All significant truths are private truths. As they become public, they cease to be truth; they become facts, or at best, part of the public character; or at worst catchwords.
I, too, am often tempted by chocolate chip cookies. I have searched God's Word and discovered there's no prohibition against marrying one. I am even prepared to bless two cookies if they are in a committed biscuit tin.
How you brighten our day, Fr Ivor Largebottom.Personally, I thought the Rev Rose looked on the slender side and should consider tucking into a few more chocolate fudge cookies should she feel so inclined.(That's the kind of dangerous anything-goes-liberal I am...;)
You are right, Sue. It was so flattering of slim Rev Rose to compare the good Bishop with a biscuit. By the way, have you noticed David Frostie's resemblance to a box of cereals?
Part of me wishes this was just a hoax but I'm afraid Rev Rose was serious. Honestly?! Seriously?! Cookies?!
Yeah, I think she is one of the Anglican Mainstream group(I've spoken to a few of them at Synod...) Nice to know you are still around though, Sig. It seems ages since I've seen you either in cyber or real world:)
Isn't it nice when you lose touch with an old friend, and then they turn up on the Frost Show? Lynda is both gentle and sincere - but I don't agree with her on this subject. On the other hand, I think Gene Robinson dodged one or two of the points she was making. Not the triple choc point, I thought his reply on that one was very good. Iffy VicarPS Do you think it would be OK for me to marry my dog? She never talks back and is always encouraging me to take some time off - even in Holy Week.
I thought Robinson was thoughtful and profound and she was pretty daft, could just be my bias though. I sure she may be gentle (in her own way) and she was undoubtedly sincere.According to Anglican Mainstream you should be able to marry your dog very shortly. David Cameron is going to introduce a new law making it practically compulsory:)
Lynda's far from daft, but she does come from a traditional viewpoint. I think Gene could have pointed out that gender identity is not actually fundamental to Christian belief. The existence of intersex people (born with a mixture of sexual characteristics) is an argument against the idea that God created everyone either male or female, and that only marriages between people of opposite sexes are valid. Wh is a person of indeterminate sex supposed to marry?!Robinson was certainly thoughtful and profound, but he dodged the arguments from the Bible. It is possible to answer them.Iffy Vicar
Obviously, I don't know her and so can only say how she came across to me in this interview. I thought her comparison of gay relationships to chocolate biscuits was extremely ill judged and it did make her look silly. I think there were a lot of things that Gene Robinson could have said but time is always limited in such interviews and you have to think on your feet. I wouldn't say he "dodged" any of her arguments from the bible. I thought challenging her overall approach to scripture and the possible inconsistencies of that approach, rather than getting into specific verses or the well rehearsed arguments and counter arguments, was a wise decision. I also thought Lynda Rose made several major mistakes straight away. She used the "abomination" quote for a start and even before that she had turned the discussion into "what-Lynda-Rose-thinks-is-wrong-with-Gene-Robinson". It became a personal attack rather than a discussion of same sex marriage. Close to the end she also said that Robinson had a deep faith but it was "not the Christian faith." I did think that was an appalling and offensive thing to say. Effectively she was saying he was not really a Christian. I was offended by that because I presume she would say the same about me. Having said all of this she then told him she was not against homosexuals, but in the same breath spoke about him having "problems". I like to think that even if I was a died in the wool fundo my toes would have been curling with embarrasment at her lack of common courtesy.It may be "possible to answer (Lynda Rose's) arguments from the bible" but I would suggest that you would not be able to answer them in a way that would satisfy her! One of the things I've learnt is that you can't really "win" arguments with people who are this strongly opposed.(I've met them!) What is most effective is when people place a human face to their assumptions and preconceptions, and more so if they come to know and love that person. When that happens people are much more likely to find it hard to retain their prejudices and to question their certainties. Even if they don't change their mind, they often change their attitude towards LGBT people (and sometimes towards themselves!) I think that is why Robinson asked her to look at his life and tried to model to her in his behaviour a different approach. You might notice that he refered to her as "a sister in Christ" and expressed a desire to stay in communion.
You might want to read this account of Rev Lynda Rose's political activities when she was accused of a defamatory smear campaign against Evan Harris in Oxford.http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/8120903.GENERAL_ELECTION__Harris_attacks_leaflet__abuse_/?action=complain&cid=8472175
Lynda Rose is a cherry-picker, quotes Leviticus when it suits her, ignores the rest because that would embarrass her. Gene Robinson's citation of the "give up your possessions" text was totally apt - and of course she ignored it
CORE found enough money to pay for an advert on London buses. Good for them! Of the hundreds of Christian precepts and topics they could have chosen, of the dozens of evils they could have inveighed against - why choose gays, whose lifestyle injures no-one ? One can't help feeling there is some sort of sexual sub-text here. Anglicans who keep harping on about women clerics or gay clerics are hugely dammaging the wider public image of the Church
I found a few things of interest that was omitted in this debate. First and foremost the fact that Rev Rose could not have sat in that seat as a priest was it not for a more liberal interpretation of the bible. It was not untill very recently in Christian history that women could take this office. So her conservative stance seemed out of place from the get go. Also her thoughts on marriage was biblically incorrect. The bible has taugh polygami and the ownership of women as marriage since Genesis onwards. Our beliefs on marriage is a much later development. By far I thought Rev Robinson was the most courtious and well versed in the material. Never gave in to petty bible quotation which is so subjective depending on interpretation. Rev Rose's parable with chocholate coockies was so offensive and hurtfull that I came to tears. Obviously she was sincere in her view's (which made things worse) and I think in private, she might be a nice person. No one speaks such unkind things by default, it is learnt somewhere, somehow.