Social Network Links
Powered by Squarespace
Search the Riddleblog
"Amillennialism 101" -- Audio and On-Line Resources
« Eschatology Conference in the Chicago Area --This Coming Weekend | Main | Thanks Yanks, for the Memories! »

Who Said That?

On why the doctrine of God underlying the "Hallelujah Chorus" (in Handel's Messiah) is a such a "dangerous one"

"It creates feelings of awe in the hearts of loyal subjects and thus supports the `godness' of God, but these feelings are balanced by others of abject fear and humiliation: in this picture, God can be God only if we are nothing.  The understanding of salvation that accompanies this view is sacrificial substitutionary atonement, and in Anselm's classic rendition of it the sovereign imagery predominates.  Since even a wink of the eye by a vassal against the Leige Lord of the universe would be irremediable sin, we as abject subjects must rely totally upon our sovereign God who "became man" in order to undergo a sacrificial death, substituting his great worth for our worthlessness. . . .It inspires strong emotions of awe, gratitude, and trust toward God and, in ourselves, engenders a satisfying swing from abject guilt to joyous relief.  Its very power is part of its danger, and any picture which seeks to replace it must reckon with its attraction." 

OK . . .  Who said that?  Please no google searches or cheating.  The whole point is to guess!

Reader Comments (24)

Stab in the dark -- N. T. Wright?
September 22, 2008 | Unregistered Commenter"lee n. field"
Pretty accurate picture of the gospel, really. At least this person clearly understands that with which he/she disagrees! Maybe Schleiermacher?
September 22, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterstephen
Stab in the dark with my eyes closed....

Bishop Spong
September 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterCharles S
Couldn't begin to guess, but it is remarkable, as stephen implies, how what we Reformed celebrate is turned into a negative. Something about "holding the truth in unrighteousness" I guess.
September 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterPB
Robert Schuller?
September 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterVJ
I had no idea so I googled it. I had never heard of the person even though that person is supposedly an award winning theologian (probably awards based on how far one can move away from scripture). All I can say is all the guesses above are wrong.
September 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterJim Vellenga
God is not my mother! In related news: Jesus is not my girlfriend

(if you know who the "theologian" is the above statements gain relevance)
September 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterR. K. Brumbelow
A good one this week. This is the kind of remark that the aggressive new atheists salivate over. I could see Neitzsche saying something like this- he understood Lutheran and Reformed theology more than most of us think. Although he was probably responding in his writings more to the pietistic forms of Lutheranism in his day.

I am going to guess that it is from someone in the emerging Church movement or from one of the theologians they draw from like Stanley Grenz. They are constantly making reference to Anselm and the substitutionary atonement in a negative way. That is why many of them prefer the moral influence theory of the atonement. It is another form of "Christless Christianity" which Michael Horton has been making us aware of in recent years.

Theologians play into the hands of the atheists when they make remarks like this. Reformational theology with a sound rational apologetic is the only antidote and defense against this type of rising theological tide.

Tony Jones who is considered one of the leading lights of the emerging movement may have said this too.
September 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterJohn Yeazel
I was about to indict 'Bishop' John Shelby (yeah, right, like he has any right to share the name of one of the coolest American sportscars of all time!) Spong...but then I read that someone who was going to do the same googled the quote and discovered it wasn't the good bishop.
September 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterRobert Widdowson
I don't get it. Can someone please explain?
September 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMatt
How about Steve Chalke?
September 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterjAsOn
Whoever it is has apparently been imbibed feminist ideology. Note the incipient loathing of anything overtly masculine--the hatred of anything that reminds them our God is King of kings and Lord of lords.
September 22, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterdsanger
Crossan or Wright. It is some who at least understands and can diefine Christanity even if they disagree and do not like it.
September 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterKyleinWI
I still don't understand everything in this quote. Where is the feminist ideology? I have included my email address. Please. I want to understand.
September 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMatt is my addy.
September 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMatt
Christopher Hitchins? If he didn't say it, no doubt he would agree with the expressed disdain.

And Mr. Yeazel you're right about Nietzsche, he had a better grasp on the Gospel and what it means for both theology and practical Christian life than most of today's Christians have. In fact, he's the only writer in the atheist/agnostic side of things I've ever come across who has any real intellectual depth (including Bertrand Russell). If Christians can understand and respond effectively to his arguments, the modern atheists (Hitchins, Dawkins, Harris, etc) lose a lot of their force.
September 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterCoyle
You got that right Coyle. All these aggressive new atheists draw deeply from the well of Neitzsche. He was a descendant of three generations of Lutheran Pastors and his father and brother died within months of each other when he was very young (I believe when he was five years old). Supposedly, the Lutheran Church his father Pastored was not very empathetic or helpful financially to his surviving sister and mother and it left a very bitter taste in his surviving families mouth. They moved away from the area and little Frederick was not much influenced by the Church during his formative years. In fact, much bitterness towards the Church was expressed in his family. He originally went to the university to study for the ministry but quickly dropped out and studied classical languages which he excelled at and rose in the academic ranks quite swiftly. He was definitely a brilliant yet increasingly an insane man as he got older. He was very vitriolic in his rhetoric against the Christian religion and he thought it was his mission in life to teach people how one should live without a God to direct and guide one's life. His books are fascinating reads but you feel dirty and polluted after reading them. He is the king of the narcissists and was very delusional about his own worth and importance. The whole self-esteem movement could be traced backed to his thinking.
September 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterJohn Yeazel
KR, it might be helpful if you'd consider posting the correct answer after a set period of time. Otherwise these instructive posts are left dangling. My .02
September 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterPB

The answer to the previous "Who Said That?" is almost always posted when I add a new one--that is a one week period.
September 22, 2008 | Registered CommenterKim Riddlebarger
Got it, Kim Thanks. As for this one, I never heard of...
And a good thing, it seems.
September 23, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterPB

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.