Fulcrum logo graphic
 | login
Fulcrum strapline graphic
   Feedback/Contact help icon printer icon
 home   news   articles   forum   links   my account 
thread index | create new thread | bloggers

Forum Thread
Homosexuality, Scripture and Church

The opinions expressed are the authors, and not necessarily those of the Fulcrum leadership team. Messages are subject to approval before they appear online.

You are not logged on and so have only read access to the forum.
Please Login, or Sign up for a free account so you can post replies and start new threads.

Messages (newest first): [Sort by Oldest first]
 Page 1/29 | First Page | Previous Page | Next Page | Last Page
 Posted by: Graham Kings Saturday 11 October 2008 - 12:00pm

Thanks, David, for the link to the book edited by Phil Groves. Andrew Goddard is now tutor in ethics at Trinity College, Bristol.
 Posted by: Dave Saturday 11 October 2008 - 11:31am

SPCK has recently published "The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality A resource to enable listening and dialogue", edited by Phil Groves. http://www.spck.org.uk/cat/show.php?9780281059638  

Andrew Goddard has written the introductions to the papers in the book. What is Andrew doing now? Both Fulcrum has his two websites indicate he is tutor of Ethics at Wycliffe Hall, although I thought he had not been teaching there for at least a year and all reference to him has been removed from the Wycliffe site? David
 Posted by: MattS Monday 14 July 2008 - 05:36pm

Oops, of course Tom Wright doesn't work for a secular university, he is the Bishop of Durham! Sorry!
 Posted by: MattS Monday 14 July 2008 - 04:59pm

Dear Pluralist, I think I disagree with the presupposition behind your comment, which I think is that if you believe in or respect biblical scholarship then you can't be an evangelical or believe in the authority of the bible. There are literally hundreds of biblical scholars throughout the world who are also evangelicals. If I limit myself only to British ones working in secular universities alone I can name (just off the top of my head) Howard Marshall, Richard Bauckham, James Dunn, N.T Wright, Simon Gathercole and Crispin Fletcher-Louis.

I'm generally a bit wary of theological liberals when they call on biblical scholarship in support of their causes. They are quite happy to do this when they think it backs them up, but when it doesn't they move the goalposts. (I'm not accusing you personally of this, of course).  
 Posted by: L Roberts Monday 14 July 2008 - 01:32pm

I am delighted to have my suspicons allayed. Thank you.
 Posted by: L Roberts Monday 14 July 2008 - 01:30pm

dear Matt, don't worry L Roberts is fine - I can't risk my full name in a public forum (alas). (I am sometimes known as "Iwan y Coed" (pr "Yoo-an")beyond cyber-space and you may wish to adopt Iwan or even Coed ("pr. "Koid"), if you'd rather. T'is shorter).)

I have tried a brief response -- basically I don't think the good bishop has abandoned the Bible's manifesto or its party.
 Posted by: L Roberts Monday 14 July 2008 - 01:12pm

How is this for a paraphrase of Rosemary and Matt ?

"True freedom   is to do as I say."

The bishop upholds the Bible and Christianity with every word and almost -it would seem -every breath.

Forgive me but I am not so keen on the word tradition (maybe I'm just  too evangelical), sharing as it does a root with betray. I fin it a rather catch-all term. Cf how it is used by different integrities of anglicans, let alone members of the RC denomination etc.....

 
 Posted by: pete hobson Monday 14 July 2008 - 12:03pm
Freedom of speech... Well the irony, of course, is that it was the lone protestor whose freedom of speech was curtailed on Sunday - by a whole congregation who didn't want to hear what he was saying. Hissing, slow handclap, organ strikes up a hymn. Not much space for minority voices in Putney then? Of course he could hardly have expected anything else, and we know it isn't generally 'good form' to heckle a sermon - but don't a lot of us spend a lot of time bemoaning the fact that the traditional sermon is almost the last example of public speech without any right to engage or reply? So it's probably not surprising that sometimes people engage in replying in such unhelpful ways! And I hardly think Gene Robinson's freedom of speech is being impeded. quite the reverse I'd think. Here's how one (sympathetic) blogger described his day yesterday: "Robinson had been talking from almost the moment he woke up that morning. Before arriving at the church at noon, he had done three interviews with the BBC. Two of those were radio conversations, one for the BBC World Service and the other for a national news feed. In between, he and his friend and ally Sir Ian McKellen sat for a conversation with Andrew Marr on his influential Sunday morning program. Once he hit the church, Robinson dove into the first of a dozen more interviews, this one with Rachel Zoll of the Associated Press. Over the next five hours he spoke with Robert Pigott of the BBC, ITN television, Sky TV, Channel 4 TV, Ruth Gledhill of the Times of London, Steve Daughty of the Daily Mail, Mary Jordan of the Washington Post, Solange DeSantis of Episcopal Life Media, a reporter from the Press Association and others."
 Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Monday 14 July 2008 - 09:20am

Well it all depends on whose opinion they have "consistently undermined" biblical and traditional beliefs - for example whether the views are consistent with scholarship or consistent with some declaration of a self-appointed group, for example, such as the silly view expressed at GAFCON that the Bible does not contradict itself from one cover to the other. In such variety has been, and will be reclaimed, the diversity of Anglican opinions.
 Posted by: MattS Monday 14 July 2008 - 08:36am

Dear L Roberts (Sorry, I don't know how to address you)

You suspicion about me is not true. I believe in freedom of speech, even when I disagree with what the speaker is saying. The example below with Gene Robinson's sermon is just an example of rudeness, which I don't happen to approve of.

In my opinion, you are confusing two different issues. Just as I would expect a Conservative MP who constantly supports Labour and undermines his own party to be disciplined, so I would also wish that clergy who consistently undermined the witness of the bible and Christian tradition (which they consented to at Ordination) to be pulled up on it. This is less to do with free speech than the nature of the organisation that you freely choose to belong to.

I think that Christians can expect to face (at least) economic persecution in this country in the medium term if the current trends continue. That is why all examples where freedom of moral conscience is upheld against the current dominating political ideology should be applauded.

Best Wishes,

Matt

 
 Posted by: Rosemary Monday 14 July 2008 - 01:17am

True freedom surely,  is the freedom to choose to obey.
 Posted by: L Roberts Sunday 13 July 2008 - 09:53pm

Another instance of religous freedom of speach :-

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7504472.stm
 Page 1/29 | First Page | Previous Page | Next Page | Last Page
you are not logged in