Re: Fw: Comment on Ted's point

----- Original Message -----
From: <mrb22667@kansas.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Comment on Ted's point

> Quoting Ted Davis <tdavis@messiah.edu>:
>
>> Burgy,
>>
>> As I've made clear in the past relative to this issue, I'm with Paul on
>> this one. If Christ be not raised, then we are indeed to be pitied. As
>> an
>> historian, I've found NT Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God"
>> the
>> most spiritually helpful academic book I've ever read, bar none. I also
>> agree with every single word in the very long concluding section.
>> Historically, if there was no resurrection there would be no church; and
>> intellectually, Christians need to understand that our faith *is* about
>> the
>> "death of God," but also about his subsequent literal resurrection, such
>> that God is not "dead" except in the minds of certain theologians. Spong
>> might fit into this category, but I think more of people like Bultmann.
>> If
>> my words seemed harsh, Burgy, it's b/c they express what I think is a
>> basic
>> truth. As in my earlier post, I grant the difficulty of the practical
>> application, but I nevertheless stand by my comments: those who deny the
>> bodily resurrection might be people of God (I think that God has to sort
>> this out), but they do not think like Christians. Period.
>>
>> Ted
>>
>>
>
> Is this the same Spong (J.S.) that wrote "Why Christianity must change or
> die"?
> He expressed much offense at the whole sacrificial atonement process
> (way too
> bloody) and, if I remember his book correctly, he has no use for the cross
> as
> any part of modern Christian imagry. Our own church is about to start a
> Sunday
> school class studying D. Weaver's "Non-violent Atonement" I am feeling
> somewhat
> apprehensive that it may turn out to be motivated by the same things I
> found so
> objectionable in Spong's work. (I.e. imposing a distinctly "modern
> sensibility" rejecting traditional atonement doctrines -- and seeming to
> fulfill
> perfectly the warning that "the cross of Christ is foolishness to those
> perishing but the power of God to those saved" --paraphrase of I Cor.
> 1:18)
>
> Yet I don't know much about the Christus Victor theology or nonviolent
> atonement
> (yet) -- so I guess I shouldn't be too hasty to judge. I'll have to look
> up
> (N.T. Wright?) as well. Thanks, Dr. Davis. Your reflections have been
> helpful.

Weaver's book has some good material but his insistence on non-violence as a
fundamental theological category is problematic. But it's hardly as bad as
Spong, who rejects any idea of a need for atonement at all.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Mon Mar 20 22:23:52 2006