Thinky Thoughts.
So many bad things happening around the world that I sometimes wish we did not live in an age where news is global and instant. I almost wish that I didn't know about that horrible killing in France, the bombing of the Kuwait mosque, and worst of all the carnage in Tunisia. Worst not just because of the number of dead and critically injured, but for so many families there is the still not knowing whether relatives are dead or alive for, as they pointed out on the news today, if you are going to go and laze on the beach the chances are you'll leave your passport and so on in your hotel room. And even if you did take it with you, unless you had your passport tucked into your bikini bottoms, no-one is going to be sure which bag belongs to which unconscious patient... or which corpse.
The good news travels fast, too, of course. Hurrah for the English Women's football team who are doing better in the world cup than their male counterparts did and are now into the semi-finals!
And, of course, the news from the USA about equal marriage rights. Personally I think the equal marriage rights part of that judgement, although it was the reason for the case being heard, might well only be the icing on the cake - the most important part I would say, as an outsider, must be phrase about "equal protection under the law". surely this must mean it becomes illegal to discriminate on the grounds of gender/orientation in all circumstances?
I am still bemused by the amount of rhetoric there seemed to be around the idea of 'Biblical Marriage' relating to this decision. I understood the USA to believe firmly in the division of religion and state - and this is a decision based on legal, civil, marriage. So no-one should be quoting the Bible, or any other religious tract, as being relevant.
But, as a serving church elder in a protestant church, I do have my own thoughts - starting with fact that the ruling in the USA, and the laws in the UK, are about a legal contract, not a religious ceremony. So they do not impinge on the life of the churches anyway. But in any case I do not believe in many of the principles of Biblical Marriage.
I do not believed a young woman can be stones to death if her father cannot produce the blood-stained marriage sheet (Deuteronomy chapter 22) - nor that an engaged woman who is raped in a town should be stoned to death (ditto), or that an unengaged woman who is raped must marry her rapist.
I am as happy to ditch these rules as the others in the same chapter, given equal status, which say we must have tassels on the four corners of our clothes, and we must not mix fabrics in our clothing.
And if you think my decisions on these aspects of Biblical Marriage make me a non-Christian - fine, because I wouldn't want to be part of a religion that believed these things were right.
I just happen to believe that when Jesus said he was giving us a new commandment, to love one another, he probably meant us to do just that.
The good news travels fast, too, of course. Hurrah for the English Women's football team who are doing better in the world cup than their male counterparts did and are now into the semi-finals!
And, of course, the news from the USA about equal marriage rights. Personally I think the equal marriage rights part of that judgement, although it was the reason for the case being heard, might well only be the icing on the cake - the most important part I would say, as an outsider, must be phrase about "equal protection under the law". surely this must mean it becomes illegal to discriminate on the grounds of gender/orientation in all circumstances?
I am still bemused by the amount of rhetoric there seemed to be around the idea of 'Biblical Marriage' relating to this decision. I understood the USA to believe firmly in the division of religion and state - and this is a decision based on legal, civil, marriage. So no-one should be quoting the Bible, or any other religious tract, as being relevant.
But, as a serving church elder in a protestant church, I do have my own thoughts - starting with fact that the ruling in the USA, and the laws in the UK, are about a legal contract, not a religious ceremony. So they do not impinge on the life of the churches anyway. But in any case I do not believe in many of the principles of Biblical Marriage.
I do not believed a young woman can be stones to death if her father cannot produce the blood-stained marriage sheet (Deuteronomy chapter 22) - nor that an engaged woman who is raped in a town should be stoned to death (ditto), or that an unengaged woman who is raped must marry her rapist.
I am as happy to ditch these rules as the others in the same chapter, given equal status, which say we must have tassels on the four corners of our clothes, and we must not mix fabrics in our clothing.
And if you think my decisions on these aspects of Biblical Marriage make me a non-Christian - fine, because I wouldn't want to be part of a religion that believed these things were right.
I just happen to believe that when Jesus said he was giving us a new commandment, to love one another, he probably meant us to do just that.