AU replies to the "War on Christmas"

[USIncognito]

I'm not sure if this is the correct subforum to place this in, but it seems right since the culture warriors strum und drang smells of political motivation. I'm on the Americans United for Seperation of Church and State mailing list and this open letter from Barry Lynn to Jerry Falwell was in my inbox today. I thought I'd share it, and see if there are any comments.

Dear Jerry:

Heres some news: There is no "war on Christmas!"

Ive seen you on various television news shows claiming that there is but, in fact, there simply isnt. Even as I write this, millions of Americans are erecting Christmas trees and nativity scenes at their homes, and thousands of churches are planning special Christmas services.

And, if I might say so, most of them are planning their lives without getting permission or encouragement from you.

I am deeply disappointed that you have chosen a time that Christians observe as a season of peace and good will and turned it into a time of religious divisiveness and community conflict. Your "Friend or Foe" campaign may be great for fund-raising and publicity, but it has sown discord unnecessarily.

Contrary to your wild allegations, Jerry, neither Americans United, nor any other civil liberties organization that I know of, is waging any kind of war on Christmas. The First Amendment of our Constitution ensures every Americans right to observe religious holidays or to refrain from doing so. We can wish each other a "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays," and its really none of your business which term we choose. We can call our decorated tree a "Christmas tree" or a "holiday tree," and thats our right. (We can observe the holidays of other traditions as well.)

I think we all know whats really going on with your campaign. You want an America where there is no separation of church and state and where your rather narrow interpretation of Christianity is forced on everyone. If you can convince Americans that their cherished Christmas traditions are under fire, you think maybe they will join your nefarious crusade to tear down the protective church-state wall that guarantees our freedoms.

Well, it wont work, Jerry. Americans are, by and large, a tolerant lot, and they are quite unlikely to join forces with someone like you who is so far out on the political and religious fringes. Many people remember the outrageous comments you made after the 9/11 terrorist assaults, suggesting that America had it coming because of our (in your opinion) sinful ways. They also remember your dire warning that Tinky Winky, a kids TV character, was brainwashing our children into homosexuality! You cant rehabilitate an image like that by trying to depict yourself as Father Christmas.

I am particularly outraged that you are attacking our public schools as part of your misguided project. Our public schools serve children from 2,000 different faith traditions and some who follow no spiritual path at all. They generally do a tremendous job of helping each of these students without imposing any particular religious viewpoint. They steer a careful course, broadly allowing student religious _expression while trying to avoid school endorsement of specific faiths. That means there are sometimes disagreements about what songs should be sung in the winter concert or what decorations should go in the hall. We can work through those decisions by applying common sense, the Constitution and plain old civility.

Thanks to the crusade by you and your allies, however, some of these schools are being targeted for venomous attacks. After the Alliance Defense Fund unfairly maligned a public school in New York for its holiday observance policies, education officials there received hateful mail of all sorts. One e-mail said "You are either bigoted Jews who hate Christians or mindless secularists."

Since I debated you about the Christmas issue on Fox News Channels "OReilly Factor," I have received 66 nasty e-mails, including two death threats. Observed one of my correspondents, "Hope you die soon. Merry Christmas."

Jerry, this is the kind of interfaith and community hostility that you are stirring up, and I implore you to stop it now. You are polluting the public square with animosity and anger. And at Christmas, of all times!! Have you no decency?

Youve dubbed your latest round of antics a "Friend or Foe" campaign. Well, Jerry, I am a friend of the Constitution and a foe of intolerance. You should be too.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays,

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn
Executive Director

PS: I saw on a couple of the news shows that you are again questioning my ministerial credentials. I believe the _expression that you used on Fox News Channels "The Big Story with John Gibson" is that I am "about as reverend as an oak tree" and that I never "preached in" a church. Drop me a line, Jerry, and Ill send you (again) a copy of my ministerial credentials from the United Church of Christ. And by the way, Id be happy to come to Thomas Road Baptist Church and deliver the sermon on the Sunday of your choice. Your congregation might like a change of perspective every now and then.

[melikio]

Fair enough, but there seems to be disdain for all things Christmas.

I don't see that. And where it concerns a FAITH that no one can really touch via manmade protest or restriction, I don't think Christians have much to worry about.

One of the biggest dangers I see to "Christianity" and/or the views people have of it, concerns the MESSAGE many individuals followers are actually projecting into this world. Lately (the last 4-6 years), I've seen and experienced a bunch of MEAN and INTRANSIGENT people proclaim their "Christianity" to the world. It's sickening to see so many "Chrisitians" yet so little of the qualities of love which should flow as abundanly as water flows through a river. The people I'm pointing out, send the message that it's their lack of "toleration" and "compassion", that promises to get the job done for Jesus; they are blowing it big-time (IMHO).

I'm seeing a LOT of "religion" these days, and not so much of the pratical, affective and effectual things Jesus exuded in His words and deeds. Most people can recognize the difference between promises made and promises kept.

Finally, I do see the "association" of Christmas with the abject commercialism, as a far greater problem than the arguments over nativity scenes and Christmas trees in public. And while I understand the restrictions upon saying "Merry Christmas" in certain situations, I believe with all my heart that REAL LOVE backing those very words, will go a LOT FURTHER than the political arguments over them.

-Mel-

[1John2_26]

And then there was in 1959, the (then) recently formed John Birch Society issued an urgent alert: Christmas was under attack. In a JBS pamphlet titled "There Goes Christmas?!" a writer named Hubert Kregeloh warned, "One of the techniques now being applied by the Reds to weaken the pillar of religion in our country is the drive to take Christ out of Christmas -- to denude the event of its religious meaning."

It appears the people that wrote the above have had their concerns soundly affirmed. I don't know about "the Reds" but certainly there seems to be a lot of people that have no problem with insulting and disregarding Christians from society in the name of liberalsim ot whatever tagline the anti-religious crowd is wearing these days. This is not observed in 2005?

[melikio]

"One of the techniques now being applied by the Reds to weaken the pillar of religion in our country is the drive to take Christ out of Christmas -- to denude the event of its religious meaning."

Many so-called "believers" are shooting themselves in the foot, simply by being less "Christian" than they should be. That is, the "Christianity" they speak/proclaim, isn't anything like the "CHRIST" it should be based upon.

And in this era of neo-conservatism, many who should be "spiritual" have just become "political"; optimizing and utilizing "power", instead of the power of "love".

Now people can talk and protest all they want to about "Christmas", but the reality is that the meaning it should hold in one's heart/mind... cannot be undone by the mere "expressions" many fear are being restricted. Christians have a LOT of freedom in this country, and that is very difficult to deny. But those who abuse the POWER they hold as a result of being "Christian", are doing more damge than any anti-God person I have ever known of.

To act out of anything but love towards others, is an act of betrayal and disregard directed AT Jesus himself; "Christians" need to check themselves. What goes around, comes around.

-Mel-

[MagusYanam]

I try to watch as many people as I can. MSNBC has some great hosts. O'Reilly seems OK to me overall. Christianity has to be sectarian because there are a lot of people that will not follow sound doctrine and change scripture like it was a city ordinance.

Watching TV is not how I choose to get my news, and since I participate in the college editorial paper I don't need talkshows for entertainment. I'll pick up a newspaper if possible or read the news online if not. The BBC is where I usually go for my news - my parents subscribe to the NY Times, though I don't think American news is ever as accurate or as objective as the BBC.

The Bible I read is the same as the rest of the Church reads. We of the Anglican Communion acknowledge the same Nicene Creed that the rest of the Church acknowledges. There is no need for the Church to be sectarian, when the calling of Christ is to fellowship and to service. In fact, everywhere sectarian impulses have driven Christians apart, bloodshed has followed. The Thirty Years' War is the most notable example of this, and the same infighting is occurring now in Northern Ireland. Reading the Gospel I find that this is not what Jesus had in mind for his followers.

No one should attack non-believers for any reason, but I certainly have seen Falwell for decades, always use scripture in context. He seems a good pastor to his flock. Christians "on the left" have much to be challenged.

At least Christians 'on the left' have not forgotten the divine grace that has been shown them and do not forget to show it as often as they have opportunity to share it with others. Given the sanctimonious rhetoric I hear so often from the religious right, I highly doubt their conception of 'grace' has much meaning anymore.

Also, it's a sad day for Christianity when people have no other demand on their pastor than that they use Scripture in context. Scripture should speak to the people in the pews but also should be considered with intellectual integrity. Priests and ministers should be qualified, which the Baptists (Falwell's group included) don't ensure by any visible means. Included should be a primary concern for the well-being of the congregation and the Church as a whole and a certain level of humility (neither of which I can find in Falwell's writings or public statements).

As far as 'much to be challenged', in my experience conservatives fall short far more and on far more things than do liberals. Conservatives drag their feet on social and economic justice as were Jesus' primary concerns, and they drag their feet particularly concerning the Church's relationship to the world. Liberal parishes make few demands on their congregations - that has to change. Conservative ones make the wrong demands, and this also needs to change, and soon.

Surviving bickering and tolerating heresy is a fine line. Many things shouldn't be tolerated. I would hope that factions stick up for Biblical truth over secular politics. It is certainly not petty squabbling over homosexuals in the clergy. Pope Benedict and the Vatican have written on this in almost perfect description. Ushering in the kingdom of God is nothing the churches can do anyway. That is exclusively the domain of God the Father. I would hope that when that day comes, churches are preaching the Gospel they way Jesus spoke it.

Ah, you are forgetting how Jesus has made us bold to pray: 'Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven'. We human beings are those whom God has chosen to do his will on earth and to put our efforts, however insufficient, toward building the Kingdom: a society of goodwill based in justice and in fellowship.

As regards heresy, we've had our disputes over this as well, and we have the instruments of our fellowship for preventing it. The Scriptures, the Traditions of our Church (foremost among them the Book of Common Prayer) and the Reason of the individual members of the Church. As a table cannot stand on less than three legs, so Christian fellowship cannot be supported on fewer than these three authorities. The way I see it, the scriptures have no basis for judging the priesthood on anything but ability to minister, which I believe our episcopates have at heart. Thus, to argue about whom they choose on the basis of such a veniality is silly and to break fellowship over it inexcusable.

[1John2_26]

MagusYanam, are you part of this Anglican Community?

I got this from Beliefnet.com where I post as well. If you are from this Anglican Church, I have some questions. The stuff in bold in the last paragraph I copied is interesting to say the least. It would lend evidence that Christians do have a "War on Christmas" and the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ right in their midst as it were.

A Bishop Speaks
John Shelby Spong

The Right Man for a New World
The new Archbishop of Canterbury must get rid of the Jesus who "died for our sins."

In late February the Church of England, the mother church of Anglicanism, will install a new leader. He is an interesting man and, in my opinion, the best of all possible choices to head the third largest group of Christians in the world. His name is Rowan Williams.

In many ways it was a daring appointment, and in this choice the entire Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church in the United States is a part, has decided to join the modern world. It represented a specific decision to reverse the dreadful and misguided reign of his predecessor, George Carey. Carey had positioned Anglicanism in the right-wing evangelical camp of Bible quoters.
Rowan Williams is only 52 and could serve in this position for almost two decades, giving him time to put his stamp upon the Church. He is a product of England's middle-class who has developed his intellectual skills at both Oxford and Cambridge. He was a theology professor at Oxford prior to being elected a bishop in Wales only a few years ago. Shortly thereafter his fellow bishops in Wales chose him to head the entire Anglican Church in Wales.

Williams has the academic skills to engage changing ideas in our culture. One hopes he will use these gifts to hammer out a Christianity that is both relevant and believable. Christianity desperately needs to escape the language of antiquity that has portrayed sacrifice and shed blood as signs of salvation.

The Jesus who "died for our sins" has simply got to go in our post-[b]Darwinian world. Christianity must move beyond a rescuing Jesus, who[/b] overcame a fall that never happened, even metaphorically, to restore human life to a status it has never had, even mythologically. Williams' task is nothing less than to articulate a new Christianity for a new world.

When you say:

At least Christians 'on the left' have not forgotten the divine grace that has been shown them and do not forget to show it as often as they have opportunity to share it with others. Given the sanctimonious rhetoric I hear so often from the religious right, I highly doubt their conception of 'grace' has much meaning anymore.

The right side of the Christian debate need to denounce as loudly the condition of the poor and needy and keep them in their spiritual eyes as much as the holiness of sex and marriage and life for the unborn. If the conservatives would use a broader bush to speak on biblical issues accurately. Especially heresy. That is in the church and is a main issue.

Also, it's a sad day for Christianity when people have no other demand on their pastor than that they use Scripture in context. Scripture should speak to the people in the pews but also should be considered with intellectual integrity. Priests and ministers should be qualified, which the Baptists (Falwell's group included) don't ensure by any visible means. Included should be a primary concern for the well-being of the congregation and the Church as a whole and a certain level of humility (neither of which I can find in Falwell's writings or public statements).

Pastors first role would be scripture in context. Everything else is put into a proper order from there. Some churches allow priests and ministers that do not qualify for even ushers, yet as you can see from Spong above, they are celebrities. If a Church is going to have leaders they should put them through more purity towards what would be scriptural.

As far as 'much to be challenged', in my experience conservatives fall short far more and on far more things than do liberals. Conservatives drag their feet on social and economic justice as were Jesus' primary concerns, and they drag their feet particularly concerning the Church's relationship to the world. Liberal parishes make few demands on their congregations - that has to change. Conservative ones make the wrong demands, and this also needs to change, and soon.

Both sides of the Christian body need to cast out the rift raft or demand they adhere to truth. I would hold both Spong and Williams (above) as not only heretics but purely evil in my views of Jesus. I would say the same of people that think Christians can wage war on anybody in Jesus' name. You have it correct that both the right and left pick and choose portions of scripture that more soothe their politics than serve Christ. The demands that need to be made in any kind of church should only apply to the believers and not people that have no willingness to be believers. The War on Christmas follows a perversion of truth anyway right?

[melikio]

I think the bottom line, is that Christians must be what they claim to be; also realize and accept that they have no real control over others.

The only influence they should promote and/or enjoy (concerning others), should stem from the effects of love as Jesus proved with His life.

No one is interested or motivated via forced "religion", and many religious people need to get that through their heads. There are wounded people all around, who need the freedom to choose Jesus or not. And every time a Christian FORCES or PUSHES religion upon someone, they are typically having the opposite effect they imagine.

I mean, how many people "identify" with religion/Christianity, but do not actually understand the meaning or passion behind things "Christian"? Let people be HUMAN; let them choose Christ or NOT. Not that we who believe do not care, but that we understand LOVE does not have its own way.

Today, I see so many "Christians" literally putting pressure (socially, morally and politically) upon others, to have things THEIR way. I understand it, but I see the problems with it as well. And I don't see a Jesus, that looks like the Jesus so many "conservative-Christians" seem to be "modeled" after. (Where is the LOVE, that this world needs so much of?) http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... version=51

Without LOVE, religion is all equal to "ZERO".

-Mel-

[1John2_26]

4Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud 5or rude. Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged. 6It is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. 7Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.

Love tolerates things that are offensive. Christians need to come to terms with people that are in the Church but are really worldly and wicked. Loving offensive and evil people may turn them from their choices of evil and have them see the light. Amazingly Pope Benedict is leading a wave of theologians defining scripture accurately and still allowing people a place within the walls of the church. His love for God and the New Testament may indeed define a new movement of people that put down their personal emotional opinions and read scripture as the arbiter of how Christians should live. You are right, Christians cannot force their ways on others, but as well, shouldn't be embracing evil to make people feel good.

These people at AU seem always to be opposing Christianity to be allowed a voice in public and do we ever see them argue over any other religion but what Christians believe? It may be just the press, but it seems that Barry Lynn goes out of his way to oppose Christianty. Christians are a tolerant and intelligent people, we see that Lynn is nothing less then an anti-Christian pretending that he is some political warrior. When using the New Testament without emotional cloudiness, we see that the biggest enemy to the church comes from within more than just without. There are more people calling themselves Christians today that support sickness and evil within the church like Lynn (who is some kind of Minister), should be fighting agaisnt evil things, but we see him fighting Christians. If he had sermons like Pope Benedict on the commercialism of Christmas, Lynn may or may not be a good guy, but his stance is something that should alarm Christians not draw them to his wierd stance.

[melikio]

You are right, Christians cannot force their ways on others, but as well, shouldn't be embracing evil to make people feel good.

Far too many good and "intellegent" Christians go beyond loving God, to really hating sinners. THAT needs to be addressed period.

It is getting ridiculous these days, that so many "believers" are doing a great deal more than using loving persuasion; literally seeking to "control" people. THAT NEVER WORKS OUT TO BE A HOLY THING. A cursory look at history, shows and supports exactly what I'm saying here.

I know how Christians are supposed to be toward OTHERS, despite their dedication to the Lord (which may be so intense, that it is nearly undefinable). Love toward God and to one's fellow man are not trivial things by any means, and I am certain that more of BOTH would help many a person's view of Christianity overall.

This latest era of in-your-face Christianity, is NOT achieving what so many imagine it is; "Christians" DO need to think it over in a contemporary sense. Some people who think they have a message, likely need to check themselves (at least a bit more).

-Mel-

[1John2_26]

You knd of wandered away from what I was talking about here. Love has nothing to do with what the AU stands for. They seem to be just about making sure Christians are put into a small very insignificant place. Christians should love their enemies but that of course is insulting to the people loved even though they are enemies, because they would know they have been called enemies. How many people do not want to hear what Christianty has to say anyway? Barry Lynn does not fool anyone anymore. His motives are easy to see.

[MagusYanam]

MagusYanam, are you part of this Anglican Community?

I got this from Beliefnet.com where I post as well. If you are from this Anglican Church, I have some questions. The stuff in bold in the last paragraph I copied is interesting to say the least. It would lend evidence that Christians do have a "War on Christmas" and the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ right in their midst as it were.

As a matter of fact, I am a member of the Anglican Communion (or am normally, it being more to my preference over winter vacation to attend my parents' Congregationalist church). Though the Anglican Communion comprises many churches headed ultimately by Archbishop Williams, the one I belong to is the Episcopal Church, which is different in organisation than the Church of England (though we use the same Book of Common Prayer).

As regards Bishop Spong, he doesn't seem to be declaring 'war on Christmas' since what is at issue here isn't the Nativity but the Crucifixion. Between myself and Bishop Spong, there are many points on which we disagree. By what I've read of the man, Bishop Spong is (and rightly so) critical of his own religion's tendencies toward complacency, though there are points where he tends to step outside what I think is correct. His attitude is that Christianity must make itself relevant or it will perish, and this is something he does not want to happen, though I believe that Christianity can stay relevant even with the doctrine of the fall, and I would recommend that he read Reinhold Niebuhr to see how this can work (Niebuhr coming the closest to the position that I hold regarding the creation story and the fall of man).

Niebuhr regarded the creation story as 'true myth' - that it served the purpose of teaching people that oftentimes pride can be our greatest weakness, and was the source of our loss of innocence. Pride in that we wish to 'become as gods', which leads us to usurp the authority of the supremely authoritative. Though his interpretation of the first sin is still a little problematic - some people are just naturally humble - his way of approaching the creation story is most definitely the way I would approach it.

His idea that the Jesus of substitutional atonement is irrelevant is a bit odd, though not unheard-of. It's also debatable whether or not it is heretical. The ideas of the mediaeval theologian Pierre Abelard came up with a different interpretation of the Crucifixion - the Lamb as a moral example for redemption. And this does have support in the Gospel. The Gospel is centred around the idea of self-sacrificial love and altruistic compassion, of which the sacrificial Lamb is the ultimate example. Jesus taught us to that what the life we hold onto we lose, and the life we let go of we regain - and then offered up his own life in proof of this. As we know, after three days he was resurrected and attained eternal glory. Jesus - through the Crucifixion and the Resurrection - is the Way to Eternal Life not by some payment that he laid down in death but by the example of the Lamb.

The substitutional atonement model seems relatively simplistic a description of Jesus' 'death for our sins', and has generated some rather thorny theological issues which the exemplary model doesn't seem to have.

The right side of the Christian debate need to denounce as loudly the condition of the poor and needy and keep them in their spiritual eyes as much as the holiness of sex and marriage and life for the unborn. If the conservatives would use a broader bush to speak on biblical issues accurately.

You won't get any argument from me here.

Especially heresy. That is in the church and is a main issue.

No argument here, either. Though what I am most apt to consider heresy in the Church is where the emphasis on community and fellowship is abandoned for emphasis on doctrinal compliance or pet political issues. We had a member of these forums (asked to leave because he was constantly uncivil) who was convinced that the Gospel was foremost a treatise on sexual conduct (which it certainly is not, by any reasonable standard).

When Jesus was asked what the most important rule we should live by was, he told his followers to 'love your neighbour' and 'love your God'. This is the reason why I think that fellowship and service - the loving of our neighbours - and the community of the Church in the love of God are the two most important moral values Christians ought to have.

Pastors first role would be scripture in context. Everything else is put into a proper order from there.

I disagree. What did Jesus say was the good shepherd would first do? It wasn't using Scripture in context, if I recall the parable correctly.

Some churches allow priests and ministers that do not qualify for even ushers, yet as you can see from Spong above, they are celebrities. If a Church is going to have leaders they should put them through more purity towards what would be scriptural.

...

Both sides of the Christian body need to cast out the rift raft or demand they adhere to truth. I would hold both Spong and Williams (above) as not only heretics but purely evil in my views of Jesus. I would say the same of people that think Christians can wage war on anybody in Jesus' name. You have it correct that both the right and left pick and choose portions of scripture that more soothe their politics than serve Christ. The demands that need to be made in any kind of church should only apply to the believers and not people that have no willingness to be believers. The War on Christmas follows a perversion of truth anyway right?

I have my problems with Bishop Spong's theology, but with his qualifications to the bishopric I have none. The man has a B.A. in philosophy, is a member of PhBK and took a D. Div. from Virginia Theological Seminary, was a devoted priest for 20 years and was duly appointed to the Bishopric of Newark in 1976. From what I've read, he took his vocation very seriously and was very concerned for the life of the Church. He knows much more about theology than I do, that much is clear. As to the Right Reverend Archbishop Williams? He was made a priest before he took his D. Div., which is unusual, but he seems to have all the education he needs, and he wouldn't have been nominated for the Archbishopric of either Wales or Canterbury if his vocation in Monmouth hadn't been the most serious and if he was negligent in tending to his flock.

'Purely evil'? You do realise that this is an unwarranted attack on these bishops' characters based only on a single excerpt of an admittedly heterodox view. I flatter myself that my church doesn't make a habit of putting purely evil people in the priesthood or further promoting them to the bishopric (which even the Catholics haven't done... yet). I wouldn't call it evil for Spong to give us a kick in our theological complacency, though I object to the hardness of the kick and the manner in which it was delivered. And it's not exactly clear what the good Archbishop's take on the Crucifixion is just from this, so it seems you're prejudging our leader here.

In fact, here is a more accurate allusion to the Archbishop's take on the Crucifixion:

For Williams the doctrine of the atonement focuses on the concept
of suffering pain. Jesus brings us life because he plumbs the
depth of human suffering: 'In every extremity, every horror and
pain, Jesus is accessible as the one who continued to make God's
loving presence wholly present in the depth of his own anguish
and abandonment.'(81) This is how Jesus holds the keys of hell: he
has dwelt there and still lives'.(82) Hell, a word which Williams uses
quite often, is thus explained in terms of dereliction,
abandonment, emptiness and poverty -- in short, in terms of
human suffering. This Jesus has himself entered into, and this he
has passed through and exhausted. Hence the cross deals not
only with us as victimizers, but also as victimized. Jesus exhausts
our victimizing by bearing human hatred. And he gives us hope
when we are victims by becoming a victim and by passing
through that victimization to life. This is our hope as victimizers,
that God has entered our world of victimization and has suffused
it with life.

Williams explains this in his discussion of T.S. Eliot's work: 'If
there is a God whose will is for the healing of men and women,
he can heal only by acting in the worldliness of the world, in and
through the vortex of loss and death. He must share the condition
of our sickness, our damnation, so as to bring his life and his
fullness into it.'(83) This life obviously comes into our midst with the
resurrection of Jesus. For Williams, the resurrection, like the
cross, is understood in terms of being rescued from victimization:
'In the resurrection we learn that victims are not lost: God takes
their side, their "perspective" becomes one with God's. God in
raising the reviled and executed Jesus pronounces that there is
an end to the perspective of the oppressor, and that history can
move beyond victimage and slaughter. There is a future, a voice
for the voiceless.'(84) Or in an earlier essay: 'God's blameless
servant is the victim of a paradigmatic act of violence and
rejection, but God "returns'' him to the world as the ultimate and
decisive symbol of undefeated compassion and inexhaustible
creative resource'.(85)

Sounds more like the good Archbishop does hold with atonement doctrine (at least in some form, though not one the Oxford-based Latimer Trust agrees with). As regards the demands that the churches make, I never said they should apply to anyone but the congregations of the churches, and of course I believe that the Church should not try to force its doctrines onto nonbelievers. It should love, respect and bless them, however - Jesus would have us do no less.