What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • Atonement theory and the Naughty Step

    One of the parents in the congregation recently was saying how hard it is to answer good questions from children about why Jesus came and had resorted to trying to explain it in terms of the Naughty Step.

    I thought it might be helpful to lay out some of the main theories of the Atonement thus:

    • Ransom theory – our parents were so naughty that they deserve the naughty step and have passed their naughtiness onto us. Justice requires that someone has to go to the naughty step to pay for this and God tricked the devil into seeing Jesus on the naughty step as sufficient payment for this.
    • Christus victor theory – Jesus has gloriously broken down the powers and dominions of naughtiness and only has to glance at the naughty-step for his holiness to turn it in to dust. Nothing can withstand his might and power.
    • Moral influence theory – Jesus came to teach us how to be so good that we would never be sent to the naughty step.
    • Penal substitution theory – God simply won’t forgive anyone until He is satisfied that the naughty step punishment has been fulfilled in full. Fortunately, Jesus comes along and takes on that naughtiness for himself, freely offering to pay the debt of naughtiness to God the Father. We need urgently to recognise this offer and accept it.
    • Incarnation theory – the amazing thing is that Jesus comes and sits on the naughty step with us, sharing our frailty and sharing our sorrows.

    There are other possibilities, but those should keep you going for a bit.

    Now, all these things have been believed by Christians. However, it doesn’t make much sense to claim that you believe them all at once. Notwithstanding that, I’d say that they all move me at one time or another, even though I tend towards one of them as my dominant way of understanding why Jesus came. We encounter all of these theories in our hymns, if not elsewhere.

    That’s the way atonement theory works for me.

    , , , , ,

3 responses to “Brexit – Five First Quick Thoughts”

  1. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    Almost everybody I meet on a regular basis, except my family and one educated friend, were voting out. and that in Scotland. I am shattered but unsurprised. My partner reports that, in her office, those with a degree and under 35 all intended to vote remain, and those without and over 35 to leave.

    Reply
  2. Ruth Gillett Avatar
    Ruth Gillett

    Some people I know didn’t vote at all because they were annoyed that their ‘first ever in their fairly long lives’ voting experience (Independence) didn’t go the correct way. Strangely two friends who spend half the year living in Europe (and benefit from the reciprocal healthcare arrangements) voted leave and I’m bewildered by a dear friend of 60 years who unexpectedly climbed angrily aboard the anti immigration juggernaut. I’d dared to hope (and ignore the signs online) because everyone else I knew seemed to be voting remain…

    Reply
  3. Guy Whitehouse Avatar
    Guy Whitehouse

    I fear ultimately that Brexit won in part because the EU became a rather soulless bureaucracy to which people could not emotionally attach. Financial benefit does not always secure attachment on a large-scale and if enough people start to perceive themselves to suffer and not participate in those benefits then the inevitable happens.

    I fear the UK is going the same way but for different reasons. Since the 80s there has been a tendency amongst those seeking power to focus on groups and not the country as a whole; remember election night and the swingometer and the presenter saying things like “such and such an area has gone red but in order to win the Conservatives just need to win over Essex man and Worcester woman….”? Of course Labour did something similar in 1997 and in later elections.

    So any uniting sentiments have been undermined which means that the problem is no longer just with politicians but with the electorates also.

    I liked what Kelvin said in his referendum sermon, and more than ever the churches need to discover their ministry of reconciliation and think about what it means to try to offer everyone a spiritual home. It would be ironic if the church became the main place that differences could be dropped. but I have to confess I’m rather gloomy about even that looking at the way other controversial issues within the church have been dealt with.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • The thurible has landed

    After a rather busy day of travel, I’ve arrived at my destination in Sweden, the Sigtuna Foundation, which is lovely. Today began with a challenging wrestling match with madam cat who had no inclination to go to cat prison for 4 days. She did not believe me when I told her that I would be coming…

  • No white smoke in Aberdeen

    Despite all our candle-lighting of last evening, the Diocese of Aberdeen and Orkney has been unable to elect a new bishop today. That will be frustrating for many people. I feel for all the candidates in these elections. They are very publicly exposed to scrutiny in what is a pretty unkind process. That process begins…

  • Poetry Break

    Let us have a little break for a poem – as heard in the Archers on Thursday… The Bargain My true love hath my heart, and I have his, By just exchange one for another given: I hold his dear, and mine he cannot miss, There never was a better bargain driven: My true love…

  • The Advent Wreath Candle Controversy

    I was just in conversation with my American correspondent in the Diocese of Argyll about Liturgical Matters. It transpires that there is schism between us. It is my belief that the candles on an Advent Wreath should be red, with the possible addition of a white one in the middle at Midnight Mass. It is…