What is in Kelvin's Head?

RIP Jim Cotter

17/04/2014

In the middle of the busy days of Holy Week comes the news that Jim Cotter has died.

Jim was a poet-priest – someone for whom words were as important as breathing. He wrote prayers in which unicorns danced.

He was also I think the first out gay priest I ever met, coming to preach in St Andrews about 25 years ago. I met him too in his house in Sheffield. I know also that he spoke here in St Mary’s many years ago and must have been part of the story that has led us to be the congregation that we are.

Jim was talking about gay clergy being out and living in the open years before anyone else did. Indeed, some of the things I talk about which people still think are rather radical, Jim was talking about a generation or more before. He was a visionary and a prophet and suffered a lot in life because of it.

Many, many people will have copies of his night prayers sitting beside the bed. I used them last night and thought about how many people have so much to be grateful for because of Jim Cotter.

God be in my gut and in my feeling
God be in my bowels and in my forgiving
God be in my loins and in my swiving
God be in my lungs and in my breathing
God be in my heart and in my loving

God be in my skin and in my touching
God be in my flesh and in my yearning
God be in my blood and in my living
God be in my bones and in my dying
God be at my end and at my reviving

May he rest in peace now at last.

[AMAZONPRODUCTS asin=”1848251092″]

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

RIP Jim Cotter

7 responses to “Revised Commenting Policy”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Previous Posts

A reply to an Enquirer

Comment, comments, comments

Sermon Posted

We are our own Lambeth Conference