Readers may wonder what I find in common between homosexuality and divorce, except that I can loosely categorise them under “gender issues”. This is nothing to do with the ending of gay marriages or “civil partnerships”. But it is all about how a proper understanding of the biblical teaching on divorce, which I discussed here recently, may also be helpful in finding a Christian approach to homosexuality. Here I take further one of the points which I outlined in my post about Bishop Gene Robinson.
Paul Trathen on the Atonement
Paul Trathen is the Anglican vicar at whose church, about ten miles from my home, I went to a gig by Tim Chesterton, which I blogged about before. Paul, a rather occasional blogger, has now entered the atonement debate by contributing quite a long essay. In this he reviews three different books about the atonement. Pierced for Our Transgressions, of which we have heard so much here, and even more on Adrian’s blog, is not one of them. One reason for this is that Paul’s essay is probably not as new as this book. But it may also be that from Paul’s perspective outside the rather narrow confines of evangelicalism Pierced for Our Transgressions
looks a much less significant book than Adrian and some others want to consider it.
Has God stopped allowing divorce?
In my post about a gay bishop, I wrote:
God, through Moses, allowed divorce, which was less than his ideal for marriage, because people’s hearts were hard (Mark 10:2-9). Perhaps by analogy he would accept same sex marriage, for those whose “hearts are hard” and cannot accept his ideal, at least as better than gay or lesbian couples living together outside any kind of formalised relationship.
This second sentence is of course a highly controversial suggestion (which I am not discussing in this post). I didn’t expect the first sentence of this quotation to be controversial. But in a comment on this Jeremy Pierce has written:
One difficulty with the Moses argument is that Jesus seems to be saying that God allowed it under Moses but isn’t allowing it anymore. At least that’s how I’ve usually taken it.
Well, I suppose I have come across this kind of interpretation before. For it must underlie the traditional absolute prohibition of divorce in churches and in so-called Christian countries – a tradition which is very much in retreat now, although the Roman Catholic church continues to take quite a strict line on divorce.
But does this interpretation of Mark 10:2-12, and the parallel passage in Matthew 19:3-9 (compare also Matthew 5:31-32), stand up to detailed scrutiny? I don’t think so.
Facing up to Facebook
Not long ago I thought that Facebook was a toy application for kids, or at least for students. But it seems to be gaining in popularity even with serious and not so young bloggers like my old friends Eddie Arthur (did I call him serious?) and David Couchman, not to mention younger bloggers like Dave Walker of the Cartoon Blog.
And then last week, at the Fusion service at my church, mainly for youth, the young preacher was saying that we should not give God limited access to our selves, as on Facebook we can give our not so good friends limited access to our profiles, but we should give God unlimited access to our lives. Afterwards he told me that 90% of the congregation were regular users of Facebook and so would understand his analogy. Well, I suspect he was exaggerating: I know of at least three others who were at that service and not on Facebook, and the congregation was under 40. But I took his point.
And then yesterday I read somewhere that “only 2%” of pensioners use sites like Facebook. Well, if even pensioners are starting to use it, perhaps I should before I become one! Not to mention what Dave Walker wrote:
if you are in inside it is all very well, but outside there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.
So yesterday I signed up. If any of my blogging friends would like to become my Facebook friends as well, send me an invitation for peter AT qaya DOT org, or send me your e-mail by e-mail to that address or in a comment. But, unless I know you well, and because of the well known security concerns, I don’t guarantee to give you the same unlimited access to me that I am (in principle) giving to God.
Christian lending and the uglification of Ugley
John Richardson caught my attention with a post on The Debt Disaster, mainly because in his introduction he quoted Psalm 15:5 and highlighted the words “without charging interest”. The highlighting was in fact a link to an older post which further linked to an essay which John wrote called Losing Interest, where he argues from the Bible and from Luther that it is wrong for Christians to accept interest. I commented on the debt disaster post, and John responded quickly with a new post about The wrongs of loans, in which he appeals additionally, but inconclusively, to CS Lewis.
Now I entirely agree with John that irresponsible lending and borrowing have got out of hand. Many people who were not especially poor have fallen into a poverty trap by taking out loans larger than they can afford to repay, in many cases to buy things they didn’t need, but in others to buy the bare necessities of life such as houses to live in.
But it seems to me that the steps which John proposes for solving this problem are neither soundly biblically based nor effective.
Wife beating
For some reason which neither Joe Carter nor I can understand I cannot access the blog Evangelical Outpost; I always receive the following error message, from the home page and from any individual post:
Forbidden
You don’t have permission to access / on this server.Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache/1.3.37 Server at www.evangelicaloutpost.com Port 80
Anyone know why? Anyone else get the same response?
But thanks to Eddie of Kouya Chronicle I was able to read the main part of this post about being critical of others’ theology etc. Actually at least the part Eddie quotes seems to be taken from this 2005 post, for which I found a Google cache.
Maybe I can at times be a bit of what Anthony Bradley is said to call a “wife beater”. Perhaps Lingamish feels a bit that I have been beating him. He is not my wife, of course! (Nor is he my gay “civil partner” – I don’t have one, or a wife.) In my defence I can say that the view I beat him about was “heretical or likely to lead someone away from salvation”, and so I can claim to be justified in fighting tooth and nail about that. But on lesser matters, just like Joe Carter,
I find that I just don’t have the stomach for those old arguments anymore. I’m still willing to discuss doctrinal differences. But now I’m less sure that I’m standing on the right side of scripture.
In The Beginning, part 1
In the beginning God created the Point. The Point was tiny. It was not quite a mathematical point. But in each of its ten or more dimensions it was wrapped up so tightly that its size1 was far more than as much smaller than an atom as an atom is smaller than the Solar System.
There was not nothing outside the Point, for there was no outside the Point for nothing to be in. There was just the Point, and the God who created it.
The Point was pulsating with energy, pregnant with possibility, filled with all the intentions of its Creator. Its tiny size could not hold the energy in. It exploded out in a Big Bang, unwrapping three of its dimensions into infinity, becoming the Universe. Energy streamed apart, not out of the Universe for there was no outside, but expanding with the Universe as it became infinite Space.
The Universe began to expand faster and faster. It doubled in size, if you can say that of something which is infinite, perhaps a few hundred times, perhaps even trillions of times, no one knows except God. All this happened in a time so short that it cannot be described in mere words2.
For some reason, only God the Creator really knows why, this runaway inflation came to a halt. The Universe continued to expand, but now at a leisurely pace. But still it was so hot, so filled with the energy of God, that no matter could form. All was formless and void. There were no atoms, not even subatomic particles, until the expansion had cooled the universe trillions of times more. Compared with the initial inflation, this gradual expansion took immeasurable ages, but in the units we understand it took perhaps just a millionth of a second to form protons and neutrons, the building blocks of matter as we know it.
The Universe continued to expand and to cool, but it was now changing much more slowly. For millennia it was filled with a plasma, hydrogen and helium nuclei in a sea of loose electrons, like the outer layers of the Sun today. “Suddenly, a hundred thousand years into its unwinding, the skies clear as though on a cloudy summer’s day”, as Peter Atkins puts it3, for, with the temperature now down to ten thousand degrees, electrons stick to nuclei and atoms form. As God said “Let there be light”, the Universe was filled with light, like the light of the Sun today.
Continued in part 2.
NOTE: The above is based on the best ideas of modern physics, as clearly described for popular audiences (in secular terms) in “Galileo’s Finger” by Peter Atkins, Oxford 2003. But some of the details are speculative.
1. I.e. the Planck length, about 10-35 metres; compare atoms, about 10-10 m, and the diameter of the Solar System, about 1012 m.
2. About 10-32 seconds.
3. p.252.
Cyber-psalm satisfies
Lingamish has posted a new version of the cyber-psalm which I had an issue with yesterday. This is a definite improvement, with the problematic word “rejected” dropped. I have no theological objections to the new version of these few lines:
And you left him there
Out of love for us,
The people living in darkness.
But there is an ambiguity which I don’t think was intended. The collocation of “left” with “there” gives a different meaning to “left”, suggesting that Jesus was allowed to remain on the cross indefinitely, but not foregrounding the fact that God left Jesus. The meaning would be better without “there”, or as “And there you left him”. I cannot comment on which makes the best poetry; I leave such things to English major Lingamish.
Thoughts about a gay bishop
Ruth Gledhill of The Times (London) has published the full text of an interview with the controversial gay bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA, Gene Robinson. The interview is in fact by Andrew Collier from Scotland, and is the basis of an article in The Scotsman which John Richardson calls “Quite possibly the most stupid piece of journalism yet about Gene Robinson”. John’s comment is justified because of editorial gems like
Yet millions of Christians the world over are convinced – absolutely assured – that this man is the Antichrist.
Well, if anyone really thought that, their assurance might be dented if they actually read what the man has to say about himself.
Cyber-psalm is suspect
My cyber-friend Lingamish has published the first of a series of “cyber-psalms”. (In this sentence “cyber-” seems to mean no more than “communicating only on the Internet”.) On his lingalinga blog he notes:
Aren’t those susserating* sibilants simply succulent?
Indeed, Lingamish, this is a great poem or psalm. Except for one little problem. You have fallen straight into the trap of describing the atonement as the Father working separately from the Son, the very trap I have been trying to warn you and others about on this blog for more than a year. Well, I can hardly blame you for not reading all my 45 posts on the atonement, but surely you have read at least one of them?