|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: LGBT (Anglican) clergy: useful idiots?
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think the problem is that without an understanding of the historic position within England, one is liable to get the wrong idea about the CofE and marriage. At one time, Anglican marriage was the only legal form of marriage.
The end result is that the CofE in England has a special position but also special residual responsibilities. So Anglican church marriage is not "Christian" marriage - because anyone of any religion can be married in an Anglican church if they are legally able to be married, providing they live in the parish. When society changed, the Anglican church was able to negotiate opt-outs, such as no automatic right to be married in an Anglican church if divorced.
That's different to any other religion in England. Nobody can force a Baptist church, Hindus, Muslims or anyone else to conduct their marriage. If you are living in the parish, you can insist that you get married in your local Anglican parish church - and the clergy have very few legal reasons to refuse.
One might hold a religious doctrine that a "Christian marriage" is x y or z, but the reality in the UK is that it is only a valid legal marriage when the person with the proper authority is present to officiate. No authority, no marriage. Period.
Where this gets complicated is when the state recognises something that the Anglican church does not. So if one is a homosexual couple, one cannot get married in an Anglican parish church where one would be able to if heterosexual (and not Christian in any sense of the term).
If nobody believed that this legal stuff was important, why would they worry about doing it the right way?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The service is made "Christian" not by my presence as Minister, nor because it takes place in a church building, but by the words used within it.
Well I don't know whether this is really true. The official state marriage system in England is at a Register office, a Parish CofE church, or by a State official in another state-registered building.
The "legal" part of the marriage is essentially the same in whatever building or context it is completed. Therefore a "Christian" marriage must be in the combination of words, the person saying them, the understanding given to them (ie whether they're a sacrament etc).
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
But the blessing is all that makes the marriage a Christian marriage.
Not in the Church of England it isn't. Anglican priests are agents of the state and church. When an Anglican priest marries someone they're married in a way that isn't the case if an Imam, Baptist minister or A.N.Other says the words.
A lovely confusion between Anglican and C of E; a confusion which runs through a lot of your posts. Priests of the Anglican Church of Australia conduct marriages which are valid here, s do RCC priests, Uniting Church ministers, Baptist pastors and a whole range of other people, lay and religious. They do so because they are all authorised celebrants under the Marriage Act 1961.
[ 07. March 2016, 19:44: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
A lovely confusion between Anglican and C of E; a confusion which runs through a lot of your posts. Priests of the Anglican Church of Australia conduct marriages which are valid here, s do RCC priests, Uniting Church ministers, Baptist pastors and a whole range of other people, lay and religious. They do so because they are all authorised celebrants under the Marriage Act 1961.
Not at all, as in the quoted section above, I was very clearly talking about Anglican priests in the CofE.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
So how is my statement that a blessing is what makes a marriage a Christian marriage untrue? What the law says is neither here nor there. The priest is not the celebrant of the sacrament of marriage. The couple are. A marriage becomes a Christian marriage if it is blessed by a priest.
Just repeating your theological point of view does not make it true. Baptist ministers are not priests, but baptist marriages are still Christian marriages.
If you think they're not, please make an appointment to discuss with my wife.
quote:
That would be the case if the blessing took place in Hammersmith or Hindustan. The law of England cannot determine what is or isn't a Christian marriage.
No, but you can't just make theological statements and imply that everyone agrees. They don't agree.
Are we at cross purposes here?
Marriage is a universal institution. It is not specific to Christianity.
Non-Christians can contract a marriage.
So what makes a marriage a Christian marriage?
The question is arguable. Is a marriage a Christian marriage if both the parties are baptised? Some would hold that to be the case. What I am suggesting (and the view is not original to me) is that the blessing of the marriage by the church makes it a Christian marriage.
Now one can argue 'what is the church?' As far as I am concerned it makes no difference if the blessing is given by a cardinal of the Holy Roman Church or a Baptist minister. The legal status of CofE clergy (which is to do with registration, as far as I am aware) is neither here nor there.
Now I agree that the CofE, in its usual way, is keen to introduce ambiguity. Thus it will not marry the new Mr & Mrs Murdoch. But it will bless their union.
Now if we accept (and I think it is generally accepted) that the celebrants of marriage (if you hold marriage to be a sacrament, which I do) are the couple themselves (again I do not think this a view peculiar to me); then what is the difference between:
(i) A couple who marry each other in a church building, and then have that marriage blessed in the same building by a clergyperson; and
(ii) A couple who marry each other in a registry office or elsewhere, and then go the next day to a church and have that marriage blessed by a clergyperson?
And, to return to the original point, what is the message being given when a man can have his fourth marriage to a women (following three divorces, not the death of previous wives) to a woman blessed by the church; but could not have his one and only marriage to another man so blessed?
Eeeeexactly: no difference at all, unless you're Eastern Orthodox and believe the nuptial blessing is constitutive of the sacrament and not the consent of the spouses.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Not sure if anyone here follows @Diverse_Church on Twitter, but today's poster put me in mind of this thread.
I don't know if it's encouraging, or just a sign of the naivety/hopefulness of youth in contrast to the weariness of age and long service/battering but it may be of interest.
Link to their feed for anyone who wants to check it out. You'll need to go to April 1st approx. noon UK time and work your way back up to get it in order.
For those who don't know Diverse Church is a community for young(ish) LGBT Christians, and every Friday a different member tweets their "story so far" on the @Diverse_Church account.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
We are useful idiots. Yesterday, Caroline Spelman, second Church whatsit commissioner countered claims by saying 'It is open to Church of England clergy to enter into civil partnerships, and many do so. The Church of England in England is moving forward.' and a lot of blah blah about the Anglican communion being very diverse and mostly African now so should be able to move at its own pace... except of course we have to promise not to have sex when entering a civil partnership. We have officially become a parliamentary fig leaf for liberalism.
[ 06. May 2016, 07:23: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
But doesn't all human life require compromise Josephat? And the C of E is finding its way forward, in a typically Anglican, let's-not-upset-anyone-we're-Englisg, sort of way. It is a million miles from the RC position of turn-a-blind-eye-but-if-they-get-into-trouble-crucify-them approach.
I recently came across this in which a clergy civil partner writes of the myth of the celibate civil partnership.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
But doesn't all human life require compromise Josephat? And the C of E is finding its way forward, in a typically Anglican, let's-not-upset-anyone-we're-Englisg, sort of way. It is a million miles from the RC position of turn-a-blind-eye-but-if-they-get-into-trouble-crucify-them approach.
I recently came across this in which a clergy civil partner writes of the myth of the celibate civil partnership.
that's exactly my point: the compromise is now an excuse for inertia. Don't bash us, we've got gay people among us who can live with all this (aka useful idiots), and we're not quite as bad as others, really, leave the dear old CofE alone, members of parliament.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
But doesn't all human life require compromise Josephat? And the C of E is finding its way forward, in a typically Anglican, let's-not-upset-anyone-we're-Englisg, sort of way. It is a million miles from the RC position of turn-a-blind-eye-but-if-they-get-into-trouble-crucify-them approach.
I recently came across this in which a clergy civil partner writes of the myth of the celibate civil partnership.
that's exactly my point: the compromise is now an excuse for inertia. Don't bash us, we've got gay people among us who can live with all this (aka useful idiots), and we're not quite as bad as others, really, leave the dear old CofE alone, members of parliament.
I understand what you are saying. But what is the answer? Or isn't there one?
Things are not going to speed up. The shared conversations will drag on. I would think everyone agrees that Issues in Human Sexuality is unsatisfactory - it reads like something from a different era (as it is).
So what to do? Continue as a useful idiot, or leave, as the OP suggested? And if leave, then for where?
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
But doesn't all human life require compromise Josephat? And the C of E is finding its way forward, in a typically Anglican, let's-not-upset-anyone-we're-Englisg, sort of way. It is a million miles from the RC position of turn-a-blind-eye-but-if-they-get-into-trouble-crucify-them approach.
I recently came across this in which a clergy civil partner writes of the myth of the celibate civil partnership.
that's exactly my point: the compromise is now an excuse for inertia. Don't bash us, we've got gay people among us who can live with all this (aka useful idiots), and we're not quite as bad as others, really, leave the dear old CofE alone, members of parliament.
I understand what you are saying. But what is the answer? Or isn't there one?
Things are not going to speed up. The shared conversations will drag on. I would think everyone agrees that Issues in Human Sexuality is unsatisfactory - it reads like something from a different era (as it is).
So what to do? Continue as a useful idiot, or leave, as the OP suggested? And if leave, then for where?
I don't think there's an answer. I carry on, it's the British thing to do. It all boils down to hope when you think about it. We live by hope in so many other situations. trick is to determine whether your very presence hinders progress or not. I cannot figure that one out.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Or you carry on without giving comfort to those busy patting themselves on the back for being in a church that has put up the posted declaring themselves an 'Affirming Church'.
So when my friend Michael introduced his daughter's wife to someone at his church, who promptly blanked them, he made a point of joining them for coffee, including them in the conversation, etc, etc, etc.
Too many churches put up the posted and that's it. There is no discussion, nothing is done if people blank or are rude to LGBTI visitors.
IMO it is cowardly of the rest of us to leave it to LGBTI churchgoers to cope with this nonsense: if we truly feel we're all children of God then you stand up for all your brothers and sisters, end of, because family should stick together.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Or you carry on without giving comfort to those busy patting themselves on the back for being in a church that has put up the posted declaring themselves an 'Affirming Church'.
So when my friend Michael introduced his daughter's wife to someone at his church, who promptly blanked them, he made a point of joining them for coffee, including them in the conversation, etc, etc, etc.
Too many churches put up the posted and that's it. There is no discussion, nothing is done if people blank or are rude to LGBTI visitors.
IMO it is cowardly of the rest of us to leave it to LGBTI churchgoers to cope with this nonsense: if we truly feel we're all children of God then you stand up for all your brothers and sisters, end of, because family should stick together.
It goes deeper: many, many very conservative churches call themselves inclusive but would not contemplate blessing your relationship, let alone marrying you, or allow you to be in any kind of leadership position. A sinner among others you may be, and all are included these churches will proclaim, but yours is a particular kind of sin that precludes everything but attendance.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
'Inclusive' has become a meaningless term in the church. Who's not inclusive?
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Joesaphat: 'Inclusive' has become a meaningless term in the church. Who's not inclusive?
Er, I can think of plenty of people in church who are not inclusive.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think the point is that anyone can describe themselves as inclusive, even if others don't really see it that way.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
I guess churches can be inclusive of LGBT people in the way medieval society was inclusive of lepers. They had a place, sure, but it was on the fringes. Likewise you can get the 'we are all children of God, all are welcome' stuff, along with 'but we don't really approve of your lifestyle. Sure you can come - the Church excludes no one - but please could you stand at the back, don't bring your partner, or even refer to him, and don't make a fuss.'
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I visited a CofE church yesterday which had a prominent poster up about being an 'inclusive church'. It's also going to be having a special service for Gay Pride Week. There were a couple of other notices too that emphasised its position. Is this kind of deliberate and explicit policy rare in CofE congregations?
Individual churches are one thing, but as an institution, it seems that the CofE is hampered by trying to be all things to all men. I suppose that worked when society was dominated by more or less conservative social and personal values, but it's very problematic now that even Christians disagree about these things. Perhaps the CofE needs to narrow its appeal and become more like the American Episcopal Church. I don't know how this would happen, though.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I visited a CofE church yesterday which had a prominent poster up about being an 'inclusive church'. It's also going to be having a special service for Gay Pride Week. There were a couple of other notices too that emphasised its position. Is this kind of deliberate and explicit policy rare in CofE congregations?
I don't know. But it would be extremely rare in Baptist churches, less rare in URC ones!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Joesaphat: 'Inclusive' has become a meaningless term in the church. Who's not inclusive?
Er, I can think of plenty of people in church who are not inclusive.
So can I, but would they think of themselves as such? I cannot think of any parish who does not think it's inclusive though I know of petty who, IMV, are sorely mistaken.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Surely "inclusive" and "affirming" are code words, which will say something to the constituency they are aiming to reach?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
That's what I was thinking too. Why use such words only to confuse people? Surely that just adds problems to church life.
My assumption is that the CofE congregations mentioned above use such language not so much to appeal to a constituency that they want to reach in evangelistic terms, but in order to benefit from good PR more generally. It's about the state church wanting to be all things to all men, having a benign image, not really about church growth.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I'm not sure I agree ... I do think that the words are there to "strike a chord" with the LGBT constituency and say, "You'll be OK here". If others choose to interpret them differently, it's fine.
There are other "code words" too. One you often find in Baptist churches is "Bible believing" which implies a certain form of Evangelical approach. "Family friendly" could be another.
And don't even get me started on "vibrant" ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) .
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Joesaphat and Bibaculus seem to disagree, though.
Re 'vibrant', I see that as a secular, lefty, urban, PC word that means 'multicultural'. What does it mean in church-speak?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Joesaphat and Bibaculus seem to disagree, though.
Re 'vibrant', I see that as a secular, lefty, urban, PC word that means 'multicultural'. What does it mean in church-speak?
Not sure we do, just talking. yes, the Baptist's right: 'non-inclusive' is hardly as selling advert. It's code, as was said, but mostly meaningless to me, as is 'Bible-believing.' Well yes, who isn't?
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Well, in that case, most of our labels are meaningless; we can all claim to be 'Fundamentalists', etc.!
'Non-inclusivity' obviously emphasises a negative rather than a positive, which most churches would rather not do, but there are Christians who embrace their exclusivity, even to the extent of using the term in their name ('Exclusive Brethren').
In reality, I think labels can be very useful to ordinary Christians who don't want to quibble about language or etymology but just want to find an appropriate spiritual home. But it doesn't help if congregations pretend to be something they're not.
As for the OP, I get the impression that the CofE's 'useful idiots' are different people depending on the circumstances. The conservative evangelicals are 'useful idiots' to the extent that they fill the pews and the coffers; that doesn't mean they can get the rest of the CofE to agree with them.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Re 'vibrant', I see that as a secular, lefty, urban, PC word that means 'multicultural'. What does it mean in church-speak?
Upbeat worship music, informal and "dynamic" preaching, lots of young people, multimedia being used ...
Again, though, it's a code word to say, "Our church is alive and 'where it's at' - not atall like the dead, formal and stuffy church down the road. Of course you'll want to join us: what's not to like?"
[ 18. May 2016, 18:24: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Ah, of course.
Well, if 'the church down the road' disapproves of the 'vibrant' identity then I suppose it can always come up with an even more wonderful label for itself.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
I agree about the 'code word' thing. 'inclusive' and 'affirming' are, I suppose, meant to be a bit like a rainbow flag in a pub window. Well, maybe not quite like that, but you know what I mean. The idea is you know what you will get before you walk through the door.
And clearly people go for positive code words and slogans. Reform says it is 'promoting the gospel of Jesus Christ by reforming the Church of England'. The Protestant Truth Society stands for 'The Truth Upheld'.
The question is, are the code words more than words?
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
And another piece of evidence: even very conservative evangelicals, la creme de la creme of synodical evangelicalism, can write in their letter of threat: 'We are committed to building a church that is genuinely welcoming to all people, irrespective of the pattern of sexual attraction that they experience.'
If you accept the welcome, however, your very presence becomes a validation of the theology of the people you associate with, or does it not? I cannot count the times the 'biblically living' gay guys of Living Out have been used in arguments in recent debates in the CofE.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
Yes even the very conservative evangelicals feel the need to nod the head to what pretty much the entire civilised world takes for granted. It is a ritual formula, of course. They probably say things like 'Of course I have nothing against homosexuals. Many of my best friends are homosexual.'
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Yes even the very conservative evangelicals feel the need to nod the head to what pretty much the entire civilised world takes for granted. It is a ritual formula, of course. They probably say things like 'Of course I have nothing against homosexuals. Many of my best friends are homosexual.'
Worse: gay people worship here with us.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Yes even the very conservative evangelicals feel the need to nod the head to what pretty much the entire civilised world takes for granted. It is a ritual formula, of course. They probably say things like 'Of course I have nothing against homosexuals. Many of my best friends are homosexual.'
Worse: gay people worship here with us.
Oh noes!!! The horror, the impurity!!!!!
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And another piece of evidence: even very conservative evangelicals, la creme de la creme of synodical evangelicalism, can write in their letter of threat: 'We are committed to building a church that is genuinely welcoming to all people, irrespective of the pattern of sexual attraction that they experience.'
If you accept the welcome, however, your very presence becomes a validation of the theology of the people you associate with, or does it not? I cannot count the times the 'biblically living' gay guys of Living Out have been used in arguments in recent debates in the CofE.
The gay people you mention are involved in public discussions presumably because they approve of the way of life their conservative church calls them to. They're only 'idiots' if you believe their theology makes them so, but presumably they serve a 'useful' role in ensuring that other gay people who believe and live differently won't mistakenly join a church whose teachings would be unpalatable.
And to be fair, although most churches use the language of being 'welcoming', the reality is always that some churches will be more welcoming to some people than others, for whatever reason. You can't really expect a 'conservative evangelical' church to be as tolerant of the things that a liberal church would be. That would be a contradiction.
It's unfortunate if you live in an area that doesn't offer a choice of churches, though.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And another piece of evidence: even very conservative evangelicals, la creme de la creme of synodical evangelicalism, can write in their letter of threat: 'We are committed to building a church that is genuinely welcoming to all people, irrespective of the pattern of sexual attraction that they experience.'
If you accept the welcome, however, your very presence becomes a validation of the theology of the people you associate with, or does it not? I cannot count the times the 'biblically living' gay guys of Living Out have been used in arguments in recent debates in the CofE.
The gay people you mention are involved in public discussions presumably because they approve of the way of life their conservative church calls them to. They're only 'idiots' if you believe their theology makes them so, but presumably they serve a 'useful' role in ensuring that other gay people who believe and live differently won't mistakenly join a church whose teachings would be unpalatable.
And to be fair, although most churches use the language of being 'welcoming', the reality is always that some churches will be more welcoming to some people than others, for whatever reason. You can't really expect a 'conservative evangelical' church to be as tolerant of the things that a liberal church would be. That would be a contradiction.
It's unfortunate if you live in an area that doesn't offer a choice of churches, though.
yes, they are idiots because they're poster boys for a brand of theology that is deeply patriarchal and homophobic.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
.....and of course this thread is about clergy, who can't just wander off down the road if they feel like it. No religious supermarket.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
.....and of course this thread is about clergy, who can't just wander off down the road if they feel like it. No religious supermarket.
Not sure I know what you mean, I'm part of the clergy. If you mean it's difficult to leave, I'll applaud, otherwise, care to clarify?
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
.....and of course this thread is about clergy, who can't just wander off down the road if they feel like it. No religious supermarket.
Not sure I know what you mean, I'm part of the clergy. If you mean it's difficult to leave, I'll applaud, otherwise, care to clarify?
I was addressing Svitlana's idea that those who don't like something can just go down the road. Less easy, almost impossible, in fact, for clergy.
So yes, I do just mean that the ease of leaving varies according to your role in the current situation. Of course, being clergy doesn't mean that you're entirely in control, but it does mean that you are far more closely identified with a particular situation.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
My above post was mostly about the laity, but there are clergy who've switched denominations. Most of the mainstream, tolerant churches would be very pleased to have a well-educated, experienced CofE minister; they all seem to have shortages of clergy.
It doesn't seem common these days for CofE ministers to switch, though. I assume this is partly because pay and conditions are better in the CofE. Also, Nonconformity fails to benefit from its more tolerant attitudes towards LGBT issues simply because it's suffered steep decline, both in numbers and vigour. I think Anglicans, for all their internal squabbles, value the prominence of their institution. Or maybe they just see the others as fairly irrelevant.
As for most of the newer churches, they're too evangelical for most LGBT Anglican clergy. Their personality and skill set requirements are also somewhat different.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Actually, Svitlana, I think you'll find that many or most -- perhaps all - anglican clergy have theological differences with the church down the street, whether presbyterian, methodist, or whatever. They're not all interchangeable...there are actually differences that mean something to at least one side of any division.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
You're right of course, but CofE clergy also disagree with each other a lot of the time, and sometimes even with their creeds. Yet they still choose to stay in the denomination rather than switching to another.
Moreover, in the old days it was doable to start your own movement if you believed that the available options were in theological error. Secularisation seems to have made that a less reasonable career option. I think it's also rendered sexuality in the church a kind of post-theological issue; it's treated more as a human rights issue. You don't need to be a Christian to have an opinion on what the church should do about it, so it's not a good basis for a specifically Christian movement.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
You're right of course, but CofE clergy also disagree with each other a lot of the time, and sometimes even with their creeds. Yet they still choose to stay in the denomination rather than switching to another.
Moreover, in the old days it was doable to start your own movement if you believed that the available options were in theological error. Secularisation seems to have made that a less reasonable career option. I think it's also rendered sexuality in the church a kind of post-theological issue; it's treated more as a human rights issue. You don't need to be a Christian to have an opinion on what the church should do about it, so it's not a good basis for a specifically Christian movement.
I have made this point before on this thread. For some people, sacramentality and authority are important - ie they need a church with bishops. That limits your options to Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Anglicanism. Some would be even more limited. Not everyone has the mindset that if your church happens not to be to your liking in one particular respect, you are free to find another.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
I have made this point before on this thread. For some people, sacramentality and authority are important - ie they need a church with bishops. That limits your options to Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Anglicanism...
And Nordic and Baltic Lutheranism, the Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church, and the Lusitanian Catholic Apostolic Evangelical Church of Portugal.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
I have made this point before on this thread. For some people, sacramentality and authority are important - ie they need a church with bishops. That limits your options to Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Anglicanism...
And Nordic and Baltic Lutheranism, the Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church, and the Lusitanian Catholic Apostolic Evangelical Church of Portugal.
To be fair, the Spanish and the Portuguese are members of the Anglican Communion... (at least according to the list here: Members )
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
To be fair, the Spanish and the Portuguese are members of the Anglican Communion... (at least according to the list here: Members )
So they are. I was thinking of them in terms of the Porvoo Communion. Good spot!
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
To be fair, the Spanish and the Portuguese are members of the Anglican Communion... (at least according to the list here: Members )
So they are. I was thinking of them in terms of the Porvoo Communion. Good spot!
I was thinking of England, which is the context of the OP (a Church of England priest). Nordic Lutherans and the like are thin on the ground round here.
[ 19. August 2016, 15:08: Message edited by: Bibaculus ]
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
To be fair, the Spanish and the Portuguese are members of the Anglican Communion... (at least according to the list here: Members )
So they are. I was thinking of them in terms of the Porvoo Communion. Good spot!
I was thinking of England, which is the context of the OP (a Church of England priest). Nordic Lutherans and the like are thin on the ground round here.
Yea, my Norwegian's a tad rusty.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
The Scandinavian Lutheran churches have bishops, and they're also liberal on matters of sexuality.
It might be possible for one of these denominations to set up branches in the UK, if there were British clergy who invited them to do so. This option might be attractive to some Anglicans if the CofE becomes more evangelical.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
bumping up for housekeeping reasons
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
