|Standard BBC response to mockery of Jesus|
|Written by Chris Perver|
|Monday, 14 May 2007 17:00|
|A lot has been happening today in regards to the situation in the Middle East. The Red Cross has published a provocative paper claiming Israel is violating international law in East Jerusalem. Vice Premier Shimon Peres has announced his intentions to run for President. And Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has announced he is prepared to talk with the Arab League, any time, any where... But I thought I might comment on an email I received from the BBC this morning. During Easter, the BBC broadcast a series of radio programmes called Lent Talks. On one of these programmes the openly homosexual bishop, Jeffery John, gave his thoughts on the sacrifice of Christ. As a seeming affront to the person of Christ, the programme was repeated on resurrection Sunday. But it's not the fact that Jeffrey John repudiates the Biblical teaching on marriage that caused the most controversy, it was what Jeffrey had to say about the Lord Jesus... |
Quote: ""In other words, Jesus took the rap and we got forgiven as long as we said we believed in him," said John. "This is repulsive as well as nonsensical. It makes God sound like a psychopath. If a human behaved like this we'd say that they [sic] were a monster."
This was in fact exactly what the Lord Jesus Himself taught on many occasions throughout the Gospels. I urged those who read this website to complain to the BBC, for their flagrant disregard of their own Royal Charter, which stipulates that the organizations has a duty to respect the religious beliefs of its listeners. And especially considering the broadcasting was taking place on one of Christianity's most holy days, resurrection Sunday. That was the jist of my email, and this morning - as expected - I received the standard BBC response...
Quote: "Dear Mr Perver
I understand you have some concerns about the above, furthermore you felt it was inappropriate to include Jeffrey John as a speaker. The premise of 'Lent Talks' allow contributors to reflect on the mission and passion of Jesus from a personal perspective.
Contributors may come from any faith position, or from none. In his talk, Jeffrey John chose to distance himself from the view of "penal substitution" - that God required Jesus to accept the punishment due to humans as a means of placating His wrath and satisfying His justice. This understanding of the atonement is central to the belief of many Christians, but for many others it is not. Indeed the Church of England's own doctrine commission declared in 1995 that it was unhelpful and a hindrance to faith. The Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright, served on this commission. I appreciate you may continue to feel unhappy about this, therefore please be assured that I have registered your complaint and concerns on the daily log, this is an internal document which will be made available to the 'Lent Talks' production team as well as the senior management of the BBC. May I take this opportunity to thank you again for taking time to contact the BBC.
Regards Katherine Tsang
It makes me sad that the BBC can choose to ignore the beliefs of "many Christians", and broadcast the repugnant views of Jeffrey John on resurrection Sunday. And then, as was the case with the Jerry Springer Opera, ignore countless thousands of complaints from British television licence payers. It has been said, only in Northern Ireland can you pay to be insulted. It was news to me that the Church of England has declared the belief in the atonement to be an hindrance to the faith. But searching the internet, I came across this article...
Quote: "More serious to traditional Christianity was liberal criticism of belief in original sin, substitution atonement or hell. According to F.D. Maurice such beliefs represented ‘a monstrous perversion' of Christianity for they stand in direct contradiction to the primal and quite decisive Christian doctrine of the love of God. If we start from belief that 'God is actually love', we will shrink from attributing to Him acts which would be unlovely in man'. Maurice claimed that any doctrine of the atonement which presumes that sins cannot be forgiven unless satisfaction is first paid contradicts the teaching of Jesus about being merciful as your Father in heaven is merciful. He believed that the doctrine of hell made a mockery of Jesus' picture of the loving fatherhood of God. For if it were indeed the case that all humanity is damned except those who accept Christ as their personal saviour it would condemn 'most of the American slaves, and the whole body of Turks, Hindus, Hottentots and Jews... to hopeless destruction'.
Without the atonement there is no salvation, for the Scriptures state that it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul (Leviticus 17:11). Men such as these in the Church of England cannot possibly believe in the atonement, for a belief in the atonement requires first of all the belief in a God that is absolutely holy and must punish sin. And if Jeffery John believed God was holy, he could not possibly think that his own lifestyle was right in the sight of God, for the Scriptures condemn it completely. Thus men excuse their own sins by believing that God will somehow turn a blind eye to them because He is merciful, and could never create a place like hell, or punish a sinner for his sins. They do not realize the true value of the death of Christ, nor do they choose to avail themselves of it. As the Scriptures say, they have trampled under foot the Son of God, and counted the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing (Hebrews 10:29).
1st Corinthians 6:9
Source Inclusive Church