Contents
- Home
- News
- Question of the week
- Comment
- Letters
- Way forward over women bishops: responses to the Manchester report
- Managing bats — but are they better-treated than congregations?
- The culture and ethos of bell-ringing
- Bishop Gene Robinson: the debate continues
- Kneeling prevented
- Admissions policy of church schools
- Unwise General Synod motion about Easter
- Patriots, step forward
- Worried about gym? How the Church can alleviate clergy stress
- Real Life
- Features
- Faith
- Humour and crossword
- Pastimes
- Books
- Arts
- Media
- Gazette
 back to Letters |
 previous story
|
next story 
|
Bishop Gene Robinson: the debate continues
From Mr Mike Whiting 21 The Brucks Wateringbury ME18 5PX From the Revd Jonathan Frais Sir, — The Rt Revd Gene Robinson calls himself “orthodox”, but his interview suggests otherwise. First, Moses’s ban on multi-cloth garments is civil law and not the moral law that binds us today (Article VII). Second, marrying after divorce in the lifetime of a previous partner remains wrong (best practice uses the service of prayer and dedication after civil marriage, and bars from leadership). Third, Gamaliel’s words, like Pilate’s hand-washing, led to violence and so evade responsibility. Fourth, breaking table fellowship is not “unfaithful”, but our Lord’s command (Matthew 18). JONATHAN FRAIS 11 Coverdale Avenue Bexhill TN39 4TY From Mr Richard Wilkins Sir, — I thank Bishop Gene Robinson for his gracious and courteous interview. Limited time, however, may have forced him to compress ideas about the Bible that he did not mean to express. When he says that some of his opponents have been divorced and remarried, he could be mistakenly understood to mean: “If they don’t let the words of Jesus stand in the way of their sexual happiness, why should I?” Elsewhere in his interview, he explicitly deplores the exaggerated importance of sex. I am sure he maintains consistently that Jesus is more important than sex. Regarding verses in Leviticus, I wonder if anyone has read those referring to same-sex intercourse in their context of chapters 18 to 20. There is not much about mixed-cloth garments or dual-crop fields. Bishop Robinson would be the last person to “curse the deaf or trip the blind” (19.14). Nor would he see “loving our neighbours as ourselves” (19.18) as liable to a wise Church’s progressive neglect. But the Church might very soon be called to qualify what really is a major theme of these chapters. Argentina, Brazil, and Japan have recently legalised incest (The Guardian, 27 February 2007), as did France under Napoleon. Other European countries are likely to follow; and a 2003 judgment of the US Supreme Court removed legal interest not only in how, but with whom, consenting adults have sex. This is about more than treatment of incest as an illness, like the 1957 Wolfenden report on homosexuality. It represents an increasingly generous and accepting attitude towards intra-family relationships, quite parallel with the developing consensus on gay partnerships. The case for recognition of loving, faithful, stable, intentionally permanent intra-family unions seems overwhelming. Legalised incest in England will lead inexorably to civil partnerships. Do I want this? Well, no, but I am an unreconstructed Evangelical. I should like to be sure that the Church of England is thinking ahead on incest, more competently than it did on homosexuality. But I suspect that again the voice of Gamaliel will prevail, until the voice of God is finally heard through people whose opinions are deemed worthy of polite attention. RICHARD WILKINS 27 Spring Gardens, Garston Watford, Herts WD25 9JJ |
| back to Letters |
 back to top |
previous story
|
next story
|
.gif "Caris Magazine for girls aged 11 to 16 © site")
