It strikes me in the lengthy post from Nathan on various theories of the cross, that each theory is well-grounded in its setting, reflecting contemporaneous views of justice and rule. There is nothing wrong with this - it is an act of incarnating the gospel. But what strikes me, and perhaps Nathan is pushing towards this, is the lack of a clear articulation of the meaning of the cross for 21st Century Australians. Drawing exclusively on antiquity is to risk irrelevance, and to lead us toward absurdity (as highlighted with the caricatur-istic reaction to substitutionary atonement).

We need to be able to express the meaning of the cross and resurrection in ways which connect with our culture, and which draw on the historical meanings. [Another friend] has articulated one aspect in relation to the story told to primary school children. It conveys truth, but not complete truth. In this regard, I am drawn to the conclusion of Green and Baker: "The impression with which we are left is that the death of Jesus is an historical event of such profundity that we can only do it violence by narrowing its meaning to one interpretation or by privileging one interpretation over all the others"

Any single theory, pushed to its extreme, becomes absurd, or at least encounters serious problems. One definition of heresy I recall is "orthodoxy pushed to its logical conclusion". In our time, the highest call is "How can a God of love...". In previous generations, it appeared to be more to do with "How can a God of justice..." In the end, neither is the ultimate call. It strikes me as a parent that the call of justice, compassion, love and grace is very difficult to make. I am thankful that the theory of atonement is rich and diverse.

Gary