Queer theology

It's the title of the book Mrs brought back for me to read form her University library.

I forget the name of the editor - I'll tell you next post if I remember.  [Edit: It's Gerard Loughlin]

She got it for me knowing my interest in the theology of homosexuality and in particular stuff that is neither rapidly conservative nor Bible-dismissingly liberal.

I've only dipped into it so far - a collection of essays by scholars.  Therefore mostly unintelligible to the normal mind - there seems to be a refusal to use any word of less than 11 syllables, or any word used in day-to-day speech, or any word that you don't need degrees in English, Latin and ancient Greek to decipher.

I've not found anything specifically about homosexuality in it yet.

In one essay, the author points out that we assume the risen Jesus was still a MAN, ie not a eunuch, not emasculated, but still with all his bits.  And if his resurrected body had them, then so will ours.  And if we have them, it's for a purpose.  Ergo, he seems to argue (and I've not finished the article yet), there will be sex in heaven.  Intimacy with everyone seems to be implied.

Another article looks at Paul. Paul says 'let him who is married behave as if he was not married'.  (Sorry no time to quote reference accurately).  He says Paul's primary concern was being ready for the second coming, not getting tied up with earthly legalism like marriage.  Again, I've not finished the article, but it seems to imply a more widespread intimacy.  If that's not a contradiction in terms.

So I'm struggling with it - fascinated, in much the same way that one is fascinated by shiny flies on a dog turd.

I will read on and report back more!

Doubling up

(Work related)

I need to measure the flow in my channel two cases -

1. 50% of the flow this way, 50% down the other channel
2. 25% of the flow this way, 75% down the other channel

Of course the Bristish standard flume that works for case 1 is too wide for case 2.
Of course the Bristish standard flume that works for case 2 is too narrow for case 1.  And also the associated huting penstock would create supercritical flow and a hydraulic jump just at the point where you need a smooth water surface to take your measurement.

My solution:

Subdivide the channel into two, each with a flume and hunting pesntock designed for 25%.  Then for case 1 you use both and for case 2 you close one and use the other.

Mrs MA and Judaism

In my wife’s theology MA course, although she is following the ‘Christian stream’ of options, she has to do a module on Judaism, which we are finding really fascinating. (But I did advise her not to get carried away and get circumsiced :) )


The existence and development of the Oral Torah is something completely new to us.

Similarly, the Jews’ genuine sense of outrage at Christian persecution of Jews right from the very beginning is surprising, when our own sense of history (acknowledging that we persecuted Jews during the Middle Ages) is that they persecuted us.

No doubt there have been instances of Christians and Jews helping one another as well as instances of Jews persecuting one another – both the help and the persecution have gone both ways. We can argue about the relative proportions of those things and who was worse/better, but the reality is that both sides are selective with history, glossing over their own sins while exaggerating those of the other side. So often those who have been persecuted in the past become the new persecutors. (Christians v Jews, Protestants v Catholics, Black v white, Christians v gays, Israelis v Palestinians, etc)

Women Bishops – the failure of women’s leadership

The general synod of the Church of England voted by the narrowest of margins not to allow Women Bishops yesterday.

And the women have only themselves to blame.

Firstly I do support the ordination of women to the role of bishop – see my reasoning in italics at the bottom of this post.

But here is where the women lost their vote:

1. Strategy. They did not make adequate concessions to conservatives. I accept their arguments about being second class, etc. But had they made the concessions, they would have won the vote. Then in ten years’ time when everybody is used to the idea of women bishops and its working well, either the concessions will have become utterly redundant, or they can be renegotiated and almost certainly win.
2. Greed for power and status. The reason they did not give the concessions was about territorial power. And about being second class. Since when has the Kingdom of God been about power and status? God does not endorse these lusts.
3. Personality. Listening to interviews on Radio 4, it was quite clear that the woman opposing women Bishops was a nicer person – more respectful, more courteous, more patient, more in control of her emotions. Meanwhile the woman supporting ordination was aggressive and generally not a nice person. If I had to choose a Bishop, I would appoint the one who is most Christ-like, which was definitely not the one who wanted to be a bishop.
4. Theology. Most of the argument seems to have been not about Scriptural guidance but about how we look in the eyes of the world. Since when has looking good been the basis for Godliness? There’s been arguemts about moving with the times. Since when has Godliness been about modernity? Its been about equality – not simply because that is in itself right but because that is the standard of the wider society. Since when has conforming to society been a sign of Godliness? NEVER! We are the ecclesia – the ones called out to be different.
5. Method. The Kingdom of God is not guided by staging political demonstrations and waving placards so that the one who shouts the loudest wins!

So the women leading this debate on women’s leadership have let the side down, failing in their leadership and failing to achieve female leadership. All for the sake of impatience and ungodly greed for power.

I want women in leadership.  Just not these ones!

I don’t accuse them as individuals – I don’t know them and no doubt they are very nice on a personal level. I am speaking collectively.

My Reasoning for Women Bishops:

For me the debate centres on the interpretation of Paul when he says “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man”. The question is – was this a local and/or temporal injunction, or one for the whole church in the whole earth in the whole of time? I have very little time for those who dismiss awkward scriptures on cultural grounds. My faith is founded on the Scripture which I believe to be God’s eternal Word. So I look within the Scripture for an answer, bearing in mind that I am unwittingly prone to seeing it through my cultural lens, and also bearing in mind equally that my Evangelical heritage has its own – old- cultural lens. So what else do we find in Scripture? “In Christ there is neither male nor female…” True, but I have generally considered this to be in regards to eligibility for salvation rather than gender roles. For me it comes down to “Junia … considered outstanding among the apostles.”. The Catholic Church, in the Vulgate Latin Bible, changed her name to a masculine form, but this name did not exist in masculine form, so it is a bit obvious, really. Then, could it be construed that she was just a member of the congregation that was considered by the group of male apostles to be outstanding? At New Wine I asked a teacher of theology from Durham University if this was a possible translation, and he replied “only with some very convoluted grammar!” So I believe that in Romans Paul endorsed a woman as an apostle, no doubt with apostolic authority, and it seems silly to suggest she was an apostle only to women. I believe this demonstrates that the above injunction was a local or temporary thing, and this releases me to endorse (enthusiastically) the idea of women bishops.

Pornographic Religion

Pornography is that thing which promises much but fails to deliver on the quintessential thing it implicitly promises.


Because the essence of sex is relationship - love.

The image on the screen provides eroticism, arousal, etc. But it is an illusion to think that the person in the image would ever have a relationship with you – or would ever love you. I have even seen for example, a pack of playing cards and the image on the back of each card was a naked woman, with the word ‘Love’ written in a heart above her head. How deceptive! There is no love here. There is no relationship here. It is all an empty deceit.

Buddhism is the same.

Buddhism has all of the appearance of religion – all the image. It gives you ritual and ceremonies. It gives you prayer wheels. It gives you ethics and codes of behaviour.

But the essence of religion is a love-relationship with God. In Buddhism there is no God. There is no love here. There is no relationship here. It is all an empty deceit.

Dreaming of Vegas

I had a dream in which I was Johnny Vegas* having a bath.

Shall I book an appointment with the psychiatirst now?

Mum

Still nuts. They have now eliminated all temporary effects, and so it’s permanent.


My poor sister is going nuts too, with the responsibility of caring for her

Challenges

Sunday evening was a session on ‘Challenges facing the new Archbishop’, although it turned out to be more about ‘leadership’ – see my post below about ordination.


Our church is generally very pleased with the new appointment. But I suspect our Vicar would have liked someone less favourable to women bishops.

Ordination

I still feel the call strongly.  It’s as if every Sunday service is specifically designed to call me and reinforce the calling.

Weekend viewers

People came to look at our house over the weekend, and seemed to like it. They spent a very long time looking on their own, and left saying they would speak to the agent. Which is the most optimistic thing we have heard for ages.


They were father and son, and I think the intention would be for he son to move in and let out the unused parts. So they were making comments such as ‘we could make that into a kitchen’. Etc.

So maybe God does want us to move after all.