Saturday, 8 March 2014

opinion

David Emmott starts his new blog Campaign for Fair Rants with Becoming human.

David Walker writes for The Guardian The church has no choice but to act when faced with the reality of poverty.

Graham Kings writes for Fulcrum Life, Justice and Peace through Mission and Dialogue.

Ted Olsen writes for Christianity Today The Bible in the Original Geek: Inside the world of the new Bible coders—and how they will change the way you think about Scripture.

Richard Fidler of ABC has been in conversion with Diarmaid MacCulloch.

Jody Stowell asks Why are we so afraid of women bishops?

If God is love, then can God also be love, heat and passion? - Part 3 of the George Herbert series by Miranda Threlfall-Holmes in The Guardian.

Giles Fraser writes in The Guardian Secular Lent is a pale imitation of the real thing. I’ll have nothing to do with it.

Posted by Peter Owen on Saturday, 8 March 2014 at 11:00am GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Opinion
Comments

Ugh, these new tax rules about church organists seem like they may be a pain in the buttinsky in terms of paperwork: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/10671562/The-needless-bureaucracy-affecting-church-organists.html

Posted by: Randal Oulton on Sunday, 9 March 2014 at 2:10am GMT

And isn't it great to read the piece from Jody Stowell, once a Fulcrumite, who read the graffiti and moved on.

Great piece Jody!
Bile and prejudice dressed as theology!

It just wont do anymore to tell us
"The largest part of the leadership of the Christian Community is riddled with visceral bigotry, so we are with them!" Or words to that effect.
It no longer holds any credit.

Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Sunday, 9 March 2014 at 11:19pm GMT

I am sure Jody Stowell is quite correct in her assertions in relation to the ordination of women, and especially to the episcopate. The process of coming to the view that such ordinations are first possible, and second highly desirable is indeed likely to shake the world-views of those who have taken the position that was almost universally held about 50 years ago.
I wonder if she would agree that her arguments apply equally to the acceptance of GLBT people as being made in the image of God, and therefore expressions of God-given diversity. I have long wondered (as have others on this site and elsewhere)why this particular issue seems to generate even more heat, and even more rudeness, than the issue of the ordination of women. The best answer I can come up with is that it is world-changing in the way she describes.

Posted by: Edward Prebble on Monday, 10 March 2014 at 1:03am GMT

Edward Prebble, I don't know her exact views, but Jody Stowell did resign from Fulcrum over the line they took on LGBT people. I have no time for fence-sitters, but that resignation took a lot of guts, and looks more indicative of someone wrestling with the issue. I'd say she deserves a pass until she comes down on one side or another.

As for why gender and sexuality are treated differently, it's simple enough: sexism still carries more cost than homophobia; & some men have an instinctive disgust at (male) homosexuality. Christianity gives them license to dress that disgust up in the highfalutin language of hermeneutic and authority. Behind the gloss of junk theology lies plain ol' bigotry.

This is, thankfully, fast changing.

Posted by: James Byron on Monday, 10 March 2014 at 7:58am GMT

Jody Stowell writes:

'From the pool of people against women’s ordination, there were different responses to the women present.

Some were able to have polite, even warm conversation with me. On the other hand there was a little posse of people who, quite literally, couldn’t bear to share air space with me, it seemed. It was all they could do to answer questions that I asked them in an effort to start a conversation.

So I have come to the conclusion that this is not about theology: it’s pathology, it’s psychology….and it is just damn rude….but it is NOT theology.'

That's true of the 'little posse'. It isn't true of the majority. So the universalising 'conclusion' doesn't hold.

Proponents of WO (of whom I am one) need to argue better. Better still, both sides should stop justifying themselves and criticising the others and work for the harmonious implementation of the thoroughly satisfactory deal that has been struck.

Posted by: John on Monday, 10 March 2014 at 10:42am GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.