There have been two interesting press pieces in the last few days. The first one relates to Bishop James Jones apologising for his opposition to the appointment of Jeffrey John as Bishop.
The second one is our local Bishop, who has been in the Manchester Evening News attacking the Body Worlds 4 exhibition by German anatomist Gunther von Hagens that is due to be an MoSI. He labeled it a 'body snatch' show.
What do people think?
14 comments:
Not having read his book, I would never the less think that the report regarding Bishop James I suggest is probably a little misleading (or at best unclear). The quote used suggested that he apologises for the WAY he objected to Jeffrey John not necessarily as the headline suggested for the fact that he objected.
Secondly as a conservative evangelical myself I would agree that same sex relationships are very valuable - but never the less, same sex sexual relationships are very much against the will of God. Unless I am mistaken, this is the line that Bishop James takes - there has not been a dramatic change in his theology.
I have written an article on my blog on how Evangelical Christians can remain faithful to Scripture and at the same time befriend practicing homosexuals and would welcome further debate on this.
Evangelical Christians will continue to throw gay people into the same theological bag as adulterers and, in my experience of mainstream evangelicalism, paedophiles.
When Christians talk about this, they (we?) often use language that underpins the essence of the evangelical argument: that gay people are inherently inferior to straight people. You couldn't imagine a "practising" heterosexual, could you?
As long as the church puts saving its own face above the continuing injustice to thousands of gay, lesbian and bisexual people, there will be no place for gay people in the church...
...except, that's not true, thanks to elements of the church, like Sanctus 1, which truly see Jesus in people and put all this harmful discrimination to one side.
Oh and I wouldn't touch the exbibition with a maypole, although I think it's perfectly fine if you like that kind of thing. Yeeeugh.
If I was a "practicing homosexual" I would actively resist being befriended by conservative evangelicals...
full chapter of James Jones'apology can be read here: http://www.liverpool.anglican.org/people/bishops/jamesspeeches/0712_Lambeth_essay.htm
Anonymous/Fat Roland: If you was a practicing homosexual - there is a sense in which I wouldn't blame you, if you didn't want to befriend someone who has a conservative evangelical understanding of Scripture. Too many of us sew hatred instead of the seeds of love!
Having now read the full chapter of James' apology (thanks Ben for providing me access to this) quite clearly he is stressing dialogue (I thought the more liberal end of the church are supposed to uphold this). I would invite you again to read my blog article on befriending homosexuals and enter into discussion.
I do have a number of friends who are practicing homosexuals and I would even go as far as saying that we share love for each other!
And now an Arch-Bishop who defends the idea of Sharia Law?????
In cases where there's no conflict between Sharia law and british law I don't see the problem. The Archbishop was basically saying our law should be prepared to bend a bit where there is currently conflict, in the interests of social cohesion.
In fact sharia courts already exist in the UK - there's absolutely nothing to stop two people getting together to sort out their problems outside the british court system. There's the issue of authority, of course, which is worth debating about, as are all things on this subject.
However I fear there's too much Daily Mail influence in the wider population for it to be a very productive debate, at the moment.
I wouldn't want anything much to do with anyone who talked about 'befriending' people from a group I was part of, as if I was a stray dog - I'm with Fat Roland on the language thing.
It sounded like Rowan Williams was suggesting something postive in making already-existing sharia councils more formal and accountable, in a similar manner to Jewish Beth Dims, where it is compatible with British law. Rather than suggesting we introduce polygamy and stoning people as a reasonable response, which is what some people seem to be trying to suggest he's advocating. I think there are some people who are hell-bent on misrepresenting every interesting thing he says...
Sarah
I understand what you are getting at, in terms of use of language, but how do I discuss this subject without the reference?
The only point I am trying to make is that it is possible for evangelicals to be friends with practicing homosexuals. How can I say it any other way???
I feel it is a shame that you 'wouldn't want anything much to do with (me)'!!
Depends.. are these practicing evangelicals?
The term 'practicing' used in that way is very loaded. It's pure evangelical doctrine.. Underlying it is the idea that one group of people is somehow inherently inferior to another, but they can redeem themselves by not 'practising'.
You wouldn't write 'it is possible for evangelicals to be friends with practicing women' would you? Of course not.
Tony/Sarah/Fat Roland/Anonymous
Once again, I try to understand where you are coming from on this.
Quite clearly Evangelical Christians believe that the Bible shows that God abhors the practice of homosexuality and therefore my reference to practicing homosexuals. Of course one wouldn't write about the possibility of befriending 'practicing women', there is not a practice of being woman, but there is a practice of homosexuality. Those with homosexual tendencies choose to either practice their sexuality or not (that is a fact). I would not object to anyone who uses the term practicing heterosexual.
It is you guys incidently that have used the inferences to such as 'stray dog','paedophiles'.
I would challenge you all though (and I know that I sometimes get this wrong myself!)to be graceful to those who have a different understanding of the Bible than you do. On my blog I have tried to challenge Evangelicals to be fundamental in love, as we are fundamental in our use of scripture.
It seems to me that liberals show that the only people that are not worth love and respect are those with evangelical viewpoints
I don't think it is a fact that there is a practice of homosexuality. I think most science accepts that many (if not all) gay people are gay from birth. You seem to be arguing that sexuality is only 'practiced' if acted upon, whereas I would suggest that sexuality is a fundamental part of identity, whether in an active sexual relationship or not.
I referred to 'stray dogs' because I think that's the impression your use of 'befriending'* gives of the sort of relationship that could be expected - one person reaching out to a lesser person or community - it has pretty patronising connotations. The trouble is that many evangelical christians see homosexuality as sinful whereas gay people see it as a fundamental part of who they are - it is hard to build a good relationship from that starting point.
Incidentally, I do have love and respect for many of my evangelical Christian friends, and respect them for holding views they have wrestled with and find difficult to hold at times. However, I am also painfully aware of the damage those views can cause to people - and that's why I challenge them.
However, I do apologise for saying I wouldn't want anything to do with you - I may reject your views but I wouldn't extend that to you as a person.
Thank you for your comment Sarah. Anyone who thinks of homosexuals as lesser in any way to themselves are far away from Christ's teaching. We are all sinners, with the potential of salvation and healing through the cross of Jesus. (I know that this comment too will not fully satisfy you).
Neil
Question Of Identity - the fact that you are trying to understand different people's take on this is so important. Not many people would bother.
The view that God dislikes gay activity represents the mainstream evangelical view - but that view is not necessarily representative of Christianity as a whole. And neither is mine. We are, thankfully, a broad church, but this means we need to be aware of the language we use.
Yes, I used the word 'paeodophile', but only because that is an attitude that I have faced before now from evangelicals. I would never have mentioned it otherwise.
Please be aware, QoI, that many people with more liberal beliefs have been seriously damaged by evangelical churches. (The experience does not often work the other way; evangelicals do not tend to get hurt by liberal churches to the same extent.)
This brooding dislike of evangelicals can be misguided, unfair, or unbiblical, but it is probably bourne of a place of terrible hurt.
It is hard to love your abuser.
But then, we must be graceful. Without that, we have nothing.
Post a Comment