Comments: Church Times comment on Derby foster care case

Interesting line from the Church Times editorial: "the lack of investment by the Church in research and education has severely weakened its intellectual centre."

I fear that it has become significantly harder for intelligent people to identify with the C of E under this archiepiscopate, as a result of the leaderships's shying away from an intellectually honest or coherent approach to the gay issue.

Posted by Fr Mark at Friday, 4 March 2011 at 12:41pm GMT

"It is not a new requirement that the Church, or a section of it, marshall evidence to demonstrate that what it proposes or defends is for the general good. This is the day-to-day task of bishops in the House of Lords. What is new, perhaps, is the laziness of Christians when it comes to reason­ing their case...."

The same could be said of the "case" for the proposed Anglican Covenant.

Posted by Alan T Perry at Friday, 4 March 2011 at 1:51pm GMT

From the New York Times 3 days ago, obituary of Rev. Peter Gomes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/us/02gomes.html?_r=1&

“Religious fundamentalism is dangerous because it cannot accept ambiguity and diversity and is therefore inherently intolerant,” he declared in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times in 1992. “Such intolerance, in the name of virtue, is ruthless and uses political power to destroy what it cannot convert.”

In his 1996 best seller, “The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart,” Mr. Gomes urged believers to grasp the spirit, not the letter, of scriptural passages that he said had been misused to defend racism, anti-Semitism and sexism, and to attack homosexuality and abortion. He offered interpretations that he said transcended the narrow context of modern prejudices.

“The Bible alone is the most dangerous thing I can think of,” he told The Los Angeles Times. “You need an ongoing context and a community of interpretation to keep the Bible current and to keep yourself honest. Forget the thought that the Bible is an absolute pronouncement.”

Posted by Randal Oulton at Friday, 4 March 2011 at 8:00pm GMT

I'm surprised that David Starkey's blow for common sense didn't warrant a stop press on this site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctrua5c-AYU&feature=player_embedded

I look forward to the ruthless criticism of his position and wild speculation about his motives.

Posted by David Shepherd at Saturday, 5 March 2011 at 11:10am GMT

'A COUPLE’s views on homo­sexuality are relevant to whether or not they can foster children, the High Court ruled on Monday.'

That's a sloppy formulation. It's not their 'views'. Anybody can hold any views they like on this issue. What they can't do, within a fostering situation, is attempt to translate their 'views' into 'action'. If they could not themselves accept homosexuality but treated a homosexual child responsibly and lovingly and did not attempt to 'turn' him/her, there would be no problem. As far as I can see, there are lots of 'Evangelicals' who behave roughly in this way within the C of E. It's not ideal - it would be better if they did not hold such 'views' - but it is acceptable.

Posted by john at Saturday, 5 March 2011 at 1:40pm GMT

The difficulty, again, is whether it is reasonable to expect such a couple to refrain from expressing their views to the child.

It is an equally sloppy formulation to say that "views" cause no damage, and, as long as evangelicals aren't physically assaulting homosexuals, they're causing no harm.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Wednesday, 9 March 2011 at 6:39am GMT

The sloppiness is yours here, Mark Brunson. My formulation obviously went far beyond your minimalist 'not physically assaulting homosexuals'. See 'if they could not themselves accept homosexuality but treated a homosexual child responsibly and lovingly and did not attempt to 'turn' him/her, there would be no problem.' I am completely pro-gay. But it isn't the only game in town. If there are Evangelicals within the C of E (or within the Anglican Communion) who baulk at full theological acceptance of gay sexuality (because, let's be honest, the Bible isn't terribly good on this particular topic) but want to 'park it', or behave with complete kindness and charity to gay people in practice (and there are thousands of such people), we should keep terms with them.

Posted by john at Thursday, 10 March 2011 at 7:23pm GMT

John, I believe that to a degree you are not wrong in your argument. The only problem with evangelistic evangelicals is that they feel 'duty-bound' to proclaim their shibboleths. They are often under the impression that only they have the truth on moral questions, feeling it incumbent upon them to proclaim it 'in and out of season'.

In the case of the Johns, it seems that they wanted to have their opposition to gays justified by the law - in other words they wanted to have their views sanctioned. For what reason - other than to propagate them, in whatever way they felt necessary? And as their plea was made in the context of their application to become foster parents, one can only assume that they would claim it to be their responsibility to enforce their morality on their foster-children.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Friday, 11 March 2011 at 12:39am 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.