Like many Liberals I am disgusted by the pontificating of Cardinal O'Brien; yet as a wooly-liberal he would perhaps dismiss my theology as 'cherry picking'. I find myself doubly under attack by him: he attacks single parent families and homosexuals. My father died when I was four and I was brought up by my mother, grandmama, grandfather and various aunts. I think I turned out OK. However, the lack of a male 'father figure' contends the Cardinal is what made me turn out homo/bi sexual. Oh really? Well how come my brother is straight? As to marriage always being between one man and one woman.....has he actually read the Old Testament which condones polygamy, levite marriage, marriage between slaves...etc.?
When it comes to sexual mores, it is a fact that most Christians disagree with the Bible more than they agree with it.Most Christians would generally agree with the Bible in condeming
Incest
Rape
Adultery
Intercourse with animals.
However, we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bibles discourages or condemns the following behaviours:
Intercourse during menstruation
Celibacy
Exogamy (marriage with non-Israelites)
Naming sexual organs
Nudity
Masturbation
Birth control
Regarding bodily fluids as 'unclean' (OK maybe relevant given HIV/Aids)
Likewise the Bible permits the following which we condemn or have discontinued:
Underage or arranged marriage
Prostitution
Polygamy
Levirate Marriage
Sex with Slaves (and the keeping of Slaves!)
Concubinage
Treatment of Women as Property
And, whilst the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it! In short, of the sexual mores listed here, we agree with only four (4) and disagree with sixteen (16)! So why do some Christians appeal to the Bible to condemn same-sex relationships when they are likely to disagree with the Bible on sexual ethics more than they agree with it? It is because they too, like the 'wooly-liberals' cherry pick the pieces of the scripture that appeal most to them and represents the curernt 'bogey-man' and fear of modern society. 200 years ago Napoleon I was the 'bogey man' of the world, and some Evangelicals interpretted him as 'the beast'in the Revelation of St John; 150 years ago it was his nephew, Napoleon III and the Pope who were 'the beast' and the Crimean War (1853-1856) the 'War of the End Times'. So too was the American Civil War (1861-1864).
IF we insist in placing ourselves under the Old Testament laws, as St Paul reminds us, we are obliged to keep every commandment, not just the anti-gay ones (Galations 5:3)! Thus, circumcision, not eating pork or prawns, not cutting the hair on the temples, no tattoos and not wearing mixed-fabric clothes are the order of the day, but most of the Christians who condemn homosexuality based on the Old Testament would probably deny that the other Old Testament Laws apply to them. Sadly, it's all or nothing says St Paul. But, if we believe Jesus came to bring an end to the Law (Romans 10:4) then we live in a new life of the Spirit (Romans 7:6), then all these sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot even take, therefore, the pronouncements of Paul on sexuality, as a new Law. Christians reserve the right to chose for themselves and observe sexual mores, though seldom admit to doing so. The crux of the matter for this Free Christian at least, is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic. It exhibits a variety of sexual mores, many of which have changed and evolved over several thousand years. Many of the practices the Bible condemns we allow, and many it allows, we prohibit. The Bible only knows a love ethic. The notion of the Bible having a 'sex-ethic' tells us more about modern consumer society, about modern society seaking answers and an anchor in a time of upheaval and economic trouble. The more troubled society gets,the more uncertain the future, the more the past looks attractive and the more attractive solid, unquestioning/able answers become. Furthermore, sex and sexuality are an in-built part of us. Sex and sexuality is part of who we are and we cannot separate them from our daily lives. Whilst we need rules and mores to give shape and pattern to our daily lives, these self same rules and norms tend to be pressed into service of the powers that be, into the service of crowd control and domination: nothing is more controlling of a person than the denying of the full expression of the self through sexuality and sex. We must critique the sexual mores of the Bible and of our own days not by the Law but by the Love Ethic of the man Jesus: Such a love is non-exploitative, it does not dominate; it is reponsible, mutual, caring and above all, loving. Christian morality is not a cast-iron chastity belt. The issues over same-sex marriage should not be 'What does the Bible say', 'What is permitted?' but rather 'what does it mean to love my gay neighbour?' Approached from the point of view of the Spirit it becomes no longer an issuse of 'what does the Bible command' but 'What is scripture trying to say in the light of the Spirit, Biblical criticism, tradtion, science and pyschology?' We cannot continue to build ethics or preach ideas based on bad science.
Where the Bible mentions same-sex acts it clearly condemns it. I accept that. But then I also accept that the Bible is a product of a differant society to my own, written over the course of centuries, appealing to differant and changing situations and circumstances from ones I know. The Bible also condones slavery, yet in 1806 the Slave Trade was declared illegal in the British Empire. The Bible appeared to be clealry on the slave-owners side and the abolitionists were hard-pressed to fight back using Biblical statements. Yet most Christians today would condemn the Bible or deny the Bible over slavery.
Jesus said to his followers, 'Love one another' and told them to 'judge for themselves' (Luke 12: 57); and St Paul echoes this sentiment (1 Corinthians 6:3). Thus we are to judge for ourselves what is right. Thus we are obligated to judge for ourselves on the matter of homosexuality in the light of new evidence, of all the available data on the issue. We are thus freed from the sin of Bibliotary - the worship of the Bible -and it is restored to its proper place as a witness to God and the life, teaching and example of Jesus Christ rather than a moral text book against which everyone is judged. If we believe that the Word became flesh we believe God was revealed in and as ant though a human being, just like us. The Word was not revealed as words!
What is clear, utterly clear, is that we are commanded by Jesus to love one another. Love not just those whom we know and love, but those whom we meet on the street, the stranger on the bus and our gay and lesbian sisters and borthers: all those 'beyond the pale'. Reach out, and like Jesus, touch the untouchables with love.
Monday, 5 March 2012
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Daily Devotional 22 February 2012
Daily Devotional - Morning
At the start of day or before you start work, perhaps you
might like to join in with these thoughts and prayers. If you do, find a quiet
place, take time to be calm and centred; focus on the still small voice of calm
within, finding a sacred space amidst the noise of the world.
Spirit
of Community, in which we share and find strength and common purpose, we turn
out minds and hearts towards one another seeking to bring into our circle of
concern all who need our love and support. Remind us that we are all part of a
web of life, that makes us one with the you and with each other.
As we start our busy working day, may we find the grace to
see the Divine image reflected in all those people who we will meet this day;
may we find the strength to always bear a loving witness and to do what we know
is right.
Perhaps you might like to pause here for your own
private prayers and thoughts for yourself and for others; for situations around
world or people and places only known to you.
Welcoming
and vulnerable God, whose outrageous love embraces all of creation and
challenges us to our foundation, dwell in our crowded hearts, our steaming
bathrooms, messy kitchens, and offices full of things to be done. Shake us from
our complacency into action, as we venture our lives courageously towards hope
and light, at once fragile, and rooted. Amen.
After work, or at the end of the day
Perhaps
you might like to join with these or similar words, if you feel able, at the
end of the working day or before sleep.
Blessed spirit of life we give thanks for this day and all
that it held; all those people we met and situations we encountered. Faces in
the street and in the work place, friends yet to be rather than strangers. May
we be thankful.
If you feel able, you might like to use these words in
your personal devotion, or use them as inspiration for your own thoughts,
prayer or meditation.
As our work ends and the daylight fades, may we confess
our shortcomings and give thanks for all that we have achieved; for all that is
good and for all that we have, rather than strive for what we think we need.
You might like to close your devotion with either or
both of the following.
God, who is the mystery around us, the spirit
within us, and the love between us, help us to know you, to know you more with
every breath we take, with every pulse of our blood’s circulation, with every
glimpse of your essence, as
the essence of all things.
May we, in the silence of the night, rest easy and feel
restored when the morning light breaks. Amen.
Monday, 20 February 2012
A prayer for Splodge
I have loved you from the day you came into my life,
and now it is time for me to let you go.
and now it is time for me to let you go.
You taught me how the universe is founded upon love;
you were shown love and responded the only the only way you knew how.
With love.
My the measure of that love be reflected in the ocean of tears shed for you.
I could not watch you suffer,
I could not see you in pain.
Now you are free.
Your body is no longer sick,
or weak, or hurting.
Now you can run with the others,
playing and hunting as wild things do.
Because I loved you,
I had to let you go.
You will live forever in my heart.
I could not watch you suffer,
I could not see you in pain.
Now you are free.
Your body is no longer sick,
or weak, or hurting.
Now you can run with the others,
playing and hunting as wild things do.
Because I loved you,
I had to let you go.
You will live forever in my heart.
Monday, 6 February 2012
Joseph Hanson
Joseph Hanson (1774-1811) was a Unitarian, political Radical and so-called 'Weaver's Friend', who through his short life was persecuted for his faith and politics by the 'powers that be'. I'm sure there is a sermon in here somehwere. The more one reads about Unitarians in the Napoleonic Period the more one admires them for holding to their faith and principles amidst persecution (especially since to hold the Unitarian view point was illegal and punishable by hanging until 1813).
Anyway, enjoy this:
http://www.mcrh.mmu.ac.uk/pubs/pdf/mrhr_05i_little.pdf
Anyway, enjoy this:
http://www.mcrh.mmu.ac.uk/pubs/pdf/mrhr_05i_little.pdf
Sunday, 5 February 2012
Faith and Belief
Some would say that faith is the same as belief. But that’s a
mistake. It’s a mistake the church has made, along with other
religions. It led to a situation where belief became a test of faith;
and there were dire consequences for those who failed the test by not
believing the right things. They were subjected to the cruellest
torture, and then consigned to eternal damnation if they didn’t change
their minds.
This conflation of faith and belief has caused religious chaos across the whole world. It resulted in pogroms, crusades and many forms of religious extremism, including the latest manifestation of suicide bombers.
So faith needs to be seen as much more than just belief. Belief is an intellectual activity of the mind: faith is a commitment of the heart. Faith is better understood in terms of TRUST; and so there will always be an element of risk about it, rather than certainty.
If you have faith in someone, you don’t just believe in their existence, you trust them. You trust that they will be true to themselves, and live up to the highest claims their own conscience makes upon them.
Faith is a creative energy or power. It creates relationships. First of all, it invites you into a relationship with yourself (or rather with your Better Self). Faith will encourage you to believe in yourself and trust yourself; and even to love yourself, because love is the highest form of this relationship.
Having found a healthy and wholesome relationship with yourself, you will then want to reach out to include others: and this will eventually lead you into the experience of being embraced by the love of the universal Other, that we call God.
Faith is not saying that you believe in the existence of someone called God (as if that would make any difference!). Nor is it saying that you believe in any so-called ‘statements of faith’.
Faith is not a statement: it’s a commitment – trusting that in spite of all, life has meaning and purpose. Faith means taking a risk, and living in the light of it; loving yourself and loving others; and as a result, experiencing the love of God who, it seems, is also trusting us to be true to ourselves.
This conflation of faith and belief has caused religious chaos across the whole world. It resulted in pogroms, crusades and many forms of religious extremism, including the latest manifestation of suicide bombers.
So faith needs to be seen as much more than just belief. Belief is an intellectual activity of the mind: faith is a commitment of the heart. Faith is better understood in terms of TRUST; and so there will always be an element of risk about it, rather than certainty.
If you have faith in someone, you don’t just believe in their existence, you trust them. You trust that they will be true to themselves, and live up to the highest claims their own conscience makes upon them.
Faith is a creative energy or power. It creates relationships. First of all, it invites you into a relationship with yourself (or rather with your Better Self). Faith will encourage you to believe in yourself and trust yourself; and even to love yourself, because love is the highest form of this relationship.
Having found a healthy and wholesome relationship with yourself, you will then want to reach out to include others: and this will eventually lead you into the experience of being embraced by the love of the universal Other, that we call God.
Faith is not saying that you believe in the existence of someone called God (as if that would make any difference!). Nor is it saying that you believe in any so-called ‘statements of faith’.
Faith is not a statement: it’s a commitment – trusting that in spite of all, life has meaning and purpose. Faith means taking a risk, and living in the light of it; loving yourself and loving others; and as a result, experiencing the love of God who, it seems, is also trusting us to be true to ourselves.
We are not worthy?
In the gym the other day, whilst doing a 5K metre row - my favourite/usual place for finding inspiration (perhaps due to increased blood flow to the brain) I started to ponder on the effect of the notion of "Original Sin" on society.
This notion of "You/We are not worthy" is all pervavise: Advertising hoardings shout it in 20 foot high letters "To be worthy look like us/belike us/have this stuff " As though somehow we as people are incomplete and not worthy unless we have a six pack, a new car and the lastest shiny stuff. The Church does the same thing. In the Book of Common Prayer is the line "We are not worthy even to pick up a crumb from under your table." We are all "miserable sinners". Imperfect, not good enough, not worthy. Its all around us! Negativity in = negativity out.
No wonder people have low self esteem! No wonder people think they find happiness from the latest shiny things and hair do.
But yet.....but yet is the latest hair do and having the newest and most "stuff" actually healthy? Is the assertion of the BCP healthy? I dont think so. It tells us that we are somehow, fundementally flawed, flawed by our very nature of our being and only by the ministrations of the church or commercialism can we be saved and be happy.
As Unitartian, of course, I do not believe in "Original Sin". I believe in Original Blessing. Adam and Eve are jsut a story, like a Kipling "Just-So" story, written at a point in history to explain not literally but in stories and metaphor, why things are the way they are. They are not true nor literal accounts. That is not to say Sin does not exist. Unitarians and other liberals tend to run away from that word and find it unfashionable. But I think this concept of Sin - literally all that which gets between us and God and ourselves - is important. Whilst Orthodox Christians would suggest that pride is a bad thing - to Catholics a Cardinal Sin - being proud of yourself, having high self esteem is healthy, but not at the expense of others. To my mind, SIn is best summed up by Terry Pratchett who, through Granny Wetherwax says "There are no shades of grey. Sin...is when you treat others like things". And by extension I would add "yourself". Thus, treating yourself as a thing - as unworthy, as only being happy and fulfilled with the latest clothes and gadget is Sin. Why? Because it blocks out original blessing- the inbuilt capability and capacity within all human beings to be Christ-like. All that "stuff"gets in the way of being ourselves, being truly who we are. We spsend more time striving to be someone else, dreaming, wishing, hoping to be someone else rather than getting to know and love ourselves for the beautiful, fulfilled people we are.
This notion of "You/We are not worthy" is all pervavise: Advertising hoardings shout it in 20 foot high letters "To be worthy look like us/belike us/have this stuff " As though somehow we as people are incomplete and not worthy unless we have a six pack, a new car and the lastest shiny stuff. The Church does the same thing. In the Book of Common Prayer is the line "We are not worthy even to pick up a crumb from under your table." We are all "miserable sinners". Imperfect, not good enough, not worthy. Its all around us! Negativity in = negativity out.
No wonder people have low self esteem! No wonder people think they find happiness from the latest shiny things and hair do.
But yet.....but yet is the latest hair do and having the newest and most "stuff" actually healthy? Is the assertion of the BCP healthy? I dont think so. It tells us that we are somehow, fundementally flawed, flawed by our very nature of our being and only by the ministrations of the church or commercialism can we be saved and be happy.
As Unitartian, of course, I do not believe in "Original Sin". I believe in Original Blessing. Adam and Eve are jsut a story, like a Kipling "Just-So" story, written at a point in history to explain not literally but in stories and metaphor, why things are the way they are. They are not true nor literal accounts. That is not to say Sin does not exist. Unitarians and other liberals tend to run away from that word and find it unfashionable. But I think this concept of Sin - literally all that which gets between us and God and ourselves - is important. Whilst Orthodox Christians would suggest that pride is a bad thing - to Catholics a Cardinal Sin - being proud of yourself, having high self esteem is healthy, but not at the expense of others. To my mind, SIn is best summed up by Terry Pratchett who, through Granny Wetherwax says "There are no shades of grey. Sin...is when you treat others like things". And by extension I would add "yourself". Thus, treating yourself as a thing - as unworthy, as only being happy and fulfilled with the latest clothes and gadget is Sin. Why? Because it blocks out original blessing- the inbuilt capability and capacity within all human beings to be Christ-like. All that "stuff"gets in the way of being ourselves, being truly who we are. We spsend more time striving to be someone else, dreaming, wishing, hoping to be someone else rather than getting to know and love ourselves for the beautiful, fulfilled people we are.
Roger Grainger on Gays and Christianity
Roger quoted the passage where St Paul has his vision, on the temple roof or mountain top and hears that God is Love and all the old laws have passed away.
In his book "The Holy Orafice" Roger describes how OT Jewish Law had very unhealthy/obsessed views with sex - ie some of the wierder stuff in there - but that as Christians we are freed from the laws of Moses and Leviticus to live under new laws, primarily that of Love. St Paul is the major source for Christian morality in the NT - letters to Rome, Corinth etc - but as he had cultural conditioning toward or against various issues (eg homosexuality etc) of course he would say bad things. Indeed, he uses the phrase "Arsen Koitus" - which isnt even Greek, its slang greek and a slang term which meens "anal sex" or "men who have anal sex" in its proper translation but is probably NT slang for "puff". St Paul was of the mind that Gay people chose to be gay - everyone is straigh in his thinking and one choses to be gay. We now know it is more complicated than that!
In his book "The Holy Orafice" Roger describes how OT Jewish Law had very unhealthy/obsessed views with sex - ie some of the wierder stuff in there - but that as Christians we are freed from the laws of Moses and Leviticus to live under new laws, primarily that of Love. St Paul is the major source for Christian morality in the NT - letters to Rome, Corinth etc - but as he had cultural conditioning toward or against various issues (eg homosexuality etc) of course he would say bad things. Indeed, he uses the phrase "Arsen Koitus" - which isnt even Greek, its slang greek and a slang term which meens "anal sex" or "men who have anal sex" in its proper translation but is probably NT slang for "puff". St Paul was of the mind that Gay people chose to be gay - everyone is straigh in his thinking and one choses to be gay. We now know it is more complicated than that!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)