British Clergyman Repudiates the Church’s Traditional Understanding of the Cross
The Very Reverend Dr. Jeffrey Philip Hywel John believes that the church’s traditional understanding of the cross of Christ is both “repulsive” and “insane.” His comments in the spring of 2007 about the cross ignited a firestorm in Great Britain that eventually spread to the United States.
This is what The Telegraph [London] said about the controversy before his message was broadcast on the BBC:
The Very Rev. Jeffrey John, who had to withdraw before taking up an appointment as bishop of Reading in 2003 after it emerged he was in a long-term homosexual relationship, is set to ignite a row over one of the most fundamental tenets of Christian belief.
Clergy who preach this Easter that Christ was sent to earth to die in atonement for the sins of mankind are “making God sound like a psychopath,” he will say.
Very Reverend Dr. Jeffrey John is not being misquoted. He describes what he was taught as a child:
The explanation I was given went something like this. God was very angry with us for our sins, and because he is a just God, our sin had to be punished. But instead of punishing us he sent his Son, Jesus, as a substitute to suffer and die in our place. The blood of Jesus paid the price of our sins, and because of him God stopped being angry with us. In other words, Jesus took the rap, and we got forgiven, provided we said we believed in him.
In other words, he was taught a biblical understanding of the cross and its significance. He calls that understanding of the cross “insane.” He said:
Well, I don’t know about you, but even at the age of ten I thought this explanation was pretty repulsive as well as nonsensical. What sort of God was this, getting so angry with the world and the people he created, and then, to calm himself down, demanding the blood of his own Son? And anyway, why should God forgive us through punishing somebody else? It was worse than illogical, it was insane. It made God sound like a psychopath. If any human being behaved like this we’d say they were a monster. (AlbertMohler.com)
What this man does is reject the idea Jesus died on the cross as a substitutionary sacrifice, and he invents a meaning for the cross that is more in line with his prejudices. Paul taught in Romans 3 that holy God has every right to demand an acceptable sacrifice in order to satisfy His justifiable wrath against sin, but as a demonstration of love He also provided that same sacrifice.
This preacher not only disagrees with Paul, he disagrees with Jesus. This is the understanding he gave to his disciples before he died for sinners. This is what Peter preached at Pentecost. It is the entire message of Hebrews.
From a sermon by Ed Sasnett, Nothing to Add, 6/2/2010