Sunday, 18 April 2004

St Albans in the news

The BBC radio programme Sunday carries a 9.5 minute feature on the rumours about a new Dean of St Albans. Listen here with Real Audio. Interviews with people in St Albans, and also with David Banting, Colin Coward, and Kendall Harmon.
And in a separate radio interview the matter is discussed with Andrew Carey.

There is also material from St Albans in Saturday afternoon’s BBC Radio 4 PM news programme but this link won’t last beyond Monday afternoon. The segment starts about 20 minutes into the programme, and runs about 4 minutes.

The Independent also visited St Albans and reports Hostility disappears as gay canon is appointed Dean of St Albans. Archive copy of this available here.

Whereas the Telegraph thinks Fury as Church appoints gay canon new dean of St Albans. They only visited St Albans by telephone.

The Observer has No 10 drive to give gay priest top job.

“Anglican Mainstream”, which was originally formed to oppose the appointment of Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading, has issued this statement. Note that the signatories include a leader of Reform.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Sunday, 18 April 2004 at 11:13 AM GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: St Albans

“Anglican Mainstream”, which was originally formed to oppose the appointment of Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading…

Hmmm…Anglican “Mainstream” - reminds me of an organization here in the U.S. who called themselves “Episcopalians United.” (now “Anglicans United”). They were named “the biggest and often the most vocal of the anti-progressive right wing of the Episcopal Church in terms of wealth, power, influence, longevity and unabashed homophobia” in an article on Louie Crew’s website.

There was nothing “uniting” about them. Like the AAC, they exist to encourage schism in the ECUSA. The continued use of double-speak words like “mainstream” and “united” by these groups would make the characters in George Orwell’s 1984 proud…

Posted by: David Huff at April 19, 2004 02:04 AM

Please help me - I’m new to Christianity and I am confused. Why does the Christian main text book (The Holy Bible) say one thing and some its so-called followers say another, e.g the question of homosexual relationships? Surely if you are a Tory you wouldn’t join the Labour party, would you? Or, are the Bible’s teachings now out of date and no longer relevant? Where can I find the truth. I respectfully ask if you could help clear up my confusion. May God bless you. From a seeker of the truth.

Posted by: A Seeker at April 19, 2004 08:27 PM

Some of us, after reading the Bible and prayerfully reflecting on what it says there, believe that Scripture actually says nothing at all about homosexual relationships. It is extremely anachronistic to even ask the question because the concept of homosexual orientation is a historically recent one. You wouldn’t ask what the Bible says about evolution or general relativity because these concepts were unheard of at the the time.

One of the principles of modern biblical scholarship is that the text has to make sense to the people who first heard it. It can not comment on concepts unknown to them because there is no context for any such discussion.

Some of us believe that Jesus teaches us to go beyond the rule-based theology of the Hebrew Scripture to a more principle based theology of the Christian Scriptures. The principles of loving one another, loving our enemy, helping the widows and orphans, etc. are intended to give us the tools necessary to make correct moral choices in circumstances where the cultural limitations of the text could not address.

To get back to your question. The text needs interpretation to be understood by us today. Reasonable Christians can and do discagree about how to interpret specific passages.

Posted by: Roy Murphy at April 20, 2004 06:49 PM

More lovely jobs for the boys, nice houses and nifty titles. The girls are yet again Left Behind.

Posted by: katie at April 20, 2004 06:58 PM

Anyone who is serious about investigating the question of the proper Christian position on homosexual conduct should read Robert Gagnon’s book Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Prof. Gagnon is a Professor of New Testament at Pittsburg Theological Seminary. Prof. Gagnon is a true scholar of the biblical eras, he of course is conversant with the original languages of all of the texts. He prepares a meticulously detailed, thorough and extremely well-documented analysis of Christian thought on homosexual conduct. His analysis demolishes arguments that the Bible actually supports homosexual conduct or that the Biblical writers of any era only condemned abusive or prostitutive homosexual conduct.
The idea that somehow the ancients knew less about “sexual orientation” than we do is nonsense.
The term “sexual orientation” is a conclusion searching for scientific support. There have been only a few sketchy and scientifically questionable “studies” supporting the idea of a permanent sexual orientation. The gay movement is seeking acceptance from society’s most conservative sector,
:the Christian churchs. If they can obtain acceptance there, they can use it to acquire acceptance in civil societies. This is entirely political and religious not spiritual.
The entire ethos behind Christianity is that our greatest duty is service to God. Expressing our sexuality is priority number 10 or 11. Homosexuals make expressing their sexuality virtually the first value in their lives. Not only must they be permitted to express their sexuality, they DEFINE themselves by their sexuality and they insist that all others bow to their sexuality. Christians have higher values than getting pleasure form their sex organs. Politically active homosexuals seem to build their lives around it. A mistake for anyone.

Posted by: Athena at April 21, 2004 07:40 PM

Your discussion about homosexuals as a group reveals that you don’t know many as individuals. One can identify oneself merely by noting a characteristic one posesses which others do not. “I am an accountant” or “I am female” are identifications. Homosexuals identify themselves in their sexual orientation — whom the find attractive. As such, there is no moral issue in the question of identification at all.
The moral issue arises when the question of “What are you going to choose to do about that identity?” is asked. The traditional answer has been to obstain from all sexual contact. But other possible choices have arisen. The choice of living in a lifelong, monogamous relationship has been raised and it can not be summarially dismissed.
Among the gay couples I’ve personally known, I’ve seen powerful examples of faithfulness, companionship and love. These are relationships which share the qualities of love expounded in First Corinthians chapter 13.
I’ve personally witnessed love and caring by one member of such a partnership to another which I can only characterize by quoting the Gospel of St. John: “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”
No texts from Trinity Seminary can convince me that something I have personally seen is other than as I have seen it. I can do no other but to be a witness to the presence of Christ in the lives of many of my gay friends.
You might as well try to convince me that the sun revolves around the Earth.

Posted by: Roy Murphy at April 23, 2004 04:56 PM