What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • Dedication

    We are marking Dedication Sunday this weekend. That is a Sunday for giving thanks for St Mary’s and rejoicing in the opportunity to build on what has been built before us.

    Over the month of October, I’ve been asking members of the congregation to give “Two Minutes for Stewardship” each week at the Offertory and this week will be the last one.

    One of the things that I learned directly from my travels in North America last year was to be more up-front about money in the congregation. I saw the Two Minutes for Stewardship idea over there and immediately knew that I wanted to invite people to do it here. Rather than it always being me who asks for money, it is a chance for members of the congregation to say something about the congregation and about how and why they give money and time to help build on what we are already thankful has been built before us.

    Those who have been doing the slots in the service have been brilliant at capturing something of the essence of St Mary’s whilst also talking about why and how they give.

    That will be one of the themes that we think about on Sunday. There’s some fabulous music scheduled too, particularly at Choral Evensong.

    I’ve heard a sense of excitement in what those doing the stewardship slots have talked about. A sense of fun too, which is all to the good because the bible bids us to give out of our bounty and with a sense of cheerfulness.

    So, hurrah for St Mary’s and for all those who have brought us to this point. And a big hurrah for those who have spoken each week in October about how much they love the place and why they think it is worth giving in order to build on what we already have.

     

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

  • Diocesan Synod

    Back now from today’s Diocesan Synod which was held in an Agricultural College in the middle of nowhere. It began with a description of the automatic milking of cows, which seems to have caught Fr Gadgetvicar’s imagination. It did not capture my interest, but then one man’s milk is an udder man’s poison as the…

  • What makes a listening process?

    There has been quite a lot of chatter that I am aware of, regarding the Changing Attitude Scotland Statement that was posted earlier in the week. It has provoked some interest from the world of journalism with regard to the link with the Church of Sweden, and the statement itself was featured in the Church…

  • Erratums

    Two things need correction from Magnificat Monthly that I handed out on Sunday morning. Firstly, the reference to the arrival of a Swedish Candelabra has caused pain and vexation to those of a classical education. It should have been a Swedish Candelabrum. My apologies. Secondly, the work that the choir will sing on Good Friday…

  • 4 March Statement

    Let us just pause for a moment or two and re-read the College of Bishops’ statement of 4 March 2005 – two years ago today.