|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: What 'listening process'?
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
The Pilling Report, last November, called for a 2 year listening process of the Church of England to the experiences of LGBs.
On the Andrew Marr programme in June, Archbishop Welby said that we were 'in the middle' of aw2 year listening process.
Come to think of it, Lambeth 1998 (Resolution 1:10) committed itself to listening etc.
Has anyone heard of any listening going on?
I haven't.
Am wondering whether it is yet another empty promise.
[ 08. April 2017, 01:48: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Last I heard, they're gonna use (bishop appointed) panels.
The whole enterprise is bankrupt. Offering to "listen" to LGBT people implicitly disempowers them. We get to decide what happens to you.
No. Discrimination is wrong. For those enforcing homophobic policies to presume to have the authority to tell lesbian and gay people how to live their lives is arrogance of epic proportions.
The church doesn't need to listen; it needs to change, or die.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Pilling Report, last November, called for a 2 year listening process of the Church of England to the experiences of LGBs.
On the Andrew Marr programme in June, Archbishop Welby said that we were 'in the middle' of aw2 year listening process.
Come to think of it, Lambeth 1998 (Resolution 1:10) committed itself to listening etc.
Has anyone heard of any listening going on?
I haven't.
Am wondering whether it is yet another empty promise.
Ahem, LGBT people. There is at least one trans person involved.
--------------------
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
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
The fact that "they" think we need more listening tells us that "they" don't really want anything to change, whether on OoW or SSM or even the simple existence of LGBTs.
This is the organising principle of those who claim that Tradition is the only thing which keeps a church going.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
The church doesn't need to listen; it needs to change, or die.
Well, death could lead to resurrection .... it did so in one foundational case.
A conversation is simply post modern speak for what we used to call an argument. Doesn't get you anywhere - action does. Make the call, decide the road you're travelling, accept that others won't join you and will go their own way. Get on with being missional.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Pilling Report, last November, called for a 2 year listening process of the Church of England to the experiences of LGBs.
On the Andrew Marr programme in June, Archbishop Welby said that we were 'in the middle' of aw2 year listening process.
Come to think of it, Lambeth 1998 (Resolution 1:10) committed itself to listening etc.
Has anyone heard of any listening going on?
I haven't.
Am wondering whether it is yet another empty promise.
Ahem, LGBT people. There is at least one trans person involved.
I left out the 'T' because the Pilling Report hardly mentions trans people. In fact, that is its biggest mistake.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Last I heard, they're gonna use (bishop appointed) panels.
The whole enterprise is bankrupt. Offering to "listen" to LGBT people implicitly disempowers them. We get to decide what happens to you.
No. Discrimination is wrong. For those enforcing homophobic policies to presume to have the authority to tell lesbian and gay people how to live their lives is arrogance of epic proportions.
The church doesn't need to listen; it needs to change, or die.
On the ground that's what's happening, regardless of what's going on further up. Changing. And dying. Sometimes one, sometimes the other, sometimes both together.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
I always assumed that it was clear to everyone that "listening" was a deliberate euphemism for 'ignoring the problem in the hope that it goes away'.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Discrimination is wrong. For those enforcing homophobic policies to presume to have the authority to tell lesbian and gay people how to live their lives is arrogance of epic proportions.
The church doesn't need to listen; it needs to change, or die.
This.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
bad man
Apprentice
# 17449
|
Posted
From the Pilling Report:
quote:
Any implication that a process of
facilitated conversation is the equivalent of kicking the issues into the long grass and therefore need not be pursued with a sense of urgency, is to be resisted.
LOL.
Resisted by whom? Certainly not by the bishops. Kicking the issues into the long grass and not pursuing them with a sense of urgency is exactly what they are doing.
But perhaps that's not fair. The bishops did issue a quick "Pastoral Letter" pre-empting the issues by announcing that "The House is not willing for those who are in a same sex marriage to be ordained to any of the three orders of ministry."
No-one is taken in by "we are just thinking about it" delaying tactics any more. The Church of England now has a stinking reputation for Christian homophobia. And there will be consequences.
Posts: 49 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]I've lost any confidence I once had in bishops.
That's why I bailed from the CofE over 25 years ago.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
A conversation is simply post modern speak for what we used to call an argument. Doesn't get you anywhere - action does. Make the call, decide the road you're travelling, accept that others won't join you and will go their own way. Get on with being missional.
Yeah, get thee back to the 1950's! It is working so well.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bad man:
No-one is taken in by "we are just thinking about it" delaying tactics any more. The Church of England now has a stinking reputation for Christian homophobia. And there will be consequences.
Will be? I'd have said "Already are consequences - the only question is whether they are completely irreversible for the CofE". Between 2001 and 2011 Britain dropped on the Census from over 70% Christian to under 60% with the under 35s being less than 50% Christian. And that's not devout - it's just the box on the census form.
For the CofE it's worse. The average age of Churchgoers is 62. And they aren't even getting the very young any more.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Thank you. I'd looked at Changing Attitudes and Thinking Anglicans' websites but couldn't find the relevant information.
I was expecting each diocese to do something.
The process as outlined seems remote and an excuse to listen and then ignore.
I've lost any confidence I once had in bishops.
Affirming Anglicans have, as a rule, put way too much faith in bishops. Much of it's theological: Anglo-Catholics invest the office (and, by extension, the booby in it) with mystical authority. Could learn from the healthy mistrust congregationalists have of human power.
This is something that needs to be confronted openly at Synod, and not in the disastrous Higton fashion. So long as lesbian and gay people are closeted in secretive panels, tensions will continue to rise, until they boil over.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
What's happening is that we're about to enter a two year period of facilitated conversations in the CofE. The College of Bishops will next week be taken through the process as we meet together over three days, trialling the material that's been produced. It'll then be used in the Dioceses. No definite process has yet been agreed at diocesan level. We'll see how it goes. Personally, I'm not optimistic for the process, but am willing to give it a go.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
What's happening is that we're about to enter a two year period of facilitated conversations in the CofE. The College of Bishops will next week be taken through the process as we meet together over three days, trialling the material that's been produced. It'll then be used in the Dioceses. No definite process has yet been agreed at diocesan level. We'll see how it goes. Personally, I'm not optimistic for the process, but am willing to give it a go.
The important question is whether LGBT people will be willing to give it a go. So long as the threat of sanctions hangs over gay clergy, that's a big "if."
If the bishops are serious about this, how about offering concessions as a sign of good faith? Such as:-
- an apology for the tone and content of the "guidance" on equal marriage
- a personal apology and license for Jeremy Pemberton
- a personal apology to Jeffrey John, signed by all serving bishops who put their name to the 2003 letter, combined with a promise to fast-track him to a diocesan post, and a bishop's salary backdated to '03
- a guarantee that Issues ... and its "discipline" will be suspended for the duration of the conversations
The Church of England is institutionally homophobic. Given its recent history, the onus is on those in power to signal a willingness to repent and change.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
What's happening is that we're about to enter a two year period of facilitated conversations in the CofE. The College of Bishops will next week be taken through the process as we meet together over three days, trialling the material that's been produced. It'll then be used in the Dioceses. No definite process has yet been agreed at diocesan level. We'll see how it goes. Personally, I'm not optimistic for the process, but am willing to give it a go.
About to enter a two year period?
I thought you were halfway through a two year period that started last November? Of course if nothing is produced, it's hard to tell the difference.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
About to enter a two year period?
I thought you were halfway through a two year period that started last November? Of course if nothing is produced, it's hard to tell the difference.
Totally. The church's timetable has, to date, been inexcusably slow. The modern climate of overt homophobia has dragged on since 1987's Higton motion, and there's no end in sight.
A start would be individual bishops confessing to, and atoning for, their own homophobic behavior, with practical efforts to compensate their victims being core to the atonement.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
The 'Listening Process'? It's floating belly-up at the top of the fish tank.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Personally, I'm not optimistic for the process, but am willing to give it a go.
If the process were something you were optimistic about, what would you like to come out of it?
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Personally, I'm not optimistic for the process, but am willing to give it a go.
If the process were something you were optimistic about, what would you like to come out of it?
The crucial question!
Whatever their personal opinions on gay relationships, are the bishops willing, for the good of both LGBT people and the church, to repeal Higton, abandon Issues ..., and support a "two integrities" model?
The sight of happily married bishops demanding their lesbian and gay colleagues suppress their sexuality for life is as hypocritical as it is callous. Where is their empathy? Where is their decency? They would not expect or tolerate such intrusion into their own sex lives. They have no right to demand it of others.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Since SSM is now the law of the land, and appears to have no significant public opposition, the church can only guarantee its irrelevance by clinging to openly homophobic attitudes.
And I am using "irrelevance" in its proper sense: the "church" will have no purpose in society if it does not recognise where the general population is. Not having that recognition means that the next generation will not understand what the church is talking about, let alone wish to take part.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Since SSM is now the law of the land, and appears to have no significant public opposition, the church can only guarantee its irrelevance by clinging to openly homophobic attitudes.
And I am using "irrelevance" in its proper sense: the "church" will have no purpose in society if it does not recognise where the general population is. Not having that recognition means that the next generation will not understand what the church is talking about, let alone wish to take part.
But--and this is apart from whether or not one belief or another about the morality of various kinds of sex is true--the church must take the position it believes is true, whether or not that means people see it as "irrelevant." Indeed, whether or not other people like it or listen or agree is, itself, irrelevant in this case. (And this applies either way about all kinds of issues.)
If the church was the lone voice crying in the wilderness, say, regarding whether or not a given war is just, then even if no one listens, the church must stand up and stick to its principles. It must not change because other people won't like what it says.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
To his credit, Welby said as much in his 2013 speech to the Evangelical Alliance:-
quote:
We have to face the fact that the vast majority of people under 35 not only think that what we're saying is incomprehensible but also think that we're plain wrong and wicked and equate it to racism and other forms of gross and atrocious injustice.
Problem is, as this forum noted, Welby told Synod, "I am not proposing new policy." The church can't have it both ways. To change attitudes, it must change policy.
For its teaching to change, open evangelicals must take a lead, as they have on equal ordination. If they really want to break from the past, they'll drop their arguments for making homosexuality a special case, and treat gay people with the decency they show women and divorcees.
If they keep coming up with hermeneutics to set aside the Bible for every group except gay people, they can protest that homophobia doesn't motivate them, but they'll protest too much.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
(And all sorts of things are the law of the land, but that doesn't affect whether or not they are, or should be, accepted as right behavior by the church. Again, this is regardless of the morality of SSM--just a basic principle. There are all kinds of things that are wholly legal that I wish the church would take a stronger stand against, like the behavior of powerful corporations and the like... or, for that matter, homophobic laws!)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[...] [The church] must not change because other people won't like what it says.
No, it must change because it's wrong.
Anglicanism is supposed to be a broad church, but in England, it imposes a narrow, legalistic reading of the Bible on all its LGBT members.
It doesn't even play by its own rules: the mask fell when Jeffrey John was appointed Bishop of Reading, only to be driven from office by a tsunami of homophobia, despite the fact that he was celibate, and Issues ... promised that no intrusive questions would be asked.
Multiple bishops disgraced themselves and their office by demanding that he "repent" of being in a loving sexual relationship with his partner. Their shameful conduct brought them no sanction. No organization that treats people like that can claim to be anything other than institutionally homophobic.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
crunt
Shipmate
# 1321
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Pilling Report, last November, called for a 2 year listening process of the Church of England to the experiences of LGBs.
On the Andrew Marr programme in June, Archbishop Welby said that we were 'in the middle' of aw2 year listening process.
Come to think of it, Lambeth 1998 (Resolution 1:10) committed itself to listening etc.
Has anyone heard of any listening going on?
I haven't.
Am wondering whether it is yet another empty promise.
Ahem, LGBT people. There is at least one trans person involved.
I always wonder why we leave out the S from LGBT. After all, we're all in it together and even though the S people do not suffer the discrimination that LGBT people experience, I feel it is more helpful for us to stop separating people by their sexual orientation - because ultimately it shouldn't matter if you are straight, lesbian, gay, bi or trans. We're all people, so if we are talking about sexuality, let's talk about SLGBT!
--------------------
QUIZ: Bible
QUIZ: world religions
LTL Discussion
languagespider.com
Posts: 269 | From: Up country in the middle of Malaysia | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
crunt
Shipmate
# 1321
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Pilling Report, last November, called for a 2 year listening process of the Church of England to the experiences of LGBs.
On the Andrew Marr programme in June, Archbishop Welby said that we were 'in the middle' of aw2 year listening process.
Come to think of it, Lambeth 1998 (Resolution 1:10) committed itself to listening etc.
Has anyone heard of any listening going on?
I haven't.
Am wondering whether it is yet another empty promise.
Ahem, LGBT people. There is at least one trans person involved.
I always wonder why we leave out the S from LGBT. After all, we're all in it together and even though the S people do not suffer the discrimination that LGBT people experience, I feel it is more helpful for us to stop separating people by their sexual orientation - because ultimately it shouldn't matter if you are straight, lesbian, gay, bi or trans. We're all people, so if we are talking about sexuality, let's talk about SLGBT!
--------------------
QUIZ: Bible
QUIZ: world religions
LTL Discussion
languagespider.com
Posts: 269 | From: Up country in the middle of Malaysia | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[...] [The church] must not change because other people won't like what it says.
No, it must change because it's wrong.
That would be the only valid reason to change a doctrine, absolutely.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by crunt:
After all, we're all in it together and even though the S people do not suffer the discrimination that LGBT people experience, I feel it is more helpful for us to stop separating people by their sexual orientation - because ultimately it shouldn't matter if you are straight, lesbian, gay, bi or trans. We're all people, so if we are talking about sexuality, let's talk about SLGBT!
I think this is on a level with stopping talking about race because we're all in this together. That don't help make racism and its effects go away, however. So also with this.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by crunt:
I always wonder why we leave out the S from LGBT. After all, we're all in it together and even though the S people do not suffer the discrimination that LGBT people experience, I feel it is more helpful for us to stop separating people by their sexual orientation - because ultimately it shouldn't matter if you are straight, lesbian, gay, bi or trans. We're all people, so if we are talking about sexuality, let's talk about SLGBT!
There's already been quite a few centuries focused on talking about straight people. But worse luck for straight people, The Bishops have already selected representatives for straights and it's .... the Bishops themselves.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[...] [The church] must not change because other people won't like what it says.
No, it must change because it's wrong.
Anglicanism is supposed to be a broad church, but in England, it imposes a narrow, legalistic reading of the Bible on all its LGBT members.
It doesn't even play by its own rules: the mask fell when Jeffrey John was appointed Bishop of Reading, only to be driven from office by a tsunami of homophobia, despite the fact that he was celibate, and Issues ... promised that no intrusive questions would be asked.
Multiple bishops disgraced themselves and their office by demanding that he "repent" of being in a loving sexual relationship with his partner. Their shameful conduct brought them no sanction. No organization that treats people like that can claim to be anything other than institutionally homophobic.
At the time, John's position was contra to the accepted Anglican understanding of such things. Even though some of the Anglican hierarchy knew and approved (at the highest levels), it didn't change the fact - John was acting in a way that was seen as wrong both from the pov of statute and in the opinion of a significant constituency in the churches.
More fool him for believing that Rowan Williams would stand by him. His (RW's) traitorous behaviour on this was perhaps his worst hour in the process of a generally ignominious tenure.
The die has always been cast once the church differentiated between "acceptable" behaviour for "lay" people and that for "ordained" people. Sadly the principle of the lesson wasn't learned as we've seen with the whole Oow and Women as Bishops fiasco.
[ 06. September 2014, 07:04: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Just an explanation as to why the facilitated conversations haven't started yet. The House of Bishops didn't find Pilling to be an adequate basis for the conversations. We have therefore commissioned David Porter to start the process based on different theological and pastoral material. Pilling is not on the table. The new material is what the Bishops will be trialling.
And the question about why "listening" hasn't worked is pretty easily answered. It was taken by those who are arguing for change to be a one-way process. The listening in the new conversations has to be two-way, without any presupposition that we are moving inexorably towards a defined goal. Two-way stuff will be the only way we can make progress.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
At the time, John's position was contra to the accepted Anglican understanding of such things. Even though some of the Anglican hierarchy knew and approved (at the highest levels), it didn't change the fact - John was acting in a way that was seen as wrong both from the pov of statute and in the opinion of a significant constituency in the churches.
Except he wasn't. At all. His relationship was by then celibate.
The people who went against church teaching were the evangelical bullies who trampled on Issues' ... guarantee that no questions would be asked.
quote:
More fool him for believing that Rowan Williams would stand by him. His (RW's) traitorous behaviour on this was perhaps his worst hour in the process of a generally ignominious tenure.
The die has always been cast once the church differentiated between "acceptable" behaviour for "lay" people and that for "ordained" people. Sadly the principle of the lesson wasn't learned as we've seen with the whole Oow and Women as Bishops fiasco.
Agreed about Rowan Williams. He went into denial and never left.
The homophobic rage against a gay man who followed the church's unjust rules showed up the distinction between orientation and its expression for the nonsense it is.
Williams refused to accept that the condemnation of gay relationships was driven by homophobia, not theology, and became a lame duck prelate as a result. Like too many who've lived their lives in an ivory tower, he refused to admit that you can't reason with the unreasonable.
LGBT Anglicans paid the price for his "gracious restraint."
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
[QUOTE]
1. Except he wasn't. At all. His relationship was by then celibate.
2. LGBT Anglicans paid the price for his "gracious restraint."
1. Celibacy wasn't the breaking point under "issues" IIRC all same sex partnership whether celibate or not were proscribed. JJ made no secret of the fact either that he'd once been sexually active within that relationship and in some eyes his failure to repent of that damned him more.
He was damned in the eyes of the pro same sex relationship camp because he revealed the hypocrisy of the don't ask: don't tell position. He lost the support of those he knew as friends because he blew their cover on this issue exposing more hypocrisy: what many said in private they repudiated in public. It's happened in other denominations too.
2. Gracious restraint = rampant hypocrisy and self interest. JJ rocked the boat and paid the price: I don't agree with his views on same sex relationships but I admire his stand against the self interest, hypocrisy and power games seemingly rampant in the church.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Just an explanation as to why the facilitated conversations haven't started yet. The House of Bishops didn't find Pilling to be an adequate basis for the conversations. We have therefore commissioned David Porter to start the process based on different theological and pastoral material. Pilling is not on the table. The new material is what the Bishops will be trialling.
And the question about why "listening" hasn't worked is pretty easily answered. It was taken by those who are arguing for change to be a one-way process. The listening in the new conversations has to be two-way, without any presupposition that we are moving inexorably towards a defined goal. Two-way stuff will be the only way we can make progress.
LGBT Anglicans know the traditional position better than anyone. They've listened more than enough. What needs to change is the demand that they suppress their sexuality for life.
Would you be willing to abstain from sharing any physical affection with your wife until the church makes up its mind? That's what you're asking lesbian and gay people to do, after all.
(As you felt it proper to quiz Jeffrey John about his sex life, I know you don't consider such personal comments out-of-bounds. Out of interest, have you ever apologized to him for your part in driving him from his post?)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Just an explanation as to why the facilitated conversations haven't started yet. The House of Bishops didn't find Pilling to be an adequate basis for the conversations. We have therefore commissioned David Porter to start the process based on different theological and pastoral material. Pilling is not on the table. The new material is what the Bishops will be trialling.
And the question about why "listening" hasn't worked is pretty easily answered. It was taken by those who are arguing for change to be a one-way process. The listening in the new conversations has to be two-way, without any presupposition that we are moving inexorably towards a defined goal. Two-way stuff will be the only way we can make progress.
It's going to be a two way conversation based only on different theological and pastoral material selected by the Bishops as a basis for communication? It sounds like the Bishops have decided who's going to be doing the talking and who's going to be doing the listening in this two way stuff.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
1. Celibacy wasn't the breaking point under "issues" IIRC all same sex partnership whether celibate or not were proscribed. JJ made no secret of the fact either that he'd once been sexually active within that relationship and in some eyes his failure to repent of that damned him more.
He was damned in the eyes of the pro same sex relationship camp because he revealed the hypocrisy of the don't ask: don't tell position. He lost the support of those he knew as friends because he blew their cover on this issue exposing more hypocrisy: what many said in private they repudiated in public. It's happened in other denominations too.
Issues ... (originally a discussion document, not holy writ) opines (5:17) that clergy aren't at liberty to "enter into sexually active homophile [!] relationships," but goes on to emphasize trust, and say that any "inquisition into the conduct of the clergy" would violate their right to privacy.
In short, it's DADT. John should never have been asked about the nature of his relationship. That he was says loud and clear that, whatever else was driving those who demanded his resignation, it wasn't obedience to church teaching.
quote:
2. Gracious restraint = rampant hypocrisy and self interest. JJ rocked the boat and paid the price: I don't agree with his views on same sex relationships but I admire his stand against the self interest, hypocrisy and power games seemingly rampant in the church.
Here we're agreed!
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Being "only" a discussion document means it had no standing under canon law, hence the status quo was retained. JJ was therefore wrong to admit to being in a same sex relationship albeit celibate (although we have no way of knowing that it was or wasn't: JJ had, after all, been in a proscribed relationship for many years).
JJ was at fault as such in admitting it publicly: the hierarchy who exercised DADT were at fault for duplicity against canon law and those who brought JJ down were at fault for insensitivity and possibly breach of trust. No one wins.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Two-way stuff will be the only way we can make progress.
And a two way approach will be easily facilitated by the number of people involved who are two faced. Tho' at least one of the most two faced on this issue (stop staring pseudo-mystically out of the window, Williams major- and Welby minor, wipe that smirk off your face, you're in no position to gloat) is not now in a position of authority.
[ 06. September 2014, 12:12: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Being "only" a discussion document means it had no standing under canon law, hence the status quo was retained. JJ was therefore wrong to admit to being in a same sex relationship albeit celibate (although we have no way of knowing that it was or wasn't: JJ had, after all, been in a proscribed relationship for many years).
JJ was at fault as such in admitting it publicly: the hierarchy who exercised DADT were at fault for duplicity against canon law and those who brought JJ down were at fault for insensitivity and possibly breach of trust. No one wins.
Which canon law is Jeffrey John supposed to have broken?
Even if he had, the appropriate response would've been charges laid before an ecclesiastical court, not the intimidation he received, foreign and domestic. That isn't law, it's mob rule.
Given the weight the Church of England placed (and places) in Issues ..., if it took that line, it'd be disingenuous with extreme prejudice. Looks like goalpoast shifting to me.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
To buttress the above, ExclamationMark, here's the 2003 letter, signed by the bishops who condemned John's appointment.
It explicitly cites Issues ... -- "We have been repeatedly assured that the House of Bishops' position stated in Issues in Human Sexuality has not changed" -- and claims to welcome celibate same-sex relationships -- "By his own admission he has been in a same-sex relationship for twenty years. We value, of course, the gift of same-sex friendship and if this relationship is one of companionship and sexual abstinence, then, we rejoice."
Care to withdraw your claim about canon law in light of this?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Just an explanation as to why the facilitated conversations haven't started yet. The House of Bishops didn't find Pilling to be an adequate basis for the conversations. We have therefore commissioned David Porter to start the process based on different theological and pastoral material. Pilling is not on the table. The new material is what the Bishops will be trialling.
And the question about why "listening" hasn't worked is pretty easily answered. It was taken by those who are arguing for change to be a one-way process. The listening in the new conversations has to be two-way, without any presupposition that we are moving inexorably towards a defined goal. Two-way stuff will be the only way we can make progress.
LGBT Anglicans know the traditional position better than anyone. They've listened more than enough. What needs to change is the demand that they suppress their sexuality for life.
Would you be willing to abstain from sharing any physical affection with your wife until the church makes up its mind? That's what you're asking lesbian and gay people to do, after all.
(As you felt it proper to quiz Jeffrey John about his sex life, I know you don't consider such personal comments out-of-bounds. Out of interest, have you ever apologized to him for your part in driving him from his post?)
The Newspaper article you quote, surprisingly for the odious Jonathan Petre, cites accurately what I said. It was his teaching that I was questioning. I made no statement about his personal life. I think he's a fine theologian. But his teaching is not consonant with scripture, canons, or the tradition of the Church.
But I'm not prepared to make this into a Jeffrey John discussion. People wanted to know what the next stage is in relation to the facilitated conversations. Which is what I've outlined. The derision on the thread does tend to indicate that we have a pretty fundamental non meeting of minds, and that the process will be well-nigh impossible.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The Newspaper article you quote, surprisingly for the odious Jonathan Petre, cites accurately what I said. It was his teaching that I was questioning. I made no statement about his personal life. I think he's a fine theologian. But his teaching is not consonant with scripture, canons, or the tradition of the Church.
Just like equal ordination, which you passionately support.
According to Stephen Bates' A Church At War (p.196) you signed the letter I just linked, although the version I found only contains the signatures of the diocesans. That letter certainly makes statements about Jeffrey John's personal life.
quote:
But I'm not prepared to make this into a Jeffrey John discussion. People wanted to know what the next stage is in relation to the facilitated conversations. Which is what I've outlined. The derision on the thread does tend to indicate that we have a pretty fundamental non meeting of minds, and that the process will be well-nigh impossible.
Of course we have a "non meeting of minds," the two positions are irreconcilable, just as equal ordination is irreconcilable with male headship and male apostolic succession. The problem comes from evangelicals insisting that their theology be imposed on the church at large.
What can "listening" achieve? LGBT Anglicans and their allies know better than anyone how deeply conservatives hold their beliefs: I'll do conservatives the credit of assuming that they're well aware how painful their demands are for LGBT people.
"Listening" looks like a tactic to drag this out as long as possible. Instead of yet more listening (which assumes a position of power: we listen, and then get to decide), why do the bishops not devote their energies to negotiating a two-integrities model?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
pete173, what could come out of a properly 2-way process? What is it expected that people (on both sides) might learn from the other side that they don't know already? Or what decisions do you expect might flow from the listening? Or is there some other type of result you think might arise from an ideal two-way listening process, besides simply hearing what the other side thinks?
I've been listening for years. I feel like I've heard all the civil arguments of good-will and honestly trying to uphold the faith already. The only time I hear new things these days from the other side from me are when someone comes out with something that astonishes me with its contempt and dismissal. So what meeting of minds can occur, if it hasn't already occurred? (I won't deny that my own side can also be contemptual and dismissive; of course both sides, I presume, feel they're justified and trying to uphold Christian values, and that their contempt is justified.)
[ 06. September 2014, 16:48: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
pete173, what could come out of a properly 2-way process? What is it expected that people (on both sides) might learn from the other side that they don't know already? Or what decisions do you expect might flow from the listening? Or is there some other type of result you think might arise from an ideal two-way listening process, besides simply hearing what the other side thinks?
I've been listening for years. I feel like I've heard all the civil arguments of good-will and honestly trying to uphold the faith already. The only time I hear new things these days from the other side from me are when someone comes out with something that astonishes me with its contempt and dismissal. So what meeting of minds can occur, if it hasn't already occurred? (I won't deny that my own side can also be contemptual and dismissive; of course both sides, I presume, feel they're justified and trying to uphold Christian values, and that their contempt is justified.)
Says it all. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Pete173 says that conversations about sexuality must proceed "without any presupposition that we are moving inexorably towards a defined goal." Problem is, LGBT Anglicans and their allies have a clear and fixed goal: the end of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Does Pete173 believe there's any realistic prospect that a majority of LGBT Anglicans will agree to suppress their sexuality for life? If not, if this process isn't yet another delaying tactic (see previous guarantees of "listening" in 1991, 1998, 2003 ...), what's the point?
Right now, it's all hopelessly vague.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
I'm surprised that you're asking me whether the facilitated conversations or the listening process are worthwhile. The impression we've been given is that the process is seen as a way forward by many of those advocating change. Personally, I have little or no investment in them, and even less optimism that they will bring an end to the impasse in the Church of England.
It was however the use of this kind of process in relation to the issue of women bishops that brought about a breakthrough on that deadlocked debate, and I did encounter many members of Synod who felt that through facilitated conversations they had for the first time come to understand and appreciate the positions of their opponents. So that's why I think that, as a Church, we have to give it a go.
Such conversations and debates have, admittedly, been going on in the CofE since at least the 1970s - and our familiarity with the arguments and the pastoral issues on both sides of the divide does mean that we can all probably write compellingly in defence of the position espoused by our opponents.
I don't think that a negotiated two integrities model will work on this issue - the divergence over both hermeneutical and canonical understanding and liturgical practice (lex orandi, lex credendi) makes it far less easy to solve than the ordination of women.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Where does liturgical practice, in particular lex orandi lex credendi, come into this?
The only thing I can think of is the obvious liturgical practice that would be desired by one side: performing same sex marriages. But that obviously approves of same sex marriages, whereas I understand lex orandi lex credendi to be about more subtle features of liturgy.
[ 06. September 2014, 17:28: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
