I’m firmly cone positive and this video goes some way to demonstrating why.
(For those out of town, see here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-24907190)
I’m firmly cone positive and this video goes some way to demonstrating why.
(For those out of town, see here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-24907190)
As one who grew up(?) in churches leaning toward the view “it’s a tough story for a tough world, how else would God be just?” in varying degrees, I agree the face-value-narrative understanding of the story is repellant.
One thing stood out for the first time during Sunday’s reading: the plurality in Abraham’s line – “…and we will return to you”. I’ve been idly wondering about that since.
It doesn’t make the story wholly acceptable as Abraham still ploughs on ever closer.
But if one’s goal is to find a “by faith, Abraham” in there, better to say it’s the prior confidence that things will somehow work out well (which I thought was how Hebrews was trying to define it), than to locate the commendable quality in violence (which, by rabbiting on about resurrection, Hebrews does).
In the absence of other clear & wholly mitigating contexts in which to place the story, certainly it’s simplest, easiest and probably best to file it under “that’s how they saw God back then” and move swiftly on.
Oofft.
I’m not sure where the energy came from for last night’s evensong. I was beyond speech, but somehow managed to sing the Rose responses as though I knew them. The choir belted through Dyson in D, one of the Vaughan Williams Five Mystical Songs and a glorious Howells Te Deum. +Idris reappeared to join us,…
Leave a Reply