Thursday, 6 June 2013

Latest Postings in Another Village

I am contributing from time to time at Fulcrum, and once again it seems very slow at putting up messages. So I'll put them here as well. I'm working on Unitarian liturgies and volunteered to do a service on Sunday so the link to that will appear soon with the use and creation of a liturgy based on Service 5 of 1932 and Christopher Jamieson's Finding Sanctuary (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2006)

Misrepresenting Same-Sex Marriage: The Bishop of Salisbury
2 [23581] Posted by: Pluralist     Wednesday 5 June 2013 - 04:12pm

The State is representing the social consensus that marriage should be a pairing relationship and that it forms a glue in society, the basis on which families can be raised and which are now understood to exist more diversely than before.

But around the world the simplest anthropology shows no one model or marriage or even family. Attempts to find the universal family model have failed. In some places it is villages not families that raise children.

In addition, although pairing relationships are given special status, many people have extra partners either in affairs or openly.

Religions have reflected different patterns of relationships and families, including property based.

There was never one definition of marriage and there won't be. Many a man and many a woman want their partners of same or opposite sex to be exclusive to them, and so long as that happens that will be the basis of marriage.

The question is, given the State has an interest in marriage, do the religions support it or have their own basis - and if a Church disagrees with the State how can it be established?

A very brief note about "decline" in a living society
3 [23580] Posted by: Pluralist     Wednesday 5 June 2013 - 04:01pm

I think, Bowman, that you are puzzling over a matter where most people in the C of E are not. First of all there is an absence of resources, so that theology departments are closing or have become religious studies departments. They are not going to delve into theologies that do no work in the contemporary situation, where wheels go round but nothing connects. It's like people discussing the finer points of pre-Wesleyan and Wesleyan Arminianism. It has a purpose in history but not much else. I've noticed how even in my local university, whereas I did a course on contemporary theology and its social connections (in business, welfare etc.) even that has gone and now the offering is spirituality within health - where, of course, it is deemed relevant.

I would think too that theology colleges are too busy with training and they have been cut in favour of distance learning as more or more clergy become unpaid volunteers.

As for Anglican articles, the requirements of ordination are only to give a nod to Anglican historical formularies, so most Catholics and liberals in Anglicanism give them just that - and they maintain their own schools. It is now a choice to uphold the articles and even the literalness of the creeds. The relevance of theology is found in relationship to the current sociology of knowledge - are the general narratives and research resisted - and then defensively (traditionalisms) or in attack (some evangelicals), or is there a compromise, or is there a theological approach to be a part of it wholly and fully? These options reinforce the parties.

My theology is to be a part of the general sociology of knowledge, and I don't think it can be called Christian. But some think this is possible, starting with the death of God movement in the 1950s and secular theology (surprisingly with evangelical elements) and the more liberal approach derived from but not the same as JAT Robinson and The Myth of God Incarnate. And, of course, a lot of theology is simply being dropped in favour of individual diversity.

To be or not to be an Apostrophe.
1 [23585] Posted by: Pluralist     Thursday 6 June 2013 - 01:07am

Does the apostrophe add information? In most cases, for the privilege of writing over speaking, it does, and this is why it'll be kept. The Americans attempted to simplify spelling, but it was a half-hearted measure (notice the dash used). Simplifying use of the apostrophe won't work.

Theologically, I don't think there is any consequence, except in the problem of the esses. I prefer to write of: "Jesus's sayings, or those of the early Churches," whereas others prefer: "Jesus' sayings, or those of the early Churches." I don't understand the trend for the missing ess.


Anonymous said...

Without checking the Chicago Manual of Style, I seem to remember that the rule was to omit the s on possessive words of Greek origin, such as Jesus'. In other cases, consistency is the rule -- always use 's or just '. I prefer to use the 's in all cases -- the 's is often pronounced: Thomas's. But it's all usage, and a certain amount of role padding by teachers and editors.

Naomi said...

The ess went missing, Adrian, long before you were born. Does this not disqualify it from being described as a Trend? I was taught in the old fashioned days soon after the WW2, that in the case of a word ending in ess there should be no ess added after the apostrophe. Hence Jesus' teaching ... On the page I have always thought this was a good thing - so much tidier and easier on the eye than Jesus's. How you choose to pronounce Jesus' is really entirely up to you

Naomi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.