Saturday, 1 March 2008

This Week's Poll 01/03/08

If you want to do more than just click, comment on this post

Previous Poll: Is it just a matter of time until the Christian church as whole recognises the validity of committed Gay relationships? 12 votes in total, 8 yes, 4 no. One more vote, I vote no.

I reckon that at least in the foreseeable future, there will continue to be a strong fundamentalist expression of Xnty that will be socially conservative, reactionary even. This is especially true when one takes into account the nature of vigorous expressions of the faith in the developing world. I think however that there is likely to be a strong trend towards embracing homosexuality among mainline denominations in this country. I reckon we will see this even among non-fundamentalist evangelicals.

Of course the poll while ostensibly asking an "objective" question gives opportunity to express personal views, so here's mine. I really hope that the church as whole does give a full and equal place to gay people without out any discrimination whatsoever on the basis of sexuality.

With regard to the various comments: I thinks Catriona is spot on with her historical observations; I didn't us the phrase "Gay Marriage" because many gay people are themselves uncomfortable with the expression believing it to be irredeemably tainted with patriarchal overtones; I reckon Stephen makes a very good point with regard to not waiting until there is unity; it this an issue that is central to the gospel or not? - I reckon Phil and Tim's debate is based on a false antithesis - surely the gospel is both about God's gracious restoration of relationship with individual people and also about the restoration of justice in the society of people. A gospel without one or the other is surely less than the full gospel. Actually I think I would rather express my understanding of the gospel as God's gracious restoration of the whole of creation so that it truly embodies and displays God's glory. This includes (among other things) the saving of individuals and the saving of society.

1 comment:

tim f said...

Sorry, when I said the fact that you had to use the term "committed gay relationships" that shows how far we still have to go, I didn't mean as opposed to "gay marriage" (I find the term "marriage" problematic too) but simply as opposed to "gay relationships".

On vegetarianism/veganism/fruitarianism I take the purely emotional position that there's too much human suffering in the world, that sharing with and coping with all of that is draining enough and if I tried to make myself care about animals as well I think I'd spontaneously combust. That's not really an ethical reason, though, more of an emotional reaction.

I do get frustrated when at events which are specifically meant to be held in solidarity with people who have different cultures, a Western vegan culture is imposed on everyone else. At a protest camp last year I had to share my hidden meat supplies with some African asylum seekers who were struggling with the food they'd been offered. So I suppose cultural sensitivity could be an ethical reason.