Continuing my weekly reflections from my Lent groups that are studying this book:
I think the common feeling from last night’s discussion is, he could have said it so much more simply. Due to the late arrival of our book order, yesterday evening was the first session where the group had been able to read the chapter ahead of the meeting. Although how many completed the chapter is a debatable point. It certainly seemed to them and to me that this is not written at as popular a level as you might expect for an Archbishop’s official Lent Book. Even I had to re-read one or two sections to grasp what Volf was saying, and I have two theology degrees.
Essentially the message was an orthodox Christian view of forgiveness via atonement, holding onto substitutionary atonement and satisfaction while not divorcing the Father from the Son. But the use of technical theological language didn’t help. The good thing fo me was I had to be on my mettle to find easy ways to explain substition, satisfaction, untion with Christ and imputation. I think people understood my explanations. My concern is how daunted or discouraged the group will be for the final two weeks.