Regarding Tom Butler's R4 broadcast yesterday, I will re-iterate what I said yesterday on this blog. "Whilst he has apparently changed his mind, he obviously hasn't changed his position."
I am aware that some are saying it takes a big man to say he's changed his mind, but the position he occupies is static and the rhetoric regarding minority Christians, when taken in the light of his extrapolations are hollow and, as I see them, worthless. To point to an effect as being wrong and to continue to condone, defend and and even misrepresent positively the cause is something that words cannot describe (well, polite words anyway!).
I will repeat again from yesterday's blog (for those who missed the nuance or the post themselves):
"Tom claims to have changed position regarding liberality and minority Christians, for which I am grateful (if this is the case). I am just a little concerned by his words:
"The price of holding the communion together can't all be paid by stifling the lives of gay people in the West and cruelly punishing them in Africa.""
My thought yesterday was: "The price of holding the communion together can't all be paid by denying two thousand years of traditional and orthodox faith or cruelly punishing those in the West and putting at risk those in Africa."
But let me clarify a little further.
Once again we see the homosexuals as the victims as the naughty orthodox (and there are many of those in reality) 'stifle' the lives of gay people in the West. I hear so many people telling me that homosexuality is about the focus of one person's love for another of the same sex. I am continually being told that this is not about sex but the ability (and permission) to love. If this is the case then where on earth is there a problem with celibacy as a lifestyle within such a relationship? If the relationship is celibate then there is no issue and the Homosexual lobby have silenced, at a stroke, those who stand opposed to them.
Secondly, I don't see what 'holding the communion together' and the cruel punishment of homosexuals in Africa have to do together! This is a non sequitor for one speaks of Church and the other the legal system, and perhaps societal views, of a nation - and neither are part of the Anglican communion nor anything to do with holding it together . Gosh, Rowan's struggling with the Anglicans so what chance does he have with African nations and their political systems and pressures?
I hope this helps clarify my position and helps those who might like to interpret what I have written as they have (which is erroneously).
A question . . . If the majority decided that paedophilia was now acceptable, would this change of mindset render the act right or would it merely be a wrong act that had become acceptable? We are looking at cultural relativism. The posturing and misrepresentation and extrapolations did Tom no favours yesterday. If he had stuck to the focus of his mind change (which again I applaud) and refrained from the rest I would have been much happier.
He can still buy me a pint any time he likes by the way!
Pax
A postscript (26/5/10 15:15 BST)
Can I point out to those who have mailed seeking to drag up Tom's past episodes that he is no less vulnerable to errors of judgment and mistakes than anyone else. let's please deal with what is before us and not behind, eh?
No comments:
Post a Comment