• Watching the House of Lords

    The internet is a wonderful thing and means you can watch all kinds of things you would never have been able to see in the past. Yesterday, I found myself watching the House of Lords discuss whether or not I was fully human.

    At least, that’s what it felt like to me.

    I’m a great believer in debate and understand why things need to be challenged and fought over and argued through. It is right and proper that parliamentary processes run their course. But can you imagine what it feels like for me to watch that being done over the Equal Marriage legislation. This week it is the Westminster legislation and soon it will be the Holyrood legislation.

    Once you’ve accepted that the right to marry a partner of your chosing without regard to gender is a human right, it is as though people are arguing over your very humanity.

    Some people go mad, of course – both victims and perpetrators.

    In many ways it would be easiest to turn off the stream from the House of Lords. It would be so much easier not to see Bishops from the Church of England saying such calculated and vile things about one.  The script that seems to be coming from them this week is “The church hasn’t been nice to gay people. Perhaps it should be nicer. But I’m still not going to support equality for gay people.”  What makes it so horrible is that it is done with knowledge aforethought.

    However, it is almost impossible not to watch it. It is a fascinating, almost sinister, watch.

    This argument is only going in one direction.

    This video from the Irish campaign for marriage equality still rings true at the moment though.

    [Memo to self: Don’t forget to ask every candidate in next General Election whether or not they are committed to removing the bishops from the House of Lords]

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?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

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

  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?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      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.

  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.

    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”

    2. Kelvin Avatar

      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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Previous Posts

  • Sermon 26 February 2006

    The gospel reading this morning (Mark 2:13-22) is all about where to eat. In order to get into the gospel reading this morning, perhaps we should imagine that Jesus has turned up in Bridge of Allan this morning, just as he used to turn up the villages and the towns around the sea of Galilee.…

  • Grown Up at last

    Just paid my car tax. This operation involved the following steps:Remove documents from "Car Tax File"Take them to Post Office with cheque bookPay TaxReturn Home with smug look on face and file documents and cheque book. I suppose that the smug look stems from the fact that I can remember oh so well the days when…

  • Church Times

    Not for the first time this month, I turn to the Church Times and find myself reading about myself. This time it is an article about blogging clerics by Simon Sarmiento who commits many Good Works at http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/I do regard blogging as a part of my work now. Amongst certain friends who had the same…

  • Welcome

    Welcome to the Blog Congregation, Fr David Campbell.