I know - I’ve heard the theology argued backwards and forwards. Some of it’s good, some of it’s less good. Some makes sense. Some I wish made more sense. And yes, I know, theology informs pastoral practice - but pastoral practice of course also informs theology (viz. Steve Chalke). That’s what for me made Matthew Grayshon’s recent Fulcrum article so honest - a pastoral response to a presenting need - theology not (necessarily) withstanding. When all the arguments and counter arguments have come and gone, and all the theologizing has been done, how do I, a parish priest in North West London, wanting the best for those in my care, respond pastorally, lovingly, with integrity, to two people in a committed, stable same sex relationship within my congregation? Are they included, but not quite fully accepted; ignored by a blind eye; invited to be celibate (not something I would wish to consider for myself); welcomed (providing they don't serve on the leadership team); informed that their relationship may not be God’s best intention for them - but, hey, welcome none-the-less; or accepted as they are, for who they are - encouraged to flourish and seek to realize their full humanity?  Sometimes this backwards-and-forwards theology is just plain confusing and charitable pragmatism seems the only realistic option... 

So please don’t offer a theological treatise in reply - unless it’s generous and genuinely liberating.

I too have (occasionally) found myself challenged about  'earth care' as a Gospel imperative. To emphasise our conviction that it is an absolute priority, our church has recently entered a partnership to establish a 'Forest School' within our church campus. How have others embraced 'earth care' within church and home life?

I too have (occasionally) found myself challenged about  'earth care' as a Gospel imperative. To emphasise our conviction that it is an absolute priority, our church has recently entered a partnership to establish a 'Forest School' within our church campus. How have others embraced 'earth care' within church and home life?

I too have (occasionally) found myself challenged about  'earth care' as a Gospel imperative. To emphasise our conviction that it is an absolute priority, our church has recently entered a partnership to establish a 'Forest School' within our church campus. How have others embraced 'earth care' within church and home life?

Peter - I do not believe that there is any integrity in legally endorsing a compromised authority to potential women bishops. That does not mean grace should not be extended to those, who in conscience, cannot accept the ministry or authority of women as priests or bishops. The Clause 5 amendment would seem to be about control (by men) and lacks both grace and trust. 

But Phil, is not urgent engagement with seeking peace in the Middle East an outworking of the call to repentance? Isn't this what it looks like in practice?

The 'Stations of the Cross' have now been put together as YouTube video together with the soundtrack of 'Gethsemane' by Andrew Lloyd Webber. 

At the end of his article (above) "Baroness Warsi, secularism and putting faith 'in the mixer', Jon Kuhrt quotes Episcopal priest Robert Capon challenging statement that:

“The most critical issue facing Christians is not abortion, pornography, the disintegration of the family, moral absolutes, MTV, drugs, racism, sexuality, or school prayer. The critical issue today is dullness. We have lost our astonishment. The Good News is no longer good news, it is okay news. Christianity is no longer life changing, it is life enhancing. Jesus doesn’t change people into wild-eyed radicals anymore; He changes them into “nice people.”. . . . What happened to radical Christianity, the un-nice brand of Christianity that turned the world upside-down? What happened to the category-smashing, life-threatening, anti-institutional gospel that spread through the first century like wildfire and was considered (by those in power) dangerous? What happened to the kind of Christians whose hearts were on fire, who had no fear, who spoke the truth no matter what the consequence, who made the world uncomfortable, who were willing to follow Jesus wherever He went?…….. I’m ready for a Christianity that “ruins” my life, that captures my heart and makes me uncomfortable. . . . I want a faith that is considered ‘dangerous’ by our predictable and monotonous culture.”

Is he right and if so, what are we going to do about it?

 

One in three 10-year-olds have stumbled upon and viewed pornography online*. 

In the Internet age, pornography is everywhere. It is more abundantly available and more prolifically consumed than ever before. While in the days of the newsagent’s top shelf and the XXX video shop there were barriers to access and regulation over content, now those barriers have been obliterated. Hardcore, unregulated sexual content is easily accessible anytime, anywhere, not just through home computers, but also through smartphones, video games systems and a range of other networked devices.

These are not just images of the naked body. These are uncensored pictures and videos of extreme sexual content. Available at any time, anywhere...to anyone.

And the statistics tell us that the biggest audience for this content is not that to which it is aimed. The single largest group of pornography consumers online are young people aged 12-17. That 81% of teenagers aged 14-16 reguarly access explicit images and videos online.

The Safetynet campaign, in partnership with Premier Radio, has been launched to ensure that practical steps are taken to protect children's innocence online. In essence, it is a strong call to Government to demand that by default, pornographic content is filtered out at source; to create a culture where those who wish to consume adult content are asked simply to opt-in to it. This simple change of policy could protect millions of children from early exposure to harmful sexual content.

If you want to lend your voice to this campaign, please visit www.safetynet.org.uk to sign an online petition.

*Source: Psychologies magazine, 2010

Tom Wright's critique of Jeffrey John's 'Thought for the Day' may be found here.

Worth just noting, that whilst Jeffrey John’s thoughts on the atonement are criticized by Tom Wright for engaging  naively with (an all too well rehearsed?) ‘caricature’ of the atonement, other views i.e. those emanating from the Oak Hill cohort are argued to be ‘sub-biblical’. With which party may the greatest potential for ‘un-biblical’ exegeses lie? 

Some humility needed perhaps...

Time, Nersen, to agree to disagree - which is fine.