The sins of the world
Sir: Matthew Parris (‘Cross purposes’, 22 April) claims that Paul invented the Church’s teaching about redemption on the cross and that Christ was silent on the topic. This is simply not true. An obvious example is found in the gospel of Mark, chapter 10, verse 45: ‘For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’ But it is Jesus’s words of institution at the Last Supper which provide the most clear explanation of what his death would achieve: ‘This is my body which is given for you… This cup is my blood of the new covenant poured out for you.’ Jesus could not have been clearer that his death was going to be a sacrifice for sins which he would make on behalf of his disciples.
Archbishop Cranmer’s inimitable prayer of consecration in the Book of Common Prayer puts Jesus’s understanding of his death like this: ‘who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world.’ This brilliantly untangles the ‘terrible muddle’ of the atonement of which Matthew Parris complains.
The Revd Richard Coombs
Rector of Cheltenham
Found in translation
Sir: Matthew Parris describes finding Christian teaching on the atonement a ‘muddle’. I appreciate his honesty – but there is an irony in his dismissal of atonement as part of a ‘private language that’s almost impossible for non-believers to understand’. Five hundred years ago when William Tyndale sought to translate the Bible into the English of the common people, there simply was no equivalent to the Greek and Hebrew words. To simplify and get the essence across he coined the term ‘at-one-ment.’ Whatever else the cross of Jesus does, it makes it possible for a restless world of fractious people to be ‘at-one’ with Almighty God. In our violently divided world, Tyndale’s simple contribution to the English language provided a welcoming invitation to find a solution in the cross.
Chris Sinkinson
Christchurch, Dorset
Why not adopt?
Sir: I read with interest both sides of the surrogacy debate as someone who has experienced both the pain of infertility and the joy of parenthood (‘Family fortune’, 22 April). I would urge prospective parents to consider adoption as a first choice. While we debate the pros and cons of surrogacy for hypothetical children, there are actual children living without parents. Parenting is about putting the needs of the child before the needs of the parent. Why can’t this also apply in the journey to parenthood?
Bethany Steventon,
Lancashire
Moor or less
Sir: Charles Moore makes the point that Natural England is trying to create ‘a hostile environment for certain long-standing and well-assimilated immigrant groups against which it has a prejudice’ in its policy regarding sheep on Dartmoor (Notes, 22 April). Farmers in general – especially moorland farmers – need to be added to this list. NE, driven by ‘rewilders’ who would rather import all our food, are creating a massive emotional and financial burden for farmers by expecting them to de-stock the moor which they would rather rewild.
Farmers do not know where they are financially since Brexit, and farming has one of the highest rates of suicide of any industry. We all want to see wildlife flourish, but it need not be at the expense of farmers and their health and welfare. It is time for Natural England to rethink this strategy and find a middle path.
Christopher D. Forrest
Yealmpton, Devon
Driving test
Sir: Lara King’s article on parking apps (‘Pay and dismay’, 22 April) summarises the frustration experienced when given no option to pay with cash or card. As my wife reminds me, I am pushing 80 and have a 20-year-old Nokia which has no more idea what an app is than I do.
From your readers in the legal profession, I would like to ask for opinions on a couple of points. Could this action by councils who are deliberately making it impossible for some people to use their facilities be deemed as discriminatory? What if one were to put a card on the windscreen stating that without an iPhone it is impossible to pay, but to please send an invoice and bank details by email and payment will be made?
Jocelyn Penn-Bull
Hunton, Hampshire
Away with phones
Sir: Lloyd Evans’s discussion of the use of smartphones by the audience at Richmond Theatre (‘The war on the audience’, 22 April) reminds me of a splendid restaurant that used to be located round the corner from that theatre. The owner insisted that no mobile be used on any account in his restaurant. One evening a man came in talking on his phone. The owner seized it and informed his customer that he could not have it back until his meal was over.
Phones in theatres are a menace to playgoers who want to concentrate on the play. Compulsory surrender of them would be an excellent policy.
Michael O’Shea
London N16
Flat out
Sir: Rory Sutherland’s piece questioning why beds are flat (The Wiki Man, 22 April) reminded me of a visit to the Viking Museum in Oslo. It seems that at home the Vikings slept sitting up in a box full of straw. It was only when they first visited England that they realised there was an alternative. I imagined the first raiders returning home, eager to share their tales: ‘Yes, and you’ll never believe it, but what’s even weirder is they sleep lying down!’
Ian Davis
Newton, Warks
Comments