What is in Kelvin's Head?

Statement on the fire at Notre Dame

15/04/2019

The fire at Notre Dame Cathedral is a tragedy not only for Paris and the people of France but for the world.

Those who know the building will be unable to see the pictures of the fire without feeling heartbroken.

So many different things that make up the building are priceless – the medieval roof, the woodwork, the organ, the stained glass, the relics. But this tragedy is more than the loss of them all. It is the loss of the heart of Paris, the loss of a place of pilgrimage and the loss of a place of romance.

Every day this week, Christians will be reflecting on the heartbreak of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, to whom Notre Dame was dedicated. Every day as we do so, we will be praying for the Paris its people as they face their own heartbreak.

Notre Dame means Our Lady. Notre Dame doesn’t just belong to Paris, it belongs to us all.

This was a building that is utterly associated with Paris. But it was an utterly priceless treasure for the world.

It was truly ours, and this tragedy is our tragedy.

Our Lady of Paris, pray for us and for all affected locally.

Our Lady of Paris, we pray for you.

62 responses to “You condemn it, Archbishop”

Rosemary Hannah

06/04/2014

I think the point could be made like this. We know that the Taliban dislike women and girls getting education. One of the reasons they say it scares them is the way some women behave in the West. They blame behaviours they do not like, promiscuity, public drunkenness, on women being educated.

I don’t agree. I do not think an education encourages one to be legless on a Friday night. But the fact is, that is how the Taliban see it, and they harm young women going to school. In fact, among others, they shot Malala Yousafzai.

Do you think that young women in our country should refrain from getting an education, so that the Taliban can see there is no link between Western excesses, and women being educated?

And if you do not think this, somebody tell me what the difference is?

Reply
Jimmy

07/04/2014

I’ve just listened to the radio phone in.
And I think what he said was an honest opinion that what the church in England does can have an effect on Christians around the world.
It is one of the reasons in his -no- box, but it is not a tenable reason.

Reply
Fr Steve

07/04/2014

Well said Kelvin.
As for Peter Ould’s latter comment
“When you write stuff like this, all you’re arguing is that you don’t want to listen to other people’s experiences and stories.”
(please note that I am using quotation marks…and making this observation in parentheses!)
Then I think we have all seen who does and does not listen to ‘other people’s experiences and stories’. And it is not the Very Rev’d Dean of Glasgow!

Reply
Richard

07/04/2014

Well said, Fr Steve. Following on the theme of not listening to others, JCF is absolutely right, of course.
It’s the absence of reason which leads to the not truly listening part of a discussion, however long the debate lasts. I sent a message over on Twitter yesterday to Mr O. asking him what he thought God thinks of bishops who wear mitres in church, covering the same point made by JCF. Still no reply.

Reply
Kelvin Holdsworth

07/04/2014

Many thanks to all those commenting above.

No further comments about the nature of homosexuality and no further comments about the nature of Peter Ould, please. There are other, better places online for that.

And please, no further comments where one single bible verse is thrown about without context as though it proves a point. That applies to those lobbing them in any direction.

The topic is, what the Archbishop said on LBC and what the implications of that conversation are.

Reply
Erika Baker

07/04/2014

If we’re talking about potential links I would also like to point out another possibility.
Lgbt people in Africa have told us that their churches have used the Archbishop’s stance in support for their own. “Look, even the Archbishop in a much more liberal church is not treating gay people as equals. He knows they’re morally inferior”.

Changing Attitude in Nigeria have begged the CoE for years to speak out clearly against homophobia and violence. They have been met with a deafening silence.

If my Nigerian friends are to be believed the terrible laws might not have been implemented if the CoE had been much firmer in condemning anti gay violence and legislation years and years ago, if it hadn’t tried to appease Archbishop Akinola by refusing to invite Gene Robinson to Lambeth etc. Instead, they have given him an air of respectability which he should never have had and which he used very cleverly at home to lay the foundations for the current situation.
Now it’s too late to do anything about it.

There is a very genuine possibility that appeasing violent behaviour will only ever result in more violence.

Reply
Richard

07/04/2014

Absolutely, Erica. That’s what I was referring to earlier, about history having a tendency to repeats its errors. It will, however, be difficult to assess the extent of the negative impact of Justin Welby’s comments both here and abroad.

On the issue of ABC’s comments, in case you haven’t seen this, here is a link to a California bishop in which he draws out some of the negativity and errors of ABC’s comments as he sees parallels between colonialism in USA and UK.

http://t.co/FXUPB0CuX8

Reply
Bernhard

07/04/2014

You are very generous with other people’s lives.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  07/04/2014
  
  I stand against murder and violence. I stand against murder and violence meted our in places of conflict in Africa, in places where kids get killed for being gay, in places where people are killed for their faith. I encourage my congregation to pray for peace and work to eliminate violence.
  
  I also know what it is like to enter a church next to someone against whom recent credible death threats have been made.
  
  I value life very highly.
  
  Reply