tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post7794711318358530996..comments2023-12-15T21:49:46.651+01:00Comments on Pluralist Speaks: Cultural RicepaperPluralist (Adrian Worsfold)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-867470760027577352007-11-16T16:06:00.000+01:002007-11-16T16:06:00.000+01:00Pluralist,Thanks for engaging with my latest to Gi...Pluralist,<BR/>Thanks for engaging with my latest to Giles. Won't try and respond in detail at moment as I'm trying to work out why I think you've misunderstood me. However, wanted to clarify that the first two passages you quote are actually taken from O'Donovan (sorry but the formatting on-line does not make that totally clear). So, although I basically agree with him, they are not strictly my words. Similarly, the last is a quotation from Walls in the article that Giles cited.<BR/><BR/>All the best,<BR/>AndrewAndrew Goddardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08051103174057049082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-49038990037611177482007-11-16T13:41:00.000+01:002007-11-16T13:41:00.000+01:00Well, yes, Pluralist, the reason there can be no r...Well, yes, Pluralist, the reason there can be no real convincing anti gay argument is that there is no real convincing anti gay cause once you know that gayness is a perfectly normal way of being and morally neutral in itself.<BR/>So opponents are reduced to NP's rigidity or Andrew Goddard's thinness.<BR/><BR/>To that extent you're right in pointing it out. Personally, I prefer the thinness because it at least acknowledges a possibility and that's the very least basis we need for living side by side. And I want to encourage people on the thinness end of the spectrum because they'll be the ones who eventually tilt the balance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-32729714153984606412007-11-16T03:01:00.000+01:002007-11-16T03:01:00.000+01:00No. I am saying his argument is thin. His argument...No. I am saying his argument is thin. His argument is personal, yes, but also cultural and supposes that unity in a communion implies uniformity on issues where there is enough noise.<BR/><BR/>I am sure he has a journey as we all do, and this explanation is set against Giles Goddard's opinion - which may give it a hue that otherwise he may not readily give. Nevertheless he has given his explanation.<BR/><BR/>I set his explanation against the fact that real people are excluded - excluded from blessings and from honesty in ministry.<BR/><BR/>You and I both add comments to Thinking Anglicans. On it is the anonymous NP, except of Holy Trinity Brompton (though may not be so typical even of there) who woodenly quotes scriptural verses on the surface with repetition, and at the same time tells me that there is a standard of agreement between Open Evangelicals like Andrew Goddard and those like himself. Well there is not.<BR/><BR/>I regard the statements of the anonymous NP as a form of concrete ignorance, a kind of prattle. The arguments of Andrew Goddard are rather more in depth and subtle. The problem with this argument is that there is not much there other than uniformity with those who are as culturally insensitive as those people they accuse. Except their cultural insensitivity has real, negative, outcomes.Pluralist (Adrian Worsfold)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-81692831630840885922007-11-15T18:20:00.000+01:002007-11-15T18:20:00.000+01:00Pluralist,I'm not sure about your analysis.There a...Pluralist,<BR/>I'm not sure about your analysis.<BR/>There are only three possible views on same sex relationships. One is that they are on the same footing as heterosexual relationships, the other is that they are immoral and unbiblical and can never be accepted. There is a middle view, which I believe Andrew Goddard holds. Same sex relationships are not fully accepted yet, and he personally cannot fully accept them, but he nevertheless accepts that he may change his mind in the future, or that the church may change its mind.<BR/><BR/>Are you saying that only full acceptance is an option and that everything else is "thin"? <BR/><BR/>Obviously, my own view on same sex relationships is firmly liberal, but there have been other moral issues where it took me longer to get to my current stance, and I suspect that's true for most people. Can we really deny the journey and only accept the final destination, and even then only if it reflects our own views?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com