« Ascension Day | Main | Church of Scotland General Assembly Tonight »

23 May 2009

Comments

Andrew T

Never mind, GV, I'm sure your loyal fans out there in blogosphere will soon assist you in providing a new crop of comments.

Just watched an interview with the Rev Randall of Aberdeen on BBC news where he ably put across the point that the present controversy in the CoS was not about picking on an individual, (indeed, the indvidual concerned had somewhat "thrown the guantlet down to the church"), but about the position of Scripture as the supreme standard of the Kirk. The interviewer came out with the ususal, trite comments about "inclusiveness" and "reaching out to the whole community" to which Mr Randall replied that all were welcome at public worship and that nobody was asked their sexual preferences and that holding to what Scripture teaches does not in any way impede evangelistic outreach. Then the interviewer went on to ask "But isn't Scripture open to interpretation?" to which he replied yes, but the teaching on homosexuality in the Bible was quite clear and it is not condoned any time it is mentioned. These are my brief recollections of a worthwhile bit of television. Hopefully it will be repeated for those who did not see it to view later on.

 ryan

Well, you can assist in that process by engaging more when people criticise your arguments, Andrew T. You'll note that, on this blog, it's the allegedly provocative who actually defend their position. Here's an interesting interview with Rev Rennie (begins page 4) :

http://www.onekirk.org/Resources/OneKirk_Journal_Spring09_Issue3.pdf

And I think that evangelicals should concede that liberals want inclusio n for theological reasons, not because they are bowing to "secular" pressure. I have no problem in conceding that David and others get a hard time because they are cleaving to what they perceive as Scriptural teaching. Yet liberals are caricatured as wanting to embrace a false gospel to fill the pews.

"homosexuality in the Bible was quite clear and it is not condoned any time it is mentioned. "

Curious how evangelicals believe that "gay" is an inappropriate label to map on to ancient texts (does Scripture say anything about sexual orientation per se?) whilst still believing that the word "homosexual" (invented in 1869) is the most accurate translation of Pauline terms like aresonkoitai.And I think most people accept, at some level, that Paul's ideas on what constitutes e.g. effeminacy are entirely cultural bound. Your average evangelical church is, for all its homophobia, typically full of guys who make Graham Norton look like Clint Eastwood.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

GadgetVicar serves with: