|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: What 'listening process'?
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I know affirming evangelicals, but their evangelicalism is more cultural than theological. The more folk get into evangelical theology, the more they tend to oppose gay relationships as a "salvation issue."
Fascinating observation. I think if you aren't prepared to read theological writings from outside your own particular framework, then you do get locked into a kind of self-enclosing idea of which theology is "sound". James Barr wrote effectively about that self-enclosure some thirty-odd years ago now.
Tom Wright is different, of course. You're quite right that he's not afraid to challenge received wisdom in other aspects of faith so my guess is that his position over gayness is a thought out personal conviction.
I lay no great claims to theological expertise; my own convictions do follow much thought and I've read pros and cons arguments pretty extensively. In the end, I reached a point where (to use my wife's favourite phrase about conviction) I could simply say "I know in my knower". Not an argument that convinces anyone else of course!
Maybe I'm an exception? I read stuff from all over the theological spectrum, make my own mind up about it. I'm an evangelical who reads a lot of theology! It helps me to understand my own and other communities better.
[ 26. November 2014, 10:08: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
... I've read pros and cons arguments pretty extensively...
Even sometimes when you'd rather be doing something else I suspect, since the hosts have to read every post!
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
... I've read pros and cons arguments pretty extensively...
Even sometimes when you'd rather be doing something else I suspect, since the hosts have to read every post!
Your sympathy is appreciated! Of course I do read a lot of theological opinions here and over the years it's helped me a lot to appreciate the diversity of our unrestful community.
Sometimes there is a lot of spouting, without much appearance of "listening"! But in general I find Ship debates illuminate real differences, and often go deep in uncovering why they are there. I've found that to be educational.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I totally agree with Ricardus, to me, it seems crazy to tolerate diversity on warfare but not on sexuality.
As I say, the comment was made by James Jones, towards the end of his time as Bishop of Liverpool. I think it was part of an address to General Synod.
James Jones very publicly campaigned against the consecration of Jeffrey John and against the repeal of Section 28. A few years later he confessed publicly that he had been an arse on homosexuality. I'm not sure what he now personally thinks about the issue but his comments above seem to prove that change is possible, even among the more conservative Evangelicals.
ETA: I have not heard his former conservative allies lining up to anathematise his apostasy. I'm not sure what to make of this.
[ 26. November 2014, 11:30: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Interesting, Ricardus. Many Christians use theology as a vehicle for homophobia. Open evangelicals are different in that opposing gay relationships goes against their inclinations. (Illustrated most dramatically by Pete Broadbent fighting for gay rights in the 80s.)
Love "I know in my knower," Barnabas62! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) TBH, that's pretty much my position, but I'd go against my instincts if I thought I had cause to do so. I see none, none at all.
I couldn't agree more about folk getting stuck in a theological ghetto. That goes for everyone. As vehemently as I might disagree with 'em, I always try to be fair to my opponents, and be sure to ask (non-affirming) evangelicals to explain their position to me. I try to return the favor (whether they want it or not ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ), and emphasize that I'm not a dedicated follower of fashion on this.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I still don't see how being a 'traditionalist' on this issue should prevent you from co-existing in the same church with people who have equally strong and Christian but different convictions about it. Any more than being a 'traditionalist' about the ordination of women means that they don't accept you, and the rest of us, as members of the same Church.
As evangelicals have explained it to me, equal ordination is "adiaphoron," or a "thing indifferent" to use the old school phrasing. In short, as it's not a core doctrine, Christians can agree to disagree.
Gay relationships, by contrast, are, thanks to Paul's words in Corinthians, a "salvation issue." For many (not all) evangelicals, it can't be tolerated without corrupting the church.
I know this has been said many times before, and I've never yet heard a satisfactory answer: divorce is explicitly condemned by our Lord himself, who does not (in any of the four gospels) so much as mention homosexuality. So why is that not a 'salvation issue' while the other is? Plenty of heterosexual evangelicals, including clergy and pastors, have been divorced and remarried.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
Also, can we assume that, since the evangelicals are kicking up such a fuss about gays, none of the other issues that divide evangelicals from liberals or anglo-catholics are 'salvation issues'?
If so I'd love to know what is a salvation issue. The nature of salvation obviously isn't a salvation issue since liberals and evangelicals don't agree about it.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I agree that culture plays a major part, Jolly Jape, but Tom Wright goes against evangelical culture all the time: he went to bat for Steve Chalke over the atonement, and defends women's ministry from a scriptural POV. He also criticizes common evangelical assumptions about the second coming and rapture, and is a vocal critic of the N.I.V. translation.
I suspect that there's a question of closing ranks as well. It's one thing to take sides on an intra-evangelical argument, but it's another to adopt a position held largely by critics of evangelicalism as a whole.
I think Wright has a kneejerk reaction against arguments of the form 'we used to believe xyz, but now due to modern science/ democracy etc we know that's all empty superstition.' I suspect Rowan Williams' mishandling of the matter was also partly down to that.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
On Paul, the word "arsenokoitai" is a roadblock to many 'cause it's so sweeping ("arseno-," man, and "-koitai," laying with). You do need "exegetical fancy-footwork" to get it to not apply to all sexuality activity between men. (And, given what Paul wrote elsewhere, women too.)
The next word, malakoi, also refers to some variant of sexual relations between men. Therefore, logically, arsenokoitai can at most refer to all sexual activity between men not covered by malakoi.
To argue that between them the two words must cover all sexual activity between men requires additional argument (namely, specifying what is covered under each of the two words and showing that they jointly exhaust the territory).
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The next word, malakoi, also refers to some variant of sexual relations between men. Therefore, logically, arsenokoitai can at most refer to all sexual activity between men not covered by malakoi.
To argue that between them the two words must cover all sexual activity between men requires additional argument (namely, specifying what is covered under each of the two words and showing that they jointly exhaust the territory).
I accept that it can be argued (most anything can). Given Paul's background, I don't buy it (given the Mosaic law and surrounding culture, any 1st century Jewish person giving homosexuality the OK is, well, unlikely in the extreme).
I'd far rather argue that Paul was simply wrong. It's what I honestly believe, it's a much stronger argument, and it criticizes biblical authority, which I consider worth doing for its own sake.
Others will, of course, take a different tack, which is fine by me. We need different approaches.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I know this has been said many times before, and I've never yet heard a satisfactory answer: divorce is explicitly condemned by our Lord himself, who does not (in any of the four gospels) so much as mention homosexuality. So why is that not a 'salvation issue' while the other is? Plenty of heterosexual evangelicals, including clergy and pastors, have been divorced and remarried.
It's the things listed in 1st Cor., c.6: from the NRSV:-
quote:
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers -- none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.
"Moichos" is usually translated as "adulterer," and according to gospels, remarriage is adultery unless on the grounds of sexual immorality (Mark doesn't make even this exception), so yeah, non-affirming evangelicals should be much stronger on no-fault divorce.
As to why many aren't, well, guess it hits too close to home.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I know this has been said many times before, and I've never yet heard a satisfactory answer: divorce is explicitly condemned by our Lord himself, who does not (in any of the four gospels) so much as mention homosexuality. So why is that not a 'salvation issue' while the other is? Plenty of heterosexual evangelicals, including clergy and pastors, have been divorced and remarried.
It's the things listed in 1st Cor., c.6: from the NRSV:-
quote:
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers -- none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.
"Moichos" is usually translated as "adulterer," and according to gospels, remarriage is adultery unless on the grounds of sexual immorality (Mark doesn't make even this exception), so yeah, non-affirming evangelicals should be much stronger on no-fault divorce.
As to why many aren't, well, guess it hits too close to home.
I do think sins that "we" are not likely to commit are the ones that get targetted, it gives us this nice warm judgemental glow that we're not sinners like them.
Although to be fair, being divorced or married to a divorced woman precludes you from being appointed as a Rector in the Sydney Anglican diocese.
[ 27. November 2014, 23:43: Message edited by: Evangeline ]
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I do think sins that "we" are not likely to commit are the ones that get targetted, it gives us this nice warm judgemental glow that we're not sinners like them.
Testify. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Hmmmm, reading 1 Cor. 6 again in light of the adultery/divorce pericope, I'm getting the horrible feeling I've been wrong about the motives of many non-affirming evangelicals.
Shit. My attempt to see the good in people gets another kick. Oh well, it's some, not all.
quote:
Although to be fair, being divorced or married to a divorced woman precludes you from being appointed as a Rector in the Sydney Anglican diocese.
One gay priest did give a grudging respect to the "mad sincerity" of conservatives. Though I doubt even Sydney's campaigned for the reinstitution of slavery and coverture of late. All a matter of degree.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
As regards the divorce/remarriage thing I think one difference is that with remarriage we are often dealing with something which is of the past, already done, and where the question is "Can there be here something on the lines of 'forgiveness/fresh start'?" With the gay and SSM issues it's about an intention to carry on in the future doing things afresh over and over again which the Bible certainly seems to forbid. I do agree that many churches are not firm enough over this divorce etc thing - but it's not quite the same thing as the gay issue.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
The done & dusted excuse doesn't fly. According to Matthew and Mark's account of Jesus' teaching, a man who divorces his wife and remarries is committing adultery. So divorcees are, by this, in an ongoing state of adultery. According to Paul, adultery is just as much a "salvation issue" as homosexuality. Therefore, with remarried divorcees, there's an intention to carry on in the future doing things afresh over and over again which the Bible certainly seems to forbid.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I do think sins that "we" are not likely to commit are the ones that get targetted, it gives us this nice warm judgemental glow that we're not sinners like them.
Testify.
Hmmmm, reading 1 Cor. 6 again in light of the adultery/divorce pericope, I'm getting the horrible feeling I've been wrong about the motives of many non-affirming evangelicals.
Shit. My attempt to see the good in people gets another kick. Oh well, it's some, not all.
quote:
Although to be fair, being divorced or married to a divorced woman precludes you from being appointed as a Rector in the Sydney Anglican diocese.
One gay priest did give a grudging respect to the "mad sincerity" of conservatives. Though I doubt even Sydney's campaigned for the reinstitution of slavery and coverture of late. All a matter of degree.
They do insist on "biblical" roles for women and that women are to be submissive to their husbands so I don't think coverture is too long a bow to draw, I suspect there would be a number who would support it.
I haven't heard despite asking, why they don't support slavery. What they are also particularly quiet about is the biblical imperative to give away all you have to follow the Lord and common ownership of assets as per the church in Acts, the model upon which we are supposed to be basing our communities.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I think you're being a bit premature, Leo.
This week's edition of The Church Times has a letter from someone (The Revd Bob Yeomans) describing the process in the West Country and it appears far from satisfactory.
It describes something that is micro-managed in the best Soviet style: 4 papers presented; 'facilitators' tasked with reporting back to the powers-that-be, rather than the participants; etc, etc, etc.
I can't give a link because the CT is subscription only but I'm sure a lot of people on the Ship will be able to get a squint at the paper and read for themselves.
In other areas, people who were originally approached have been 'disinvited' and one is bound to wonder if this is because they might be expected to say things that the HoB don't want said, and an attempt to find out how the invitees are arrived at hasn't been successful.
Does that give any of you the feeling that the process is open, honest and above-board?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Our local Chapter (meeting of Anglican clergy)spent a day discussing this, and it was very helpful. Both sides were able to express themselves well and lovingly, and there was a strong sense of supporting each other even when we disagree.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I wonder if members of the House of Bishops are looking across the Irish Sea this morning and seeing just how quickly a seemingly entrenched institution can be sidelined?
According to my Hibernian relatives, its not been the abuse and revelations about the Magdalenes that have done it, its been the pronouncements of the church hierarchy and the fact that they still persist in hiding archives and records.
Are you watching, CofE?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The conversations are now under way and seem to be going well according to reports here.
Do bear in mind that those reports come from one particular side of the fence. Other mileage may vary if, as some claim, the participants have been chosen (or not chosen) to represent specific views.
The real question is what next? Dialogue and conversation have fast become buzz words but what will be agreed and more to the point what will be done?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Missed edit window ....
Jeremy Pemberton's remarks about the interpretation and place of scripture lie at the heart of the debate I feel. When the CofE's attitude changes to SSM and SSr's (and it will), what next will be thrown out as we further redact the bible in light of "culture"? Will the CofE move down the line of Don Cupitt and the Sea of Faith?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Pffft. Some of them don't even believe in the authenticity of the Johannine comma.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Have no fear, EM: it is becoming clear that the aims of the facilitated conversations (FCs) are:
1. Reaching an understanding on how to 'disagree well' - which is fine, that is how they are advertised.
2. To stifle any meaningful discussion, especially with people whose personal experience of how the current 'don't tell' hypocrisy impacts on people - and that wasn't advertised.
To achieve this last the selection process for people to take part in the FCs is about as opaque as can be achieved, being done by bishops. The published criteria look reasonable on paper (50/50 male-female, some LGBT people, 25% under 40, etc, but those will be hard to meet in some dioceses.
I know 3 people who've been turned down for FCs: 2 are gay, 1 is gay and under 40, 1 is straight but was married to someone who came out as gay. All three have been told that they don't meet the criteria for selection.
The long-grass that they're kicking the ball into is growing ever higher and more luxuriant.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Just to take you off on a bit of a tangent: this Saturday the URC is holding an Extraordinary General Assembly specifically to discuss the issue of allowing (or not) churches to host Same-sex Marriage services if they so wish. They can already choose to be licensed for Civil Partnerships, but I don't know how many have done so.
Union Chapel in Islington has registered for Civil Partnerships, but they are one of the Congregational churches which never joined the URC.
[ 25. June 2015, 15:51: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Union Chapel in Islington is also acting as a concert hall. I suspect that they are desperate to keep the money coming in to keep the fairly spectacular building upright.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I doubt if they make money from Civil Partnerships. It costs a lot to register and they may not recoup it in ceremonies - but I don't know. For them I think it may well have been a matter of principle to offer CPs.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Am getting ready in the next few weeks for my small part in the 'facilitated conversations': spoke briefly to a friend who went for another diocese about the practicalities and they suggested lots of chewing gum, otherwise the temptation to resume smoking might be too great!
The other suggestion was to take alcohol because it might be helpful to have strong drink at the end of the day
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
L'o - best of luck and may everyone participate in BYO
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Anyone else seen this? This woman speaks wisdom!
Dear Church of England: from a gay ordinand
Wow! (Her honesty and pain leave a large lump in my throat!)
[ 09. December 2015, 15:39: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I know Rose personally - she is great. Definitely pretty conservative theologically (think Wycliffe/Ridley), and the CoE would be mad not to encourage talent like hers.
I know several evangelical, young, LGBT Anglicans whose loyalty to evangelicalism in the face of their awful treatment is frankly undeserved and makes me want to bang heads together. Evangelical Anglicans (and conservative evangelicals generally who are unfriendly to even celibate LGBT people holding leadership positions) do not realise the talent they are haemorrhaging due to their lack of understanding of the pain this causes. LGBT evangelicals love their churches, love the Bible, love evangelism - they don't want to have to abandon that to make their lives easier, yet they are being forced out.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Well: I went on the "facilitated conversation" thingy.
I thought at 60 I was too old to be shocked or surprised by anything, but the level of ignorance, bigotry and sheer unpleasantness I saw and heard there was on a level I'd never imagined.
There can be no "good" disagreement. The well-meaning liberal middle-of-the-road are misguided if they think that worrying about our fellow anglicans in Africa matters a damn to the bible-bashing bigot wing of the CofE. There is now only one course: either the CofE stops the nonsense and decides to enter the real world, or it allows itself to be blackmailed by a poisonous alliance of gay-haters and hand-wringers and loses any remaining respect it might have among the wider population.
My personal view, of course, but thats the way I see it.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
From outside, there is an obvious solution. The CofE returns to the historical practices of the RCC and demands that all priests be celibate. That would solve it. Wouldn't it?
It was the evidence of venom about women that sent me away (with no call to anything, but just the sense that I did not want, unknowingly, to receive the Eucharist from the hands of someone who would recoil from receiving it from me, were I ordained) and the evidence of venom, about these other issues, continues.
[ 10. December 2015, 11:34: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
Good work, L'Organist. You're a braver individual than I. And I agree with your analysis. What happens next with the whole listening process stuff?
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Well: I went on the "facilitated conversation" thingy.
I thought at 60 I was too old to be shocked or surprised by anything, but the level of ignorance, bigotry and sheer unpleasantness I saw and heard there was on a level I'd never imagined.
I have seen a range of responses now, from people who have been part of these conversations and they have clearly had very different experiences in different areas. I have been worried, though by how often people have reported shock, surprise, bigotry and unpleasantness of various kinds.
It occurs to me, that, whatever the overall outcomes for the Church, there may well be real, personal repercussions for those who have been good enough to give their time and energy to the process and have been met with bigotry and ignorance. Will our loving and caring Church have put support in place for those who have been exposed to such hatefulness on our behalf? This is not casual, passing in the street homophobia, which would be bad enough. This is planned and considered bigotry, directed towards people who have been invited to an allegedly safe and Christian conversation.
Thank you for your contribution to this important part of our Church's life, and I am so sorry that members of our Church behaved so badly.
Anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Jemima the 9th quote:
What happens next with the whole listening process stuff?
Well, that's part of the problem: although Pilling called for some sort of discussion (hence the "facilitated conversations") no mechanism for summarising, reporting back or anything like recommendations was put in place - and from the thing I was on I can tell you that it wouldn't be possible in all conscience to draw up a report or recommendation that would be agreed on by even two-thirds ofthe participants.
As for time-frame: Pilling envisaged his report being discussed and action decided upon within 2 years - that was in November 2013 - and yet the last of the conversations isn't scheduled to take place until next summer.
With regards to venom: I saw none exhibited towards women on a general level, but I did see (and hear) evangelical clergy not only refuse to receive the eucharist from a woman (headship, I presume?) but also to even be in a service with gay clergy.
The whole idea of the "conversations" seems to me deeply flawed and to have been set on a predetermined course since the aim is we should learn to "disagree well". While this may have been suggested in all sincerity as being a possible route to encourage discussion and exchange of ideas, my experience of the reality is that most of the people there (self included, I'll admit) were there with minds already made up about the church and SSM.
Even more troubling was that the facilitators all seemed to come from one particular theological standpoint - unfortunate at the very least, and dishonest at worst.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
Which standpoint, L'Organist, if I may ask? And is it not due to the fact that, unless they were self-avowedly Christian, the matter's pretty much settled among non-religious people?
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
It was decided to have as facilitators people from an organisation that is (a) Christian, and (b) CofE in foundation.
IMO this was a situation where the need was for people who definitely weren't CofE and, preferably, not even people of Christian belief. Given the time it has taken to get these things off the ground, surely there were other organisations they could (should?) have approached.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Jemima the 9th quote:
What happens next with the whole listening process stuff?
Well, that's part of the problem: although Pilling called for some sort of discussion (hence the "facilitated conversations") no mechanism for summarising, reporting back or anything like recommendations was put in place....
Thanks for your insight. Granted I'm unfamiliar with this sort of procedure, but that looks like appallingly bad practice to me.
What a mess.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Sussex does, in fairness, have some particularly - ahem - eccentric niches of the CoE and other dioceses may be more balanced. I am in Winchester diocese and not holding out much hope here...
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Probably due to the belated nature of the conversion of the place, and the pride with which this has been proclaimed. It may be rolling along well out of synch with everyone else...
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Pomona quote:
I am in Winchester diocese and not holding out much hope here...
A depressing and, it would seem, entirely accurate reading the situation in Winchester, now that we see Tim Dakin refusing to give Canon Jeremy Davies PTO because he is married.
If I were in one of Winchester's many smaller village communities that has no regular priest, I'd be hopping mad that the bishop sees fit to refuse PTO to a good priest, one who has been in a faithful and covenanted relationship for more than 25 years.
In the meantime, I think that Canon Davies still has PTO in Salisbury diocese so Winchester's loss is their gain.
What a mess.
And another fine example that rather than waiting for the "facilitated conversations" to finish - even prompt action - bishops are happy to move in a stop people exercising their ministry.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I've known Jeremy about 35 years and he is a brilliant preacher - I can still remember stuff - not just the stories but the content - of sermons of his.
That's he was a popular pastor is evident from the huge numbers in the maruee outside Salisbury Cathedral when he entered into a civil partnership and by some comments by a friend of mine who was parish priest of a neighbouring church.
The church who wanted him to say mass has had a succession of vicars who left in rapid succession because - allegedly - of unfortunate wrangles with the team rector with whom the bishop sided. The poor people just want a pastor.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There's an interesting account by a friend of mine here.
I know him leo!
Reading his report and those of several others, ISTM that any conversation is going to be profoundly influenced by the participants' views of Scripture, both its inspiration and interpretation/application.
As these views vary hugely across the Anglican communion I foresee many hurdles in the process of listening to one another.
It makes me very sad.
It also brings me back to my default question in every situation of conflict "What does it look like for me to love this person?"
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Anyone else seen this? This woman speaks wisdom!
Dear Church of England: from a gay ordinand
I happened across her on twitter only this morning. I tweeted to her:
quote:
30 years ago, I made a similar sacrifice. Sorry to say, looking back, it wasn't worth it. Hope it will be different for you.
But such is my view of the CofE that I can only say "hope", not "believe" or "think".
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
