|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Bishops' stance on Jeffrey John
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
In reply to Merseymike
quote:
Originally said by James Jones:
The sexual mores of our society are changing before our eyes. We need wisdom greater than Solomon's to discern the mind of Christ and how to apply the word of God in contemporary culture.
We need to understand that debates about sexuality go to the very core of our being and stir the deepest emotions. All of us need to exercise great restraint while being honest in our arguments. We need to respect the integrity of each other's consciences and refuse the temptation to demonise those with whom we disagree.
If this is to be a genuine debate within the church then we need to be open to at least two possibilities. On the one hand, the mind of the church might well change along the lines that Dr Jeffrey John is arguing...On the other hand, we must be prepared for the alternative scenario which is [the conventional evangelical one]
My italics. I thought that was very sensible...though I don't share James Jones' viewpoint on this, I think it is incredibly important for the 2 sides to be able to discuss the issues as he sugests.
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Merseymike - welcome back. Hope NY was an oasis of sanity far from the loony clutches of the diocese-of-Sydney-on-Merseyside. As for your comments
quote:
1. That this was a case of the most appalling bullying - behaviour not worthy of any organisation, let alone a church
2. That the long-held views that I have held about evangelical Christianity as a philosophy, and many evangelical Christians, have been confirmed. I cannot think of their beliefs as anything remotely connected to mine.
3. That the Church of England, as it now stands, is simply not feasible. The sooner a split happens, the better.
4. That the African bishops simply said, honestly and bluntly, what Bishops such as my own really think.
5. That I seriously wonder why I bother with Christianity at all, when secular humanism would lead to a far better society than anything the Church of England's hierarchy has displayed in the past few days.
6. That we need to write to Rowan Williams in the strongest possible terms. Unity on the basis of evil, bigoted bullying is not something worth having.
Heartily sickened.
I can only agree wholeheartedly ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Welsh ; I should declare an interest as I live in his diocese, and have met him on a number of occasions.
I have written to him to say these words, and received a reply which simply didn't deal with the questions raised.
Which are - relating to the quotes - that his wish for 'dialogue' does not prevent him being in the very vocal forefront of anything within the Church which wishes to prevent further acceptance of gay people, and that I have not once ever heard him support anything pro-gay without consider4able 'but's'.
And if there is one thing that was done in the Jeffrey John case, it was both demonisation, and worst of all , bullying - and I regard Jones as the worst bully of the lot. I have also never got a straight answer from him as to, if his 'side' wins the day, what he actually thinks the gay people in the CofE and those who want to see an inclusive church should do.
To be honest, I don't really want an 'inclusive' church if it has to include those of Jones' ilk. I would prefer a split and then we can get on with being Christians without being held back by conservative evangelicals.
Thanks Angloid ; thewre are many of us here who feel the same way. And did you notice that out of the last batch of ordinands in this diocese, only one was a conservative evangelical?
[ 09. July 2003, 20:14: Message edited by: Merseymike ]
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pope Adrian 1:
... but the thought of what homosexuals do still turns my stomach.
I can't think of anything that homosexuals do in bed which isn't part of the repertoire of most heterosexual couples.
I think Stephen Fry quite rightly said that people who are disgusted by homosexuality actually just don't like sex very much.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Fiddleback
I referred to this in the Dead Horses thread (and that's the place for this). However, briefly, and without elaboration here ... I think that there is more to it than this. Visceral disgust can be sexual (and therefore sometimes onmi-sexual) but there is also the disgust factor of same gender LOVE. I am inclined to think that this is the primary issue. Males are expected to fight and compete, friendship is of the back-slapping variety only ... which is probably why many het males have this thing about lesbian sex .... and why that (sic) has never been illegal.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Merseymike:
quote:
I have written to him to say these words, and received a reply which simply didn't deal with the questions raised.
There was an article about a priest in Southwark in the Church Times recently. Jones had written an article in the Torygraph saying that homosexuality must be wrong because if we were all gay the race would die out. The priest wrote to him saying that if the categorical imperative were to be applied to celibacy, it would also fail. Jones wrote back to the effect that he'd had lots of letters from readers who agreed with him (well, the article was in the Torygraph, after all).
There is an intelligent traditionalist case against homosexual practice. I don't think it would be a wholly bad thing if it were heard. But we don't hear it. What we do hear is:
a) Proof-texting/ selective fundamentalism - it's in the Bible and the Bible is always right. Like slavery, anti-semitism, subordination of women etc.
b) Spin - See above. Clearly +Jones has a great future in Tony Blair's cabinet if the episcopate doesn't work out.
c) Rectal demons - see +Dow.
d) Bastardised sociobiology - "the penis belongs to the vagina". +Dow again.
e) Visceral loathing - see under ++Nigeria.
What is more, those bishops and clergy who don't take such a position are either silent in the face of such crassness either out of political opportunism (criticising one's allies in the midst of the fight is never easy) or in the cause of "unity". I think that this is a betrayal of our gay brothers and sisters in the Church, for whose fidelity and service in the face of such bigotry, we should be profoundly grateful for. It is also a far better argument for atheism than anything that you will find in the works of Bertrand Russell or Richard Dawkins.
Quite where that takes us I have no idea. But a good and decent man has been pilloried and bullied by the leaders of the Anglican communion and as an Anglican I am bitterly ashamed.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Exactly. Honestly, since when was anyone claiming that everyone should be gay or that being gay is anything other than a minority pattern. A bogus argument if I ever heard one.
![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Professor Yaffle
I agree with Merseymike concerning your piece. However, having dealt with visceral loathers quite a bit recently, (in the teaching profession I have to say), I think the "disgust" factor is far more prevalent than we care to admit. Pseudo-rationalists and pseudo-liberals are so ashamed by these base feelings, however, (in that they contradict their "liberal" self-understanding on other matters), that they pretty-up their arguments and explanations with nonsense. Do they believe their own rationalising rhetoric? I doubt it. Better to bring them back to disgust ... the true feeling.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
quote:
There is an intelligent traditionalist case against homosexual practice. I don't think it would be a wholly bad thing if it were heard. But we don't hear it.
Let me see if I can try.
I grew up in a Church of England of country parishes and quite small communities. My Uncle, Grandfather and two Great-Grandfathers were incumbents of such parishes. It was assumed that every English man and woman was a member of the Church of England unless they were positively something else. The people in their communities were not particularly evangelical, and certainly not fundamentalist, but they attended their parish churches on most Sundays, and for the most part they tried to live what they considered to be good Christian lives; that is to say, they tried to live their lives according to the moral teaching in the Bible, and according to the common law, which was based on the Bible. I think one could call them traditionalist members of the Church of England. In most town and city parishes the same attitudes prevailed, though not such a high proportion of the inhabitants went regularly to church.
One of the most abhorrent crimes under the common law was buggery (and let us not use euphemistic terms like "homosexual relations" - buggery is the word used by Parliament in the Sexual Offences Act 1967 which decriminalised it between consenting adult men over the age of 21, and the present debate would be clarified if it was used to denote the activity of which it is the subject matter, to avoid confusion with "celibate" homosexual relations). In the Middle Ages it was said to be "peccatum illud horribile, inter Christianos non nominandum" ("that abominable sin not to be named among Christians"). The punishment for anyone convicted of buggery both parties were equally liable - was, of course, death, though there is a difference of opinion about the means by which the death sentence was to carried out: burning (Britton), burying alive (Fleta), hanging for men and drowning for women (Coke). The 14th century Mirror of Justices joins buggery with heresy and apostasy as a form of treason against God.
When buggery between consenting adults in private was decriminalised, we were assured that this did not make it any the less sinful, only that it was no longer thought appropriate for the law to intervene in what occurred in private, and that there was a clear distinction to be drawn between what was sinful and what was unlawful - Lord Devlin devoted one of his Hamlyn Lectures to the difference, if I remember correctly.
Sir Patrick Cormack MP, who is a member of General Synod, put it well on the Today programme this morning:
"There are an awful lot of people in the Church of England who do hold to the traditional beliefs of the Church of England and the Christian Church. They're not bigots, they're people who do believe that their clergy should either be celibate or they should be married, married to a woman, or if they're female clergy married to a man. That is a long held traditional belief. It is one of the things that has helped to hold the Church together over the years. People who have an assertive gay lifestyle ... do challenge those traditional beliefs in a way that many find rather difficult. ... That is how people behave towards their clergy in the Church of England, and they do not expect to have an alternative lifestyle, as it were, thrust in their face. ... It is held to be a sin by many, and those who are committing that sin are answerable to their Maker, and I just do not wish them to thrust it forward."
I would call this a traditionalist approach; and it does not rely on any of the five elements which Professor Yaffle criticises. The prohibitions in Leviticus underlie the common law, but traditionalists do not need to look them up - they just know that buggery is wrong. No amount of special pleading will persuade them that what they know to be wrong is merely a misinterpretation of a rule laid down 3000 years ago in quite different social circumstances, which can now be reinterpreted to mean the opposite. The reason that Jesus did not condemn it, which is quoted by some as significant, is obvious: no one in 1st century Judaism would have dreamt of arguing the contrary (cf divorce, on which there was a genuine difference of opinion at the time).
I agree with Fr Gregory that the "disgust" factor also plays a part, and I am not ashamed to say that I find buggery disgusting. I like to think that in many respects I am a liberal, but in this one I am a humble traditionalist.
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Good summary, Egg! Though of course JJ had said he is now celibate... and I would still agree that more is being made over this than about various bishops' beliefs about the nature of Christ, about the Resurrection, what the Crucifixion does for us, etc. and I am still quite sad that JJ did not get to be bishop. (And think it would be great if he were made to be, on the grounds that his humility is badly needed right now...)
David
[ 10. July 2003, 17:02: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
I am not ashamed to say that I find buggery disgusting. I like to think that in many respects I am a liberal, but in this one I am a humble traditionalist.
You have reached this opinion after trying it?
Or do you just not like watching other people doing it?
Or thinking about them doing it?
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
long held traditional belief. It is one of the things that has helped to hold the Church together over the years. People who have an assertive gay lifestyle ... do challenge those traditional beliefs in a way that many find rather difficult. ... That is how people behave towards their clergy in the Church of England, and they do not expect to have an alternative lifestyle, as it were, thrust in their face. ... It is held to be a sin by many, and those who are committing that sin are answerable to their Maker, and I just do not wish them to thrust it forward."
There were some long held traditionalist beliefs on the Caribbean slave plantations too, by people who thought slavery was justified by natural law and endorsed by the Bible. Surprise, surprise, they weren't all ogres but they perpetuated a set of beliefs and institutions which treated others like shit just the same.
In fact, they were the sort of people who didn't like all the new fangled talk about black and coloured people but who insisted on calling them 'niggers'. Your attitude and insistence on using the more offensive word is not any better.
As for your Tory MP who goes on about people having things 'thrust in their face.' and who says "I just do not wish them to thrust it forward." I simply couldn't make that up - it is beyond satire.
You may think you are a 'humble traditionalist' but that's certainly not what springs to mind when I read your post. Purgatory rules forbid that I spell out exactly what I think of it.
Louise
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Your attitude and insistence on using the more offensive word is not any better.
As for your Tory MP who goes on about people having things 'thrust in their face.' and who says "I just do not wish them to thrust it forward." I simply couldn't make that up - it is beyond satire.
Agrees
With Louise
On both counts
And I'll stop rhyming now before someone upon me does pounce... ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif)
I did say "good summary," not "I think everything you say is spot on," after all. Wanted to make that clear...
I would say that some of the arguments used in the slave situation were very likely valid ones as well, but that they were also misused to justify things which weren't warranted. I tend to think that the same principle applies here to the way JJ has been treated.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
IMO Sir Patrick Cormack's contribution to the Today programme had the sole effect of playing into the hands of Richard Dawkins et. al. who question the desirability of the continued existence of Radio 4's 'god slot'.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Egg ; I assume, then , that you have no problem with gay couples who do not have anal intercourse ?
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear David
My mouth cannot agree with the thrust of your rhyme. "Counts" requires that I press my tongue to the roof of my mouth in a sibilant manner; "pounce" however only requires a faint whispering exhalation over the tongue.
However, by modern standards of pseudo-rhyme "you are a poet and I didn't know it!"
This of course has bugger all to do with the OP but I am unrepentant.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Wasteland
Apprentice
# 4700
|
Posted
I occasionally pop in to have a look now and again - to see if anyone posts anything useful.
Egg's post is good. I especially like:
quote:
In the Middle Ages it was said to be "peccatum illud horribile, inter Christianos non nominandum" ("that abominable sin not to be named among Christians"). The punishment for anyone convicted of buggery both parties were equally liable - was, of course, death, though there is a difference of opinion about the means by which the death sentence was to carried out: burning (Britton), burying alive (Fleta), hanging for men and drowning for women (Coke). The 14th century Mirror of Justices joins buggery with heresy and apostasy as a form of treason against God.
A better advert for secular humanism I could hardly have written myself.
Irrational primitive rules than mandate the persecution and murder of the innocent are hardly a viable basis for a positive life philosophy.
We need to move forward. LGBT people should not be party to such a hate fuelled and backward belief system. Nor do they need to be. It is perfectly possible to break free of all this nonsense and build a more positive life for yourself. The key is self-respect and a true sense of valuing your fellow man/woman regardless of race or sexuality etc.
The alternatives are there for those who wish to look:
http://www.galha.org
--------------------
but there is no water...
Posts: 27 | From: The wilderness | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Sadly, many people I know have come to the same conclusion as The Wasteland. If the Church continues in the same vein, there will be many more.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Sadly, many people I know have come to the same conclusion as The Wasteland. If the Church continues in the same vein, there will be many more.
I am curious as to the use of the term "conclusion", here, given that the author of the Waste Land itself moved on quite dramatically from where he was in 1922 and embraced a very mystical form of religion. Perhaps these "many" people are simply in a place of transition. Having read the Waste Land, perhaps they will go on to follow Eliot to Ash Wednesday and even Little Gidding (though if they have any sense they'll avoid Burnt Norton, because it's rubbish.)
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
Posted by Merseymike
quote:
Egg, I assume then, that you have no problem with gay couples who do not have anal intercourse ?
No, no problem at all. There are innumerable examples of same sex companionship, friendship, love, from David and Jonathan or Jesus and the disciple whom He loved onwards, which are entirely admirable. Some men prefer the company of other men to the company of women, and some women prefer the company of other women to the company of men, and the same sex relationships can become very close. Of course there is nothing wrong in that. But, as John Littler says in the best of the letters in to-day's Church Times, "It would help if it was realised that many people in the pew, and many non-churchgoers, have severe doubts about the morality abd desirability of homosexual practices, even if they are legal. Legality is only equivalent to morality in a theocracy, They do not relish being called 'homophobes' when they may know and value many 'homosexuals'."
That is my position too; and I was merely trying to show that it was based not only on the moral teaching in the Bible but also on the fixed rule of the common law over many centuries, which is based on the moral teaching in the Bible, that anal intercourse is and has always, until the present generation, been regarded as one of the most unspeakable of sins against God and crimes against humanity. JJ is not prepared to say that he was wrong to commit it, so that no question of repentance and forgiveness arises, and he cannot therefore maintain that he supports the current teaching of the Church in Issues in Human Sexuality, even if, for whatever reason, he no longer practises what he once did. I believe there is a good deal of justification for the 'traditionalist' view that, in these circumstances, his undoubted talents would be better not employed in the office of a bishop.
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
I'm sorry... I know I haven't read everything about this, but have I missed the part where JJ said he really enjoyed a good ass-fucking? Or anywhere that he detailed what his sexual practices were?
And look, guys, our cute little atheist crusader is back!! Another case study to add to my thesis about adult converts to any religion being the most obnoxious ones around.
[ 11. July 2003, 11:08: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Atmospheric Skull
Antlered Bone-Visage
# 4513
|
Posted
I realise this isn't really a question for this thread, but perhaps egg could answer it on the Homosexuality and Christianity thread in Dead Horses.
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
That is my position too; and I was merely trying to show that it was based not only on the moral teaching in the Bible but also on the fixed rule of the common law over many centuries, which is based on the moral teaching in the Bible, that anal intercourse is and has always, until the present generation, been regarded as one of the most unspeakable of sins against God and crimes against humanity.
Um... so, what's wrong with it, exactly?
I mean, if you're accusing a whole group of people of a crime against humanity, you'd need some pretty damn compelling evidence I'd have thought. So how, precisely, does two people having anal sex harm humanity in your view?
--------------------
Surrealistic Mystic.
Posts: 371 | From: Bristol, UK | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
That is my position too; and I was merely trying to show that it was based not only on the moral teaching in the Bible but also on the fixed rule of the common law over many centuries, which is based on the moral teaching in the Bible, that anal intercourse is and has always, until the present generation, been regarded as one of the most unspeakable of sins against God and crimes against humanity. JJ is not prepared to say that he was wrong to commit it, so that no question of repentance and forgiveness arises, and he cannot therefore maintain that he supports the current teaching of the Church in Issues in Human Sexuality, even if, for whatever reason, he no longer practises what he once did. I believe there is a good deal of justification for the 'traditionalist' view that, in these circumstances, his undoubted talents would be better not employed in the office of a bishop.
Hang on egg.
1. You don't know that this applies to JJohn.
2. You don't know that this *doesn't* apply to any other bishop, married or unmarried, heterosexual or homosexual. Hadn't you better start writing round to them all about what their sexual experience has been?
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Egg. I don't know if you are aware of this, but....
1. It is perfectly possible to have a sexual relationship with someone without it involving anal sex.
2. This is just as much the case for gay men as for heterosexual couples. Many gay couples have sexual relationships, but they do not involve anal sex.
Personally, I don't share your view, but you seem under an inaccurate misapprehension as to the nature of gay sexual relationships.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
You don't know that this *doesn't* apply to any other bishop, married or unmarried, heterosexual or homosexual. Hadn't you better start writing round to them all about what their sexual experience has been?
Quite. If the Lord Bishop of Forgotten-about Rural Diocese in the North of England has not in thirty years of marriage zorbered his wife, either by intent or in error, he must be even more boring than he looks.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon G
Shipmate
# 4704
|
Posted
I'm slightly intrigued about where an argument based on medieval english common law is supposed to take us anyway.
One of the major reasons why I became a Christian is because Jesus was not a traditionalist!
[ 11. July 2003, 12:32: Message edited by: Jon G ]
--------------------
At the dark end of the street
Posts: 182 | From: Newcastle west | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Never mind Christianity and homosexuality, since when was it incorpoarated into Darwinism? One of the arguments most often used by "traditionalists" is that it is "unnatural", i.e. doesn't lead to the propogation of our genes, which, we are informed by Dawkins et al is all we are here for. Pots and kettles, I think.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Why have no evangelicals broken ranks and spoken out in support of JJ? Because Reform and co. would denounce us as 'never really been evangelicals anyway'. Does the label matter then? Personally I think it does, but the more sensible of us have got to speak out now.
I think that's probably the only hope of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat here. If there was a forceful denunciation by open evangelicals of the way that this campaign was conducted, a firm commitment to abide by the tolerance and love that admittedly is there in Issues, and a call for a genuine and non-homophobic debate, that would be very helpful. If it came in a united statement from, say, the colleges such as Durham, Ridley, Bristol (?) and their alumni, and maybe from those on the bench of Bishops who are evangelical but who are on the side of the angels in this, ISTM it could be quite powerful. With luck and a following wind, AffCath would be able to respond positively, and there might be some hope for a consensus of the sensible to break the sterile party politics of the CofE.
It would obviously take a few weeks to get people onside. Greenbelt is at the end of August. Just a thought...
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Thats what I have been hoping for for a while - but somehow it never seems to happen. I believe Christian Rees and Christopher Herbert have both made encouraging noises, and John Santanu did the same before the 'withdrawal', and this piece by Jonathan Bartley is of interest.
But so far, all the running has been made by liberals and catholics. Where are the open evangelicals ? Cowered into submission by Reform? Or do many of them take the Pete Broadbent line - more insidious , in my view, than the conservatives. At least they don't pretend to be anything other than hostile.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Pete Broadbent used to be the curate at a church I attended many years ago.
He wasn't notably right-wing, to put it mildly.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Oh, his usual stuff. Trendy-lefty style covering up very right-wing evangelical theology. About as trustworthy as your average second hand car salesman. At least you know whare you stand with Reform.
Tell me more, Gregory ( in PM if appropriate!)
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Royal Peculiar
Shipmate
# 3159
|
Posted
Dr.Fr.Gregory
Article in Church Times says your mate Pete has written to Canon John thanking him for withdrawing his aceptance of the post and saying he admired + Oxford's efforts to chose the right candidate even if he got it wrong on this occasion. Seems to me a bit like tripping someone up, kicking him in the head and then sending him a get well card in hospital.
Dear Merseymike
I would not have said Chris Herbert was particularly evangelical. He voted for the repeal of s 28 and has always been a keen supporter of women priests ( and appointed a woman archdeacon last year). He did endear himself to the conservatives with an article stating his belief in the Ressurection a while back but if I had to pin a label on him it would be " a bit on the liberal side ". There have been allegations that he is unfair to the anti women priest faction.
The CofE Newspaper reports as a fact and the CT mentions as a possibility that + Oxford may not fill the vacant bishopric. I think that would be a mistake. It would seem rather petty and if a Bishop were needed when Canon John was appointed the need for someone with sensitivity and diplomacy is far greater now.
I find this whole episode hads made me go off bishops altogether. I might become a Presbyterian. Anyone know of a Presbyterian church which does High Mass and Benediction?
[ 11. July 2003, 15:06: Message edited by: Royal Peculiar ]
--------------------
Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
Oscar Wilde
Posts: 405 | From: Barking, London | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
If you really want to go off Bishops, come and live in this diocese ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
The kindest description of Bishop Pe'e is that he is a genial w*nker. He is nice enough to talk to and quite good fun, but at the ame time he is an old man who wears jeans with large turn-ups, and ear stud and gel in his hair (he even dyes it purple for Spring Harvest), all to impress the kids.
His 'conciliatory' article in Jezebel's Trumpet today pretty well states that like many Evangelicals he can be selective with OT proscriptions because he soesn't like homosexuals but he does like prawn sandwiches. And any argument he doesn't like 'simply won't do'. He counsels reticence now for the sake of the well-being of the church, but shouldn't he have thought of that before he lent his support to Rectum Dow and Jimmy Loverpool?
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
What is it about evangelicals in the CoE?
If Pastor Smith of the Very Independant Pentecostal-Evangelical neo-calvinist church (Wirrel Synod) suddenly left his wife to go off and live with his male deacon and indulge in "acts which christians should not mention",
a few years later his hormones die down, he loses interest in his friend and become celibate,
immediately his welcomed back now as a bishop of the Very Independant Pentecostal-Evangelical neo-calvinist church (Wirrel Synod) - with a daily TV program on the God channel, and soon becomes a popular speaker at Autumn Harvest. No problem with him as long as he still speaks in tongues and promises to pray a blessing over every prayer request you send him wrapped in a Ł50 note.
Yet if he had been a CoE priest no way can he come back as a bishop.
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Thats what I have been hoping for for a while - but somehow it never seems to happen. I believe Christian Rees and Christopher Herbert have both made encouraging noises, and John Santanu did the same before the 'withdrawal', and this piece by Jonathan Bartley is of interest.
But so far, all the running has been made by liberals and catholics. Where are the open evangelicals ? Cowered into submission by Reform? Or do many of them take the Pete Broadbent line - more insidious , in my view, than the conservatives. At least they don't pretend to be anything other than hostile.
I agree a public condemnation of homophobia by evangelicals is long overdue.
I think a lot of open evangelicals would take the line that JJ's appointment was inappropriate because of the furore it would cause, particularly re the Third World - rather than any desire to install CCTV in his bedroom.
Sorry to be ignorant, but what is the "Pete Broadbent line"?
Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian S:
I think a lot of open evangelicals would take the line that JJ's appointment was inappropriate because of the furore it would cause, particularly re the Third World - rather than any desire to install CCTV in his bedroom.
Sorry to be ignorant, but what is the "Pete Broadbent line"?
I think you may have described it in your previous sentence
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Royal Peculiar:
I would not have said Chris Herbert was particularly evangelical. He voted for the repeal of s 28 and has always been a keen supporter of women priests.
Quite a lots of evangelicals were opposed to section 28.
Most of them were supporters of women priests - remember it was the supposedly evangelical Archbishop that Cosmo and Professor Yaffle and MerseyMike have been slagging off on these boards who got it through the Synod.
(I thought all archdeacons were women these days. Well, the last two I met are)
quote:
The CofE Newspaper reports as a fact and the CT mentions as a possibility that + Oxford may not fill the vacant bishopric. I think that would be a mistake. It would seem rather petty and if a Bishop were needed when Canon John was appointed the need for someone with sensitivity and diplomacy is far greater now.
I think it would be a brilliant idea, at least for a while.
In fact I can't see how he can honourably choose a new man in a hurry, or how anyone else can honourably take the post up.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Royal Peculiar
"call-me-Pete" was not and is not ... most definitely ... my "mate"! ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
I'm telling what I really feel about him in a PM to Merseymike as invited, (Lord have mercy on my judgemental soul). If I posted here I would be done for character assassination. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I,ve just found this on the Affirming Catholicism web site. It puts very neatly what a lot of us have been saying about JJ on this thread.
Such a waste.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
This letter he wrote to the Reading Chronicle emphasises that still more.
I hope I could be so forgiving.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
As I said before, a candidate for canonisation if there ever was one.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally written by Jeffrey John:
We have to keep praying, keep moving our communion, keep studying the scriptures, keep loving those who hurt and reject us.
Love wins in the end, and if we are faithful, in the end we will build a Church that looks more like Jesus and that will truly be a home for all God's children.
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Love wins in the end, and if we are faithful, in the end we will build a Church that looks more like Jesus and that will truly be a home for all God's children.
Gosh, he has a good attitude.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Old Hundredth
Shipmate
# 112
|
Posted
I found his letter incredibly moving. Here is a man who is following in the footsteps of Christ. He deserves far better than the raw deal he has received but shows no bitterness and encourages his supporters to do likewise.
--------------------
If I'm not in the Chapel, I'll be in the bar (Reno Sweeney, 'Anything Goes')
Posts: 976 | From: The land of the barm cake | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ned43
Apprentice
# 2622
|
Posted
[For what it's worth, I offer this copy of a note I wrote in answer to a quite liberated Baptist friend in the South.]
As you know, the NYTimes has a front-page story today heralding the possible breakup of the Anglican Communion. It's fairly accurate from what I have read elsewhere, although as you can imagine there are always hassles of one kind or another when the secular press reports in any detail on religion. To my mind much of the secular English press has been especially hard on the nomination of Jeffrey John to be Bishop of Reading in the Oxford Diocese -- when he was nominated, the papers said "gay nominated for bishop, could wreck church," and then when Rowan Williams met with him for six hours and he then withdrew, the papers said "Church lacks courage to back gay to be bishop." It's sort of in the "have you stopped beating your wife/husband yet" category.
That said, it really has only been since admittedly "active" or "practicing" gays have come up as potential bishops that things have really hotted up in the good ol' Anglican Communion. Interestingly, the Archbishop of Nigeria is a big opponent -- and of course he's also opposed to women priests, which it sort of puts in the same box. And the Bishop of Singapore helped consecrate two American priests to be bishops for "all the people who didn't like gays and women in the American Church." And so it goes.
For me, the whole thing is very close to a non-issue. I would offer that the comments made by the anti-gay folks now are redolent of the comments made decades ago about Black people being free, women being clergy, and so forth. The words are even similar -- "it will destroy the Anglican Church," "we're not ready for this just yet," "St. Paul accepted slavery," and on and on.
It may indeed be that if the American church approves Canon Gene Robinson's consecration as Bishop of New Hampshire (certainly not viewed as one of the red-hot progressive dioceses of the American Church!), perhaps some of those 24 US bishops will indeed leave the American church and join one of the splinter churches -- of which there are perhaps eight or ten now, ranging in opinion everywhere from total right-wing to evangelical hard-nosed to pre-Colonial theology. And if the Anglican Church of Nigeria pulls out of the global Anglican Communion (which would take a lot more than the Archbishop saying so, I believe -- it would require a complex series of votes in their national synod of bishops, priests, and lay people), they will still be "Anglicans" and things will probably go on much as before -- since all the various provinces of the Anglican Church are, like the autocephalous Greek churches, free to do what they want. (The Romanian Orthodox Church, for example, accepts Anglican ordinations as valid, whereas none of the others does.)
And most important, at least in my way of thinking, is the fact that the "real" issues we might be worrying about -- war, hunger, medical care, rights of women and children, economic exploitation, etc. -- are all sitting there on various back burners bubbling merrily away. That old phrase "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic" comes to mind when I think of the flurry over the gay bishop thing.
[deleted duplicate post]
[ 19. July 2003, 23:24: Message edited by: Scot ]
--------------------
Peter in Buenos Aires.
Posts: 8 | From: Buenos Aires, Argentina | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Ned 43
I cannot let your sideline comments concerning the Orthodox Church go unchallenged. This paragraph on Orthodox-Anglican relations is from ECUSA's own web site ...
quote:
The history of contacts, cooperation and dialogue between Anglicans and Orthodox is vast and well documented (see Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, V.T. Istavridis, 1966). Beginning with the Russo-Greek Committee of 1862, the Episcopal Church has had a keen interest in the Orthodox. When Episcopal Church missions arrived in Califor-nia, they discovered the Russian Orthodox had arrived via Alaska with a bishop. This led to questions about the Orthodox in General Convention, and thus began the longest-standing Anglican dialogue with any other church. After various conversations, in 1922 the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognized that Anglican orders “possessed the same validity as those of the Roman, Old Catholic, and Armenian Churches, inasmuch as all the essentials are found in them which are held indispensable from the Orthodox point of view for the recognition of the Charisma of the priesthood derived from Apostolic Succession.” Similar recognition was given by the Church of Cypress (1923) and by the Patriarchates of Jerusalem (1923), Alexandria (1930), and Romania (1936). Such recognitions have no practical effect until all Orthodox Churches act and until all recognize that the Anglican Communion is orthodox in faith. [my emphasis]
The reality is that Russia subsequently intervened and objected and the matter was dropped. Since then, of course, we have had the ordination of women as bishops and priests and it is not the position now of ANY Orthodox Church that Anglican orders are valid. ALL Orthodox Churches (including Romania) reordain Anglican priests who are received and become Orthodox priests. Only Roman Catholic priests are received in their orders.
Next point ...
quote:
since all the various provinces of the Anglican Church are, like the autocephalous Greek churches, free to do what they want.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
(1) What do you mean "Greek" churches? Greek Catholic? Greek Independent Evangelicals (there are some). Of course, you mean Orthodox, but that's not clear.
(2) The Orthodox Church in Greece is called the Greek Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church in Russia is called the Russian Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church in Syria and the Lebanon is called the Antiochian Orthodox Church ... and so on. The latter are no more "Greek" than New York Catholics are "Roman."
(3) "Free to do what they want." You obviously know very little about the Orthodox Church!
All our clergy across national boundaries concelebrate with each other and we have one Church polity in matters of the sacraments and common life. I don't that's quite the same as some Anglicans cutting ties with other Anglicans and not recognising their ministries, do you?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
All our clergy across national boundaries concelebrate with each other and we have one Church polity in matters of the sacraments and common life. I don't that's quite the same as some Anglicans cutting ties with other Anglicans and not recognising their ministries, do you?
No you don't, there is still that tricky business with the Russians!
And the Anglkicans havent cut ties with each other yet, and probably aren't going to.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Do you mean ROCOR / ROCA, a small splinter if ever there was one? True ... one small anomaly ... now being addressed by Moscow in a unity move, (even Rome has such anomalies ... with the Lefebvrists ... and a similar solution now in process). This is hardly surprising bearing in mind we are 13 years out of liberation for a catacombs Church. My point still stands.
I tend to find that some Christians itch to find the slightest discepancy in Roman or Orthodox unity ... but, in my opinion, only to justify their own much greater disunities.
We are not "free to do what we want" and Anglican clergy are "re-ordained" ... those were the substantive issues in the previous post.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
).
