There's an excellent post here by Fr Dwight Longenecker on Advent and the commercial nastiness that dominates society at this time of year. Many issues are dividing Christians today, surely this is something we can all agree upon.
Womans Hour ('Celebrating, informing and entertaining women') the BBC this morning gave us a predictably tame but nevertheless fascinating interview on the subject of women bishops in the Church of England. [here] What was so interesting was that the spokesperson from WATCH (there was, of course, no representative of those opposed) appeared far less strident than the programme's presenter, who gave us the usual condescending secular incredulity that people (some even women!) could be so backward as to resist the inevitable advent of women's ordination . 'This is the 21st Century' - thanks for the forensic interviewing technique, Jane!
The fact that Rachel Weir, chair of WATCH, was able to present her case so calmly and reasonably is not a good sign. The writing on the wall is now positively bellowing at us.
I'm a little confused - why is it not a good sign if someone speaking on religious affairs can present her case clamly and reasonably? Surely that is how the debate should be conducted?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - yes,indeed it should; the point I was trying to make is that there has been a marked absence of that calm reasonableness up to now on the part of the proponents of women's ordination whose stock-in-trade has been an appeal to emotion. The calmness of the WATCH spokesperson is, in itself, a sign of our opponents' confidence in the impending success of their cause.
ReplyDelete