What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • Giving up marriage

    I was intrigued by the statement made to the Equal Opportunities Committee of the Scottish Parliament of someone representing the Church of Scotland. They seemed to suggest that if they don’t get their way in stopping same-sex marriage then they might stop conducting marriages altogether.

    BBC report here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24063468

    I think that it is interesting in that there are quite a lot of religious people who talk about getting out of the legal marriage business. It wouldn’t particularly trouble me if we had the same situation as they have in France whereby people get married at the town hall and come to church for a religious ceremony afterwards. I think they would end up just as married before God and state if we had that system in Scotland as they clearly do in France. However, that wholesale system doesn’t appear to be on the cards.

    I sometimes find myself wondering whether I will feel comfortable doing marriages (as opposed to weddings) at such a time as the law allows same-sex marriage but the Scottish Episcopal Church doesn’t. I don’t find it difficult to think that it would be reasonable to expect straight couples to go to the registry office and come to church for a service if that is what the Episcopal Church expects of a gay couple in similar circumstances. What’s good for the gander and the gander is surely good for the gander and the goose, as the old proverb would say.

    Anyway, well done to Bishop John Armes who was also speaking to that parliamentary committee this morning. Well done particularly for making it so clear that the Scottish Episcopal Church contains people who are strongly in favour of same-sex marriage as well as those who are not. It was just a little bit more helpful than hiding behind the “the church is made up of people who have a diversity of views” which is what we usually get.

    , , , ,

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

  • To the Kirk

    Spent last evening with the Ecumenical Relations Committee of the Glasgow Presbytery. They had asked me along to talk about The Usual Topic. It was a good evening with lots of questions and discussion. The Presbytery had just last week had a vote about whether or not ministers should be free to bless gay couples…

  • Psinging the Psalms

    Interlocutor: Provost, where has the thingy gone after the psalm? Me: What thingy? The doxology? Interlocutor: Yes the thingy that goes: “Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be world without end. Amen.” That thingy. The answer to…

  • The Truth Will Out

    It would seem that Bishop David has been away with the Youth of St Andrew’s Diocese. He makes the claim on his blog that he was snapped reading a copy of someone’s copy of Cosmo. Sure enough, a pic claiming to be the same appears on Fr David’s blog today. However…! Digital technology means that…

  • The BA Cross Story

    I’ve been fairly hushed about the story of the banning of the cross around the neck of the BA employee. Generally, as I’ve said before, I think that people should be allowed to wear what they like, but does that work in this case? In some ways I don’t think it does. Uniform is uniform.…