prayer was being put together, marriage was said to be for three purposes: First, It was ordained for the procreation of children … Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication .. Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. How do these three concerns relate to the prospect of gay marriage? The third priority insists that marriage is designed to bring human beings into loving and supportive relationships. Surely no one can deny that homosexual men and women are in as much need of loving and supportive relationships as anybody else. And equally deserving of them too. This one seems pretty clear. The second priority relates to the encouragement of monogamy. The Archbishop of Canterbury himself has rig...
Read more

Religious Map of United States

Image
This map shows which of eight major Christian denominations has a plurality in the United States, county by county. the map obviously does not capture the full story given the rich diversity of Christian denominations in the United States, but it does show much of the regionalization of the major denominations. The map and analysis can be found here . Hat Tip to my friend Jim .
Read more

Faith, Reason and Science, Part X: Some Humor and Serious Ponderings By A Thoughtful Atheist

Update : Welcome Digg visitors. For more of my posts on Science (including my Science and Faith series), go here .Interested in my take on atheism? Then try here . For my comments about the experience of being dugg, so here . Original Post : Eric Michael Johnson is a primatologist and endocrinologist completing a PhD at Duke University, and he blogs at the Primate Diaries . He has two recent posts that are worth reading. First, some provocative humor: Fundamentalists: believe 2+2 =5 because It Is Written. Somewhere. They have a lot of trouble on their tax returns. "Moderate" believers: live their lives on the basis that 2+2=4. but go regularly to church to be told that 2+2 once made 5, or will one day make 5, or in a very real and spiritual sense should make 5. "Moderate" atheists: know that 2+2 =4 but think it impolite to say so too loudly as people who think 2+2=5 might be offended. "Militant" atheists: "Oh for pity's sake. HERE. Two pebbles...
Read more