What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • Sunday Trading and the Churches

    Dear the Churches of England

    If you campaign against Sunday trading you are going to seem to the People of England to be as bad as you are. Campaign instead for the rights of shop workers of all religions who work at all times and the People of England might be more convinced. If you take on the Sunday trading thing you are going to lose anyway.

    Here in Scotland things have been much more liberal for a long time. We did have quite strict liquor laws which meant you couldn’t buy booze on a Sunday morning anywhere. This meant you couldn’t buy an emergency bottle of wine for communion on a Sunday morning in case it led to drunkenness, which always seemed to me to be a little odd. Even this law has been relaxed now.

    Seriously – the fight against Sunday trading isn’t one that churches can win and look sensible or fair. Please don’t make the rest of us look foolish.

    Remember the Sabbath day and what it was about and keep what it was about holy. It was about making sure workers got rest. It was about making sure there was time for leisure. It was about making sure that there were opportunities for worship. Churches should campaign for all those things. In multicultural Britain these things do not coalesce any more in the idea of one shared day off a week which is inevitably on a Sunday.

    Dear churches of England and the Church of England in particular – pick your battles wisely.

    Thank you for your attention.
    KELVIN

7 responses to “Revised Commenting Policy”

  1. Darren Moore Avatar
    Darren Moore

    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 Avatar
      Kelvin

      Darren – thank you for your interest. However. the question is not whether you think this commenting policy quite stacks but whether I do.

      Reply
  2. John Sandeman Avatar
    John Sandeman

    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 Avatar
      Kelvin

      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
  3. Darren Moore Avatar
    Darren Moore

    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 Avatar
      Darren Moore

      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 Avatar
      Kelvin

      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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Prayers ascending

    Prayers ascending from Thurible Towers today for the Diocese of Brechin as the Electoral Synod there meets this evening to choose a new bishop. Episcopacy is a funny business. We seem to be pretty much convinced in the Scottish Episcopal Church that we want bishops but I suspect that what we want from the Episcopacy…

  • Lords’ Reform and the C of E Bishops

    Oh, who will rid us of these troublesome bishops? The first sign of the shape of proposals to reform the House of Lords has just been published and disappointingly seems to advocate retaining a privileged position for Church of England Bishops in the House of Lords. It does suggest dropping the number from 26 to…

  • Things people are searching for

    The following search terms have recently led people to land at this blog. So happy to be of service. Better well hung than ill wed The Bearded Nun Gay ministers in the Church of Scotland Mothers’ Union Homophobia O my people, what have I done to you Mission Implausible

  • Presbyterians move to openly ordain gay clergy

    Exciting news coming in this morning that Amendment 10A has now been passed by 87 presbyteries, which was the threshold required in order to enact it. The consequence of this is that there will no longer be a bar on LGBT presbyterians being ordained. More details over here.