IN your issue of October 16 Auberon Waugh reported Lord Soper as saying: "Jesus Christ was a revolutionary, concerned to alter society. That is why they crucified him."
Previously he had dismissed the idea that Our Lord was only concerned to "develop personal spiritual piety." Later. "he thought that the Kingdom of God (Matt. vi. 33) which we must all seek first was the description of an earthly kingdom or at any rate an earthly society."
When Lord Soper calls Our Lord a revolutionary, what kind of a revolutionary does he mean? Social? Moral? Religious? Political?
Does Lord Soper really want US to believe that. Our Lord was caught in the act of trying to found a new, independent, earthly kingdom somewhere on this planet? If so, did he succeed in founding it'? If not, was it successfully founded later? If so, where and for how long did it exist? Does it still exist?
find it hard to swallow what seem to be Lord Soper's ideas. First, I remember the New Testament's reporting Our Lord as telling Pilate, briefly and clearly: "My kingdom is not of this world." He, then, did not envisage it as an earthly kingdom.
Secondly, if Our Lord was only man, it is possible that he might have been an unsuccessful, political revolutionary. However, I believe that Our Lord was God, equal to God the Father. as well as man. I cannot, therefore, conceive of an omniscient. omnipotent, political revolutionary failing in his design to found an earthly kingdom, nor can I conceive of such a kingdom, once founded, being invisible today.
1 do, however, agree with Lord Soper that God's Kingdom is not something which was to start at some time in the future. Our Lord certainly started it and it certainly exists in this world today and will exist here till the end of time. We intact all seek for it, but we shall not find it in any earthly kingdom.
Why do Lord Soper, Dorothy Sayers and others try to read a political significance into Out Lord's crucifixion? Where in the New Testament is there any evidence of a political connection with Our Lord's words or actions?
Why not content ourselves with the simple faith that the Second Person of the Trinity otnnisciently and voluntarily became man to die as a more than adequate sacrifice for the Redemption of all mankind? IV. D. Farrell London, S.E.
DECISION OF FR.
IT was with great sorrow that I read in your paper of Fr. florrelli's decision to leave the priesthood. My surprise that no comment on this decision has so far appeared in your paper has prompted me to write this letter, much as I regret any embarrassment that may be caused Fr. Borrelli.
I am sure that I am not alone among priests in very different circumstances to his own who have nevertheless found great inspiration in their priesthood from Fr. Borrelli's example. I am sure that his example was also an inspiration to many lay people.
To Me Fr. Borrelli personified Christian priestly dedication to the most needy. His decision to leave the priesthood seems to me to amount to a declaration from him that such a dedicated service is impossible for a priest.
He would seem to see the priest as only an official functionary, more involved in the establishment by reason of his priesthood than in the service of mankind.
Fr. Borrelli has been an inspiration to me to oppose any such view of the priesthood, and I thought that in his own way he was working to dispel such a view of the priesthood In all humility, I feel Fr. Borrelli owes an explanation to those who have respected him so deeply because of what they accepted as his work as a Christian priest.
(Fr.) Geoffrey Pye Billericay, Essex.