tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post7650955528524941151..comments2024-03-28T08:30:20.260+01:00Comments on The Ugley Vicar: Bishop James Jones and the challenge to unityAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-28161464494986468942010-03-11T22:02:23.290+01:002010-03-11T22:02:23.290+01:00I live in the Liverpool diocese, and when I was in...I live in the Liverpool diocese, and when I was involved in the Church, had quite considerable contact with Bishop James Jones.<br /><br />Undoubtedly, he has moved considerably on the question and he would acknowledge that himself.<br /><br />I think he could well reflect both the majority view in the CofE, and amongst the Bishops, but is leading the way. As an established church there is no other stance that the CofE can realistically take given the position of gay and lesbian people in UK law.<br /><br />Mike HomfrayMerseymikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07231364271812168188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-54828686402756612962010-03-08T20:44:42.400+01:002010-03-08T20:44:42.400+01:00David Baker - perhaps you might like to revisit th...David Baker - perhaps you might like to revisit the Fulcrum site (and review your sweeping generalisations) by reading Andrew Goddard's excellent article there. A good robust critique like the one here and peter Ould'sPhilippe de Parishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03195324894052629094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-12746435914346190212010-03-08T14:16:47.080+01:002010-03-08T14:16:47.080+01:00That bastion of reason, The Christian Institute, h...That bastion of reason, The Christian Institute, has almost as unhealthy interest in the subject of homosexuality as this blog; but its take on the subject is a little contradictory. e.g. In Aug 09 it reports that there is a reduction in the number of civil partnerships, concluding that the government got it wrong and that there is less demand civil partnerships and that there are far fewer homosexuals in the UK than the gov. estimated – barely 1% of the population. Yet in March a whiny article appears about Civil Partnerships being forced upon churches. Given the C.I. has already stated homosexuals are a tiny minority and civil partnerships are declining, you’d think they’d see the issue as irrelevant, but no, where there can be salaciousness there you will find the C.I.<br /><br />The C.I. example demonstrates that on occasion the Evangelical preoccupation with the subject of homosexuality is disproportionate to both its impact and importance in society. My knowledge of the Anglican Divines is sketchy, tho’ I seem to remember Richard Hooker suggested the foundations of Anglicanism should be Scripture, Reason and Tradition. Reason is certainly something that has been applied to many Scriptural requirements that even Evangelicals have been happy to mollify or ignore. Jesus is clear on his teaching about divorce, it is permissible only for adultery. Those who marry a divorcee are committing adultery (my Koine Greek is rusty, but I think this is rendered in the present continuous tense – i.e. ongoing throughout the re-marriage). Yet we see divorce in all churches and remarriage is common. Reason has been applied to this problem, reason has overcome the requirements of Scripture. Likewise, few Christians have any scruples about receiving interest on their bank deposits, despite the fact usury is prohibited in Scripture – but lo, reason has been applied and usury re-defined and we’re all richer (literally) for its application. Few women wear hats in church and refrain from wearing make-up and jewellery; despite Paul’s instructions. Woman even talk in church and not many would unconditionally ‘obey’ their male masters – or consider men to be superior. Reason has again overcome this requirement. Such a use of reason has not been applied to the homosexual; hence one has to ask why?<br /><br />The most likely answer, is that Genesis gives a clear template for human sexuality in the persons of Adam and Eve – good old heterosexual marriage. Of course this is human sexuality before The Fall. Here in the present day, sundered from a Mesopotamian creation myth, we’re stuck with the fact some people are just homosexual. As Desmond Tutu so wisely notes, it is doubtful any right minded person would choose this state, but they’re stuck with it nevertheless. They have needs, wants, desires – what are they to do? Take up a hobby – or graduate to the loving bosom of the Church? Where they will be a second class citizens, watched, scrutinised and patronised. Obviously much of this is not intentional, but will take place nevertheless. Or perhaps they can be afforded the same reason their heterosexual brethren liberally apply to themselves when it suits? But no, this does not happen because the majority of any congregation is heterosexual and it would impact upon the majority of the congregation if a conservative reading of Scripture were retained concerning women’s role or divorce etc. Whereas maintaining a conservative stance on homosexuality affects only a tiny percentage and there is considerable symbolic capital from the use of this scapegoat minority; it is a way of being morally upright without the inconvenience and burden of that morality falling on the majority of the congregation’s shoulders. Moreover it is a virtuous way of defending age old prejudices and bigotry.<br /><br />‘The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this’ [homosexual?] Lk 18:11<br /><br />Things don’t change much, where religion is concerned do they?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-54054497031692668742010-03-07T13:09:46.967+01:002010-03-07T13:09:46.967+01:00There is another good response to James Jones at
...There is another good response to James Jones at <br /><br />http://www.peter-ould.net/2010/03/06/why-james-jones-is-wrong<br /><br />Best wishes,<br />David BakerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-73604190582366851122010-03-07T09:52:24.753+01:002010-03-07T09:52:24.753+01:00I should add that it's a long time since I loo...I should add that it's a long time since I looked at the 'Fulcrum' website - I glanced at it this morning to see if they had picked up on the Jones farrago but quickly decided I should give it up for Lent.<br />'open evangelical' contineus to morph relentlessly into 'post-evangelical' into sentimental universalism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-23422553439566607442010-03-07T08:56:00.315+01:002010-03-07T08:56:00.315+01:00James Jones shows exactly where the 'open evan...James Jones shows exactly where the 'open evangelical' position today ends up: in embracing liberalism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com