What is in Kelvin's Head?

Last Year’s Predictions

31/12/2015

Each year I try to make some predictions at New Year. And each year I take a look back on Hogmanay to see how I did.

Here’s the rundown of how I did last year.

1 Those who voted YES in the Scottish Referendum will continue to behave as though they won. This may be unhelpful.
2 Those who voted NO in the Scottish Referendum will continue to behave as thought he referendum never happened. This may be unhelpful.

Well, I think I got these both right. I don’t see much sign that we’ve moved on from the referendum. Alan McManus’s magazine article was a breath of fresh air, but a rare one.

3 There will, I fear, be a Tory Prime Minister at the end of 2015.

Bang on with this one.

4 The Liberal Democrats will retain 10 – 14 seats in the House of Commons.

Well, I got the detail wrong – the Lib Dems did even worse in the General Election. When I made this prediction, most people were predicting a Lib Dem presence of 30 – 36, I think. My prediction of electoral catastrophe was just not taken seriously by those whom I know who should have taken it most seriously. I’m claiming this as a very near miss.

5 Nick Clegg will lose his seat and be Lord Clegg by the end of the year.

That’s a miss. Nick Clegg kept his seat if not his party.

6 The Labour Party will not be led by a Milliband by the end of the year.

Well I didn’t see Jeremy Corbyn coming but it was clear to me that Ed Milliband wasn’t going anywhere fast. Remember though that right up until the General Election, most of the polls predicted a hung parliament and uncertainty about who would be the PM.

7 The Church of Scotland will begin a new procedure under the barrier act to determine whether to accept ministers in same-sex partnerships who are married (ie not merely in Civil Partnerships).

Got this one bang on. Presbyteries have just voted by a narrow majority to send this back to the General Assembly for decision in May.

8 There will be legal victories for those seeking to extend Civil Partnerships to straight couples.

Well, we’ve not see as many legal victories as I expected. However, we’ve got a rather uncomfortable consultation just completed in Scotland in which the Scottish Government announced before consulting, that it didn’t want to do what a lot of people want them to do. I hope it sticks to its guns though and refuses to allow straight couples (or indeed future gay couples) Civil Partnerships.

9 Elizabeth Warren will become a household name.

Well, this one didn’t really come to pass. My fantasy of a dream Hilary/Elizabeth ticket doesn’t look like becoming a reality either.

10 (Some) straight liberals will lead the charge (such as it is) for (something less than) LGBT equality, (sometimes). Believe it or not, I’m excited by this and it is an improvement. [Remember that in 2011 I predicted that “No straight liberal in the church will feel the need to sacrifice anything at all for the gay friends they purport to support.” Things are changing a bit].

I’m claiming this one as a win. I could feel it all around me at Greenbelt but I’ve felt it in other places too. Increasingly, the things I’ve been fighting for are becoming mainstream. Deo Gratias.

11 Advances in e-learning in churches.

This one is a miss. I’ve dabbled a bit myself but there’s no real sign of denominations doing what they need to do if they are going to teach their people any better in the future than they have done in the past.

7 responses to “Revised Commenting Policy”

Darren Moore

05/09/2013

I try to stick to the policy, whilst commenting on it.

Most of it pretty understandable/standard. But,
1.using Scripture as a weapon/quoting isolated verses. To a point I agree, but surely as well as the whole has to be understood as part of the whole, the whole is made us by parts. People misuse the Bible by taking a verse out of context, but they can easily be shown up. Otherwise we can’t use the Bible at all, other than saying – read all of it – there’s something that relates to what I’m saying.

2. How does the disclaimer square with not being able to comment on PSA? Is that a given (i.e. that it’s nonsense)? Are other opinions banned? Like Roman Catholic views. Even if (highly unlikely) it’s a minority view, are other historically minority views banned (charismatics, baptists) and non-Christians and all liberals – as there views are pretty minority.

3. Likening gay people to murderers. Unpleasant I agree. Although if (if I may quote a verse – but not to prove a point), this a reference to the 2nd 1/2 of Romans 1, the list includes people who disobey parents and the greedy. Presumably they’re still fair game?

Just not sure this quite stacks. It’s why people ask, “What are you afraid of?” when it comes to PSA?

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  05/09/2013
  
  Darren – thank you for your interest. However. the question is not whether you think this commenting policy quite stacks but whether I do.
  
  Reply
John Sandeman

05/09/2013

Kelvin,
When reading about theories of the atonement, there is a real risk of continually reading things that have been said many times over – as you point out. But can I credit you with something reasonably original? “We’ve already established that like most Christian people I don’t believe in it.” I have never worked out how to determine the proportions of Christians who believe the various atonement theories. Is there some research out there?

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  06/09/2013
  
  Thanks John – I’m not aware of any research though I’d be interested in any there was. When I wrote that, I was thinking not simply of who believes what now but also of Christians through time. The history of these various ways of understanding the (or an) atonement is fairly well attested and it is clear that some have risen and fallen through time.
  
  My presumption is that most of the people in the great blocks of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches (both now and through history) don’t believe in penal substitution – or at least, don’t believe it in the same way that a classical evangelical might believe in it as doctrine which must be personally accepted in order to lead to individual salvation. However, as you rightly point out, who believes what may not be so simple.
  
  Reply
Darren Moore

07/09/2013

There are a few bits of research on this, but mostly from the context of PSA
E.g. Chapter 5 of “Pierced for our Transgressions”, by Jeffery, Ovey & Sach (IVP), which is a quite survey of theologians, east & west, a dozen of which are pre-reformation, starting with Justin Martyr.

Henri Blocher, “Biblical Metaphors of the atonement”, in the journal of the evangelical theological society, 47 (2004), pp629-645
“The divine substitution: The atonement in the Bible and history” by Shaw & Edwards (Day One).

I get the your blog, your rules. Just doesn’t sound like decent is welcome.

Reply
1. Darren Moore
  
  07/09/2013
  
  Bit of a PS,
  Robert Letham’s, “Through Western eyes”
  Looks at the differences & common ground with E-orthodoxy on lots of things, including salvation. Letham (Reformed), thinks there’s lots to get from the East re:-Trinity in worship, incarnational stuff, divination (rightly understood), but still holds that his “Reformed”
  
  Reply
2. Kelvin
  
  07/09/2013
  
  Well, Darren, I’ve found that there are quite a number of people who do want to meet and chat without the Atonement Thought Police stepping in to correct them all the time. In fact, though I expect you’ll be surprised to hear it, to those who don’t believe that particular doctrine, comments rather like your own can appear to be quite aggressive and verging on bullying.
  
  So, you may not feel welcome to behave exactly as you like here. You are not. And there’s a comminity of folk who like it that way.
  
  Reply

Last Year’s Predictions

7 responses to “Revised Commenting Policy”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Previous Posts

Three Best Ways to Support Equal Marriage

Same-Sex Marriage Consultation Responses

All the Livelong Day

Consultation on Civil Partnerships and Same-Sex Marriage