Day 13: I walk by faith and not by sight

The last two days have been very eventful, as you may have gathered from yesterday’s blog entry. It was posted by my friends Chris Wood and Jay Clark, two of my remote support team, who were excellent in both practical and emotional support last night. Thanks for your patience with my the sometimes erratic nature of my blog.

Many thanks for the messages of support, concern and encouragement I received after my day yesterday. It involved me getting lost, miss-timing various things, having problems with accommodation and walking off the edge of my own map. So, as you can imagine, it was by far the hardest day of the walk so far. And yet the day (or rather the evening) finished with some amazing hospitality and generosity. Most of this was provided by the staff and customers of a pub I entered when I desperately needed to charge my mobile phone at around 10.00pm in the evening. God leads us to help in unexpected places.

Today has also involved some heavy walking, as well as some poor navigating on my part and a lot of rain and wetness in the very beautiful, but very, very hilly countryside of south Buckinghamshire. Tonight, I’ve received really warm hospitality in Chesham from Baptist minister Colin Cartwright (one of the first people to contact me about the pilgrimage after I announced it in December), along with his family, his cat and his dog. There was an excellent turnout of people drawn from five local churches when I answered questions about my pilgrimage at Chesham Friends’ Meeting House this evening. The meeting generated some really good and helpful discussion. I also had some very interesting discussions with strangers on the way today.

Tomorrow, my friend Chris Campbell, who was harmed by my homophobia many years ago, will be joining me for a day’s walking as I head to Watford. I’m looking forward to it, and will let you know how it goes. Thanks again for your prayers and encouragement.


4 comments so far

  1. Annette on

    Dear Symon, I’m following your walk with great interest. I’m proud of you – for having the faith, courage, and the stamina. And only one blister: you lucky man!

    I don’t know why we Christians are so exercised by sexuality. Surely this judgement was not what was meant by Christ when he said: “Love one another as I have loved you”? It also demeans our church. I’m saddened when I meet gays or lesbians who talk about their bad experiences. Some stay in the community anyway, because they love the Lord. Others won’t have anything to do with us, and who can blame them?

    Thank you for being a witness to a very topical debate and for showing your humility. Your actions will, I hope, give others pause for thought. I hope that you and Chris have an enjoyable day together. God bless,

    • Annette writes, “I don’t know why we Christians are so exercised by sexuality.” I quite agree. I think I can prove the hypocracy of the church and its insistence that it’s OK for gay men to be bishops if they don’t have sex with this piece of logic.

      Imagine a man marries a woman in a register office. He then takes a greater interest in Christianity and becomes a priest. He then becomes a bishop. He does not take any vows in church (maybe never got around to it). Now we know that that man would have no problem admitting that he had sex with his wife. (At least I think I’m right in saying this; I’m sure someone will correct me if it turns out that he would subsequently have to take marriage vows in church.)

      Now, take the case of a gay couple. They, too, have a civil “marriage”, but it’s a civil partnership. It’s recognised in law, just as the (now) bishop’s civil marriage was in the register office.

      My question is: where’s the difference. If Williams and the more right-wing, brain-deads in the C of E seriously say that sex should be only between married couples (which used to be a nice get-out before CPs came on the scene in 2005), how do they get around this?

      Assuming our fictitious bishop would get away with having sex with his wife, having undergone only a civil marriage, why not Adam and Steve?

      • anon on

        One is a civil ‘marriage’ which would be recognised as ‘marriage’ by the church. The other is a civil ‘partnership’ which would be seen as simply a ‘partnership’. It is not called a marriage because many churches make a distinction between the two.

  2. OK (and I seem to remember making this point in a similar post elsewhere, where I expanded on the one above), but what about when two men can get married and call it marriage, as in some states in the US, in Canada and in some countries in Europe? You can bet the men in frocks would still find that their invisible friend would object, i.e. they would themselves object. It’s amazing how through the smallest of cracks bigotry will ooze like a malevolent slime – even when there’s no crack at all sometimes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: