quote:

---

A useful idiot is someone who supports one side of an ideological debate, but who is manipulated and held in contempt by the leaders of their faction or is unaware of the ultimate agenda driving the ideology to which they subscribe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
My question for Shipmates is, what do you think of this description of LGBT clergy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Thank you all for your contributions so far.

At this stage, I'd just like to clarify something I think is important in the concept of the "useful idiot". People talk of LGBT clergy changing things from inside the Church. But actually on an institutional scale, nothing changes. Part of what makes the useful idiot useful is that the institution can say "Look at how affirming we are - we have all these LGBT clergy!" The fact that we're there is great PR for the institution that holds us in contempt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Watch this space. The General Synod of the SEC will likely take another step towards equal marriage this summer. It's not the CofE but it's still Anglican.

---

Until the Primates decide you're not Anglican.

 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Not an idiot no, far from it - you did the best with what you had (A homophobic hierarchy). They are in the wrong for treating you so badly.

I hope you can broadcast that fact loud and long.

All power to your elbow.
 

---

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Watch this space. The General Synod of the SEC will likely take another step towards equal marriage this summer. It's not the CofE but it's still Anglican.

---

Until the Primates decide you're not Anglican.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Watch this space. The General Synod of the SEC will likely take another step towards equal marriage this summer. It's not the CofE but it's still Anglican.

---

Until the Primates decide you're not Anglican.

---

They have no authority to decide that, so I'm not particularly fussed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
From RationalWiki:

quote:

---

A useful idiot is someone who supports one side of an ideological debate, but who is manipulated and held in contempt by the leaders of their faction or is unaware of the ultimate agenda driving the ideology to which they subscribe.

---

I've been doing a lot of thinking recently about my relationship with the Church of England as an institution, and it's brought me to a position that has some very uncomfortable elements to it. For any Shipmates that don't know, I was ordained a priest in the CofE 23 years ago; spent most of my working life thereafter employed by the NHS as a chaplain; and took (very) early retirement last year. I'm gay (as a daisy in May) and I've always had a very difficult relationship with the CofE in regard to its public policy towards LGBT people. In fact, it recently got to a point where I said - for the first time, out loud - that if I had my time again, I wouldn't put myself forward for ordination at all. ("If I knew then what I know now..." and all that.)

What I hadn't been able to do is really to describe why I have so much unresolved anger and resentment towards the Church - until I remembered the political concept of the "useful idiot", a definition of which I've given above. In basic terms, I feel I spent 20-odd years of my life being duped and taken for a fool. I was certainly useful to the CofE, but I was an idiot if I thought I'd ever really be accepted, let alone valued, as a gay priest.

My question for Shipmates is, what do you think of this description of LGBT clergy? My question for myself - which I hope this conversation might help with - is, where do I go from here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I feel exactly like you, if that's any help, and that's on a good day. On a bad day, I feel like I'm colluding with evil, though the hierarchy's now trying to sound nice about it all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I hope we'll be able to welcome the SEC and many others to the club.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I feel exactly like you, if that's any help, and that's on a good day. On a bad day, I feel like I'm colluding with evil, though the hierarchy's now trying to sound nice about it all.

---

You've put your finger on it. Collusion. I've been a collaborator.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I feel exactly like you, if that's any help, and that's on a good day. On a bad day, I feel like I'm colluding with evil, though the hierarchy's now trying to sound nice about it all.

---

You've put your finger on it. Collusion. I've been a collaborator.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I feel exactly like you, if that's any help, and that's on a good day. On a bad day, I feel like I'm colluding with evil, though the hierarchy's now trying to sound nice about it all.

---

You've put your finger on it. Collusion. I've been a collaborator.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
And I agree with leo - you will have been a blessing to many in your role, completely independently of either sexuality or institution.

---

This, if your Ship-board persona shares any characteristics with your work on the wards, as it surely must.

But we hear your anger, and pray.
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
I'm LGBT and an Anglican but not clergy, although I know many including some of the more publically prominent LGBT Anglican clergy (including trans clergy - let's not forget the B and T please). From spending time within LGBT evangelical Anglican circles, there is a huge shift starting to happen on the ground, especially with young people. The hope amongst LGBT evangelical young people, some of whom have endured ex-gay ministries and even exorcisms, is extraordinary. Openly LGBT clergy have been incredibly important role models for them.
 

---

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I feel exactly like you, if that's any help, and that's on a good day. On a bad day, I feel like I'm colluding with evil, though the hierarchy's now trying to sound nice about it all.

---

You've put your finger on it. Collusion. I've been a collaborator.

---

I know that one. I've come face to face with it myself this year in particular. In some ways I'd much rather leave. I could live with more integrity and adventure then. But I don't for various reasons, one of them being that those in the church (clergy and lay people alike), who are far more vulnerable than myself, would have one less advocate.

At the moment, I have accepted that there is a high price to be paid for that. Alongside the mess the church has made of my personal life, and the constant guilt of feeling that I am betraying friends, I've had to face the fact that I am part of an oppressive institution, and even as I work to challenge that oppression from within, I am still administering it. So I am aware that I live in a constant state of sin, and I repent daily for it. But sometimes I feel that there may be a weird kind of honour in taking on that burden, and letting the much-deserved flak hit me, if I can do so with honesty. If I walk away, my theological hands would be cleaner. But for the moment, I stay amidst the grubbiness, and do what I can to sweep some corner of it. Though how much longer I can keep it up is another question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibaculus:
I understand this.

I am not a priest, but I was a Roman Catholic religious for a time.

I don't know that 'useful idiot' is the term, as it sounds too self-condemning. The fact is the church draws people into a structure in which the collaborate in their own oppression. The RC Church does this with women and gay men. Of course, without those tow groups, the RC Church would collapse pretty quickly.

Anglicanism is at least having a debate

---

quote:

---

You've put your finger on it. Collusion. I've been a collaborator.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
At this stage, I'd just like to clarify something I think is important in the concept of the "useful idiot". [...] Part of what makes the useful idiot useful is that the institution can say "Look at how affirming we are - we have all these LGBT clergy!" The fact that we're there is great PR for the institution that holds us in contempt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibaculus:
I think collusion/collaboration are easier when you are young. 'Career' seems more important. I have found (and I know others who feel likewise, though it is maybe not a universal rule) that getting older, integrity has become more important. Or maybe I'm just not prepared to pretend anymore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
At this stage, I'd just like to clarify something I think is important in the concept of the "useful idiot". [...] Part of what makes the useful idiot useful is that the institution can say "Look at how affirming we are - we have all these LGBT clergy!" The fact that we're there is great PR for the institution that holds us in contempt.

---

I got that you meant that - but on this point I suspect that you're wrong. The people who hold you in actual contempt probably think that your place in the church is a scandal, or at the very least an embarrassment, and rather than being grateful for the PR you provide would likely be only too happy for you to fuck off.

It's moderates like me who are likely to point to gay clergy and say that this shows that our church can be affirming. When I hear some bishop talking poison in the media, or campaigning against equal rights in law, or suspending an Anglican church from communion for the sin of celebrating their members' marriages (when practically no other deviation from the party line would cause such action) or when explicitly homophobic material or petitions get handed round my church, of course I have to question what I'm doing in this church. But I don't want to leave - I'm a cradle Anglican, I was baptised and learned the faith in the CofE, I'm committed to my parish church, I'm involved in lay ministry - and as long as I can keep telling myself that the homophobia doesn't go all the way down, that it's only one unfortunate strand of opinion that I'm free not to endorse, I'm free to stay. While there are gay clergy (not just you personally, but you are certainly an example that would come to mind) in my church, I can tell myself without obvious self-deception, that I'm not going to a thoroughly homophobic church. I hate (or try to hate) homophobia as much as a straight person can, but I don't feel like a collaborator so long as the hierarchy includes priests like you.

That's not enough, of course, for it to be remotely sensible for you to stay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

I have a ton of sympathy with the view that says "If you go, the bastards win" - it's something that's kept me going at various points over the past 20 years. But what would you say to the often-repeated idea that the first duty of every Christian is to attend to their own salvation? I'm at the point where I think I've got a serious problem with that if I stay in so toxic an environment.

---

A truly awful decision to have to make, Adeodatus. I'm in the same situation of 'in or out' with my church at the moment, though for a different reason and not with the painful history and repercussions that you're experiencing, Jesus must be weeping at the injustice of it all. or very, very angry?
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

Adeodatus:But what would you say to the often-repeated idea that the first duty of every Christian is to attend to their own salvation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I don't understand that line of reasoning, Pomona. I mean, I'd probably hate to see the CofE in the hands of Reform as much as you do, but it sounds like 'I'm not leaving the BNP because Tommy Robinson would be all too pleased with my move,' which by no means does not mean you should not get the hell out of the BNP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Once again, thanks to everyone on this thread. I had no idea it would prompt this depth of experience and thought.

I have a ton of sympathy with the view that says "If you go, the bastards win" - it's something that's kept me going at various points over the past 20 years. But what would you say to the often-repeated idea that the first duty of every Christian is to attend to their own salvation? I'm at the point where I think I've got a serious problem with that if I stay in so toxic an environment.

---

quote:

---

I left when I finally realised that I wouldn't tolerate a partner behaving the way the church was behaving towards me. I found it was turning me into a person I didn't like. I couldn't imagine how this was what God wanted me to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I left when I finally realised that I wouldn't tolerate a partner behaving the way the church was behaving towards me. I found it was turning me into a person I didn't like. I couldn't imagine how this was what God wanted me to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I don't understand that line of reasoning, Pomona. I mean, I'd probably hate to see the CofE in the hands of Reform as much as you do, but it sounds like 'I'm not leaving the BNP because Tommy Robinson would be all too pleased with my move,' which by no means does not mean you should not get the hell out of the BNP.

---

The CoE is not the BNP. A lot of the hierarchy of the CoE may suck, but there's a lot of good stuff and grace and real Christianity at the local level. You may not get that at your own local level, but I do and I don't see why I shouldn't be entitled to participate in that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
The overwhelming lightness of spirit I felt, the very next day, confirmed that decision much more quickly than I could have imagined.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
David, I did that for nearly 30 years. It wasn't the homophobes that were the problem, although they weren't very much fun. It was the so-called liberals, who variously wanted me to lie, sit still so I could be called names, and who ran away when the going got tough. When the people who are privately on your side but publicly unwilling to stand and be counted, it gets soul destroying very quickly. Not just a figure of speech.

Not all liberals, there were some blessed exceptions, but most. I knew where I stood with outright homophobes, so I could make preparations if I had some warning.

In my case, your suggestion equates to "stay and be assaulted again."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Goode:
Stay, and do good. Jesus didn't turn his back and walk away from the oppressed and those whom others despised, and neither should you. Change for future generations is only effected by those who work for it now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
It's moderates like me who are likely to point to gay clergy and say that this shows that our church can be affirming.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
It's moderates like me who are likely to point to gay clergy and say that this shows that our church can be affirming.

---

What, pray tell, is the moderate position in the C of E on LGBT clergy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Goode:
Stay, and do good. Jesus didn't turn his back and walk away from the oppressed and those whom others despised, and neither should you. Change for future generations is only effected by those who work for it now.

---

And Adeodatus and I have done our bit...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I think that's the point. There is no moderate. We are either fallen-away, luke-warm heretical diluters of the gospel and complicit with sinners or upholders of the gospel according to St Bastard. The middle is squeezed into oblivion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
[QUOTEThing is, I'm not really interested in the "moderate" view. The CofE's "moderate" is actually very conservative when you look at it from outside. I think we have to recognise, too, the politics of the CofE's position. The built-in conservatism isn't just about theology, it's about reliance on conservatives' money. A diocesan bishop once told me, "I support you privately, but I could never say so publicly. If I did, half a dozen big evangelical churches would stop paying their parish share."

I really think I should have gone into a business where I could have kept a cleaner conscience, like running a meth lab maybe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
A diocesan bishop once told me, "I support you privately, but I could never say so publicly. If I did, half a dozen big evangelical churches would stop paying their parish share."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
It's moderates like me who are likely to point to gay clergy and say that this shows that our church can be affirming.

---

What, pray tell, is the moderate position in the C of E on LGBT clergy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
A diocesan bishop once told me, "I support you privately, but I could never say so publicly. If I did, half a dozen big evangelical churches would stop paying their parish share."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibaculus:
So what is one to do if one has a sacramental view of things (and so is unwilling to join the URC, say)?

---

quote:

---

About the moderate or middle position in the CofE (or anywhere else): I don't see how there is a middle here. Gay people are either fully included in the life of the church or they aren't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibaculus:

So what is one to do if one has a sacramental view of things (and so is unwilling to join the URC, say)?

---

One becomes homeless.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
@Steve Langton.

Or we could acknowledge that the Scriptural witness is absent as far as consensual lifelong and faithful same-sex relationships are concerned (excepting that they should conform to the same standards of morality as apply to heterosexual relationships), and have the humility to say "we don't know, but if we follow the law of love, we are unlikely to go too far wrong". We might further acknowledge that each of us have our own sins for which we are accountable to God, not excluding judgementalism and prejudice, and we would be better and more holy people if we were to meditate on these rather than the sins, imagined or real, of others.
 

---

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Oscar, I think the situation, as you describe it, May well pertain at the moment, but the situation at grass roots level even in big evangelical parishes is changing, and (given the usual caveats about the plural of anecdote not being data) amongst broad church Anglicans (ie my Deanery Synod colleagues) support for SSM is overwhelming, and gay clergy raise no particular eyebrows. In these circumstances, the insistence on Lambeth begins to sound an awful lot like the voice of Cnut on Bosham sands. No doubt change will be glacial, but it will come, and it will be led by the laity, not the Bishops.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibaculus:

So what is one to do if one has a sacramental view of things (and so is unwilling to join the URC, say)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
One becomes homeless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Ruth;

quote:

---

About the moderate or middle position in the CofE (or anywhere else): I don't see how there is a middle here. Gay people are either fully included in the life of the church or they aren't.

---

I also don't see a middle here. Either acts of gay sex are right and proper in God's sight, or they are wrong and improper.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
[QUOTE]
I know there are some LGBT-friendly CoE churches. Some are very inclusive. Is the point that the vicars in those parishes take lots of flack to make them that way - so that the CoE has some LGBT-friendly homes for parishioners but not for clergy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Adeodatus - You are right. Unless one is interested in joining some bizarre episcopi vagante set up, and I am not, Rome or Canterbury are one's only options. (Orthodoxy makes Rome look like the Metropolitan Community Church on this issue).

---

quote:

---

And, Steve Langton - I think we're talking about gay people here, not gay sex.

---

quote:

---

Unless one is interested in joining some bizarre episcopi vagante set up, and I am not, Rome or Canterbury are one's only options

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
There is of course the option of taking a biblical view of the nature of episcopacy, and forming a church along biblical lines. Neither Rome nor Canterbury are biblical options, and 'episcopi vagante' are indeed a bizarre alternative.... Of course a biblical view might not give the view you want on gay issues either....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
but biblically we are talking about 'gay sex', sexual acts between people of the same sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Ruth;

quote:

---

About the moderate or middle position in the CofE (or anywhere else): I don't see how there is a middle here. Gay people are either fully included in the life of the church or they aren't.

---

I also don't see a middle here. Either acts of gay sex are right and proper in God's sight, or they are wrong and improper. If the latter, then neither the Anglicans nor any other church can approve of those acts or of those who choose to do them. Such people can only be 'fully included' if they have a change of heart and repent of those acts.

of course the CofE has a self-inflicted problem here in its claim to be, well, 'the Church of England'. And the simple sad fact that in exercising that claim in the past it has legally enforced Christian morality on England and so ended up essentially persecuting, with the power of the state, those who do gay sex. The biggest step the CofE could take to resolve this would be to give up its position as an established church and thinking it has a right to interfere in national morality. (And there are of course many other reasons it should give up that position, starting with obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ....)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
[QUOTE]
I know there are some LGBT-friendly CoE churches. Some are very inclusive. Is the point that the vicars in those parishes take lots of flack to make them that way - so that the CoE has some LGBT-friendly homes for parishioners but not for clergy?

---

Useful idiots, providing a veneer of acceptance that makes the institution look good. Apologists who say, "Really, the Church isn't like that" - when really, it is. My original point was that it's precisely churches like this that are part of the problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Surely blaming things on people trying to make things better is unfair?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
In the 1950s the CofE was part of the change that led to the Wolfenden Report and the legalisation of homosexual acts in 1967 - just about in my lifetime, so I grew up within a CofE that was not anti-gay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm trying to unravel the Cnut metaphor, which I have been taught for longer than I can remember as the king demonstrating that he could not command the tides and the court was in error in attributing to him powers which were God's. I don't think Lambeth is trying to show that it cannot prevent the tide rising. Anything but.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Useful idiots, providing a veneer of acceptance that makes the institution look good. Apologists who say, "Really, the Church isn't like that" - when really, it is. My original point was that it's precisely churches like this that are part of the problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't follow the logic here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Steve Langton, perhaps I've missed something, but from what I can see the loudest voices against same-sex relationships across the Anglican Communion seem to come from those Anglican provinces in various parts of the world where the Anglicans aren't necessarily the 'State-Church' in the way the CofE is here.

---

quote:

---

The Establishment issue is pertinent in some ways, insofar as the CofE is connected with the House of Lords and the Parliamentary process ... but in other ways it's a complete red-herring.

---

quote:

---

Are Hutterite and Mennonite communities any more 'enlightened' or likely to take a more balanced view than Anglican parishes are on this issue?

I very much doubt it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
In the 1950s the CofE was part of the change that led to the Wolfenden Report and the legalisation of homosexual acts in 1967 - just about in my lifetime, so I grew up within a CofE that was not anti-gay.

---

I suspect the CofE authorities back then would have taken a different view on the idea of gay clergy and so on ... although blind-eyes were turned as they were elsewhere.

But yes, the CofE was part of that change in legilsation. Which goes against Steve Langton's contention that the wicked CofE manipulated the power of the state to persecute gay people ...

That said, I suspect whatever the CofE did or didn't do it wouldn't be good enough for Steve Langton because the CofE itself is not sufficiently 'biblical' in his view ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think a characteristic of discussions in the CofE is that no-one wants to call Mother Church a bitch. There are enough LGBT clergy "propping up the institution", as you aptly put it, to be able to pretend it's all tea and cake for the gays. Whereas really, at the core of the institution and right the way through it, there's a nasty vein of hatred and ignorance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I can see that, but I still don't think that's being a useful idiot. This seems a bit like arguing that providing emergency food aid to citizens of a failed state is being a useful idiot in propping up the government. Maybe to some extent you are, but that isn't a reasonable full characterization of emergency food and rather ignores the perspective of those receiving the food.

---

quote:

---

Now if you are only allowed to do that in one corner of the country with the world's media showing pictures of happy kids getting fed while the rest starve I can see that, but I think there are lots of CoE churches doing well in terms of inclusivity. And to be honest the media presentation that the CoE mother church adopts doesn't seem to be making a lot of them - rather it seems to be making more of its opposition to SSM than pretending to be inclusive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That's quite an interesting analogue, because I think the widespread emergence of food banks really are acting as a useful idiot propping up failed government policies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't follow the logic here.

---

A few years ago I knew a man who was a member of the Catholic LGBT rights group Quest. His partner was a very on-board Anglican. He reckoned that his group were able to have more honest and productive dialogues with Catholic bishops because, as he put it, "nobody in those conversations is pretending Mother Church isn't a bitch".

I think a characteristic of discussions in the CofE is that no-one wants to call Mother Church a bitch. There are enough LGBT clergy "propping up the institution", as you aptly put it, to be able to pretend it's all tea and cake for the gays. Whereas really, at the core of the institution and right the way through it, there's a nasty vein of hatred and ignorance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I wasn't talking about food banks actually, but I think for the useful idiot category to be applied you have to show that the food banks really are propping the government up.

---

quote:

---

That seems to me to be the crux of this: does the CofE cynically and deliberately keep some "gay best friends" around to blunt the edges of their public theology on sexuality with no intention of ever changing to the position those people are looking for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It might not be done cynically. I mean, the C of E might be in a totally confused state, whereby contradictory messages and actions are being seen. On the one hand, gay clergy and others are tolerated; on the other hand, there is an official homophobic stance.

---

quote:

---

I don't know whether this invalidates the idea of useful idiots, which presumably, are tolerated in an atmosphere of veiled contempt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
This seems a bit like arguing that providing emergency food aid to citizens of a failed state is being a useful idiot in propping up the government. Maybe to some extent you are, but that isn't a reasonable full characterization of emergency food and rather ignores the perspective of those receiving the food.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I think for that to be a useful characterization the propaganda use by the "other side" has to far outweigh any actual effect the candidate useful idiot might be having. Otherwise one takes the view that any element of an institution or party that isn't part of the mainstream can be labeled a useful idiot(s).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Steve Langton ... yes, the CofE is incoherent ... as is the Anglican Communion globally.

You've said that views among Anabaptists are mixed. So join the club.

Views among Anglicans are mixed. Views among Anabaptists are mixed.

---

quote:

---

Quite why the CofE has to 'apologise' for what it may or may not have done in the past simply to appease you and to conform to your idea of how it should function is beyond me.

---

quote:

---

Sure, it might have good reason to apologise. How does that help the posters on these boards who are struggling and juggling with these issues in the here and now?

What the CofE did in 1667, 1867 or 1967 certainly has a bearing on how things have developed - but the issue now doesn't seem to be that of 'imposing' some kind of moral standard on wider society or determining what this, that or the other person who isn't involved with church life does with their soft squidgy bits and dangly bits.

---

quote:

---

If you're a gay person ostracised in some way by some withdrawn and other-worldly Hutterite sect then you're going to experience exactly what you are accusing the CofE of doing in times past.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Quite why the CofE has to 'apologise' for what it may or may not have done in the past .

---

quote:

---

It is the ongoing 'establishment' that needs to be apologised for, not the past. And the apology is not just owed to the 'gay' but to everybody.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The foodbank analogy for my original point would be more like meeting someone in the queue for the foodbank who always voted Tory and proclaimed Iain Duncan Smith to be a thoroughly good egg.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
So, to summarise, Adeodatus and others like me are not quite useful idiots in the sense that the folks at 'Living Out' are because we do not prop the institution's homophobia... not useful, just idiots. That's alright then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
So, to summarise, Adeodatus and others like me are not quite useful idiots in the sense that the folks at 'Living Out' are because we do not prop the institution's homophobia... not useful, just idiots. That's alright then.

---

quote:

---

So, to summarise, Adeodatus and others like me are not useful idiots in that we do not prop the institution's homophobia and are doing something positive to create inclusive places within the institution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
...and are furthermore in tune with what may well be a majority (albeit, regrettably, a silent majority) amongst their co-religionists, outwith a small but very vocal group , and those in authority who fear the financial power of said group.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Of course in God's church, as in the case of Elijah in OT Israel, if 99% of the church are opposing God, then they are not really a majority, while one person speaking for God is effectively a majority.

---

quote:

---

Should perhaps be pointed out that the financial power of evangelicals arises because they are not compromising the gospel and are preaching something solid, worthwhile and counter-cultural rather than something vague and woolly and more concerned to be cosy with the world than to stand for God. The lack of financial power elsewhere is precisely because they have a compromised and so ineffective message in general.....

---

Or - according to your argument - they could be faithfully representing the gospel despite the odds.

[ 19. February 2016, 10:07: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 

---

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by mr cheesy;

quote:

---

Or - according to your argument - they could be faithfully representing the gospel despite the odds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:

I see what you mean; but I think you're ignoring the reality of a 'liberal' church which to a great extent rejects the gospel..

---

quote:

---

Nice try at 'points-scoring'

---

quote:

---

No, sorry, you're failing to see the reality that nobody else in this thread agrees with these propositions.

---

quote:

---

the OP of this thread is assuming that one can be Gay and Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:


And let's not be mealy-mouthed and vague about this. The issue here is not about 'gay' as mere soppy 'love' – the issue is..

---

quote:

---

Therefore the propositions obviously include that Anglicanism is a valid type of Christian church and that being Gay is not incompatible with being a Christian or being an Anglican Priest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The issue here is not about 'gay' as mere soppy 'love' – the issue is whether, in Christian terms, it can be an appropriate expression of love for a man to 'get his rocks off' by putting his penis up somebody else's shithole or down somebody else's throat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As some guy once said, "it all depends what you mean by...." And what, in this thread, is meant by 'Gay'? It's a doubly futile discussion if you haven't actually defined the terms properly....

---

quote:

---

As regards Anglicanism, well much of it is standard Christianity; some aspects have presented particular problems relating to the 'gay' issues; they also interestingly happen to be the aspects which challenge the validity of Anglicanism. Hmmm??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by mr cheesy

quote:

---

No, sorry, you're failing to see the reality that nobody else in this thread agrees with these propositions.

---

Exactly which propositions? And in any case, it's not going to be much of a discussion if we all agree, is it?

Also by mr cheesy;

quote:

---

the OP of this thread is assuming that one can be Gay and Christian.

---

And if you can't in reality be 'Gay' and Christian, then the thread is an exercise in futility and is also taking some very uncharitable attitudes about the CofE, even by my standards....

And let's not be mealy-mouthed and vague about this. The issue here is not about 'gay' as mere soppy 'love' – the issue is whether, in Christian terms, it can be an appropriate expression of love for a man to 'get his rocks off' by putting his penis up somebody else's shithole or down somebody else's throat. And I think in Christian terms that's actually to be considered inappropriate in a 'straight' relationship between a man and a woman; I don't see how it can possibly somehow become perfectly all right by being done between men....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, it wasn't an attempt to tempt Steve into posting on that subject, it seems to me that he's been posting on that particular topic here already. I was trying to steer him away from that ...

But I take the point and will not wave a red flag to his bull ...

---

quote:

---

Steve, simple question:

Do you understand, or can you intellectually accept, that it is entirely possible for someone to be gay (or 'Gay' if you prefer) without having had a same-sex sexual interaction of any kind?

---

quote:

---

Also, it can't surely have escaped Steve's notice that the CofE has women priests as well as male clergy ... and that women priest's don't have willies. If a woman priest is gay then she isn't going to be putting her willy anywhere soon because she doesn't have one ...

---

quote:

---

Cos so many lesbians just grow a penis when they cut their hair and put on the doc martens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Also, it can't surely have escaped Steve's notice that the CofE has women priests as well as male clergy ... and that women priest's don't have willies. If a woman priest is gay then she isn't going to be putting her willy anywhere soon because she doesn't have one ...

Let's not get into the detail of what she may or may not do instead ... as has been said, this isn't a thread about what people may or may not do with their genitalia but the position (ooh, matron ...) that clergy who happen to be gay find themselves in within the CofE ... and presumably Anglicanism more broadly.

I've lived 'oop north' and am all for calling a spade a bloody shovel ... but that's not the particular issue here ...

Nor is the 'C' word ... (you know, C***********m which should surely itself be a Dead Horse topic by now ...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You know, I would have a lot less of my time wasted here if people would try assuming that I am not stupid and I can see the obvious-----

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You know, I would have a lot less of my time wasted here if people would try assuming that I am not stupid and I can see the obvious-----

---

Steve, the reason that other posters are commenting is that the post is about sexuality and not about sexual behaviour. In the midst of that, you enter the fray with a post (in rather offensive terms) about some sexual behaviour in which both straight and gay people may enter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gee D:
[qb] [QUOTE]
3) It is wrong/inappropriate and disrespectful of sexuality and humanity for people to do what can only be regarded as a parody of sex between two men. And by reasonable extension between two women....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibaculus:
To sort of return to the topic under discussion (I hope).

I wonder if, as the issue of sexual identity has become for prominent in society at large and the church, it has actually got harder to be gay and in ministry? Back in the 80s and 90s I recall a large number of gay clergy in London Diocese, some of whom lived pretty much openly with their partners. It didn't seem to be an issue, because, by and large, in a very English way, blind eyes were turned. Being a 'useful idiot' doesn't seem to have cropped up.

---

quote:

---

Parody? This notion seems to be obsessed with anal sex. Hence the mention of women as somehow a lesser concern.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
There are ball sorts of sexual acts that do not involve penetration etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Sorry, it's on the site of +York:

---

quote:

---

Today, Monday, she is to be announced as the new director of Accepting Evangelicals, whose patrons include Baptist minister Steve Chalke and worship leader and commentator Vicky Beeching, who herself stunned the evangelical community worldwide when she came out last year.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I guess I opened this can of worms first but I never claimed AE were thoroughly anglicans, merely that the Abp of York honoured Ozanne's letter with a lengthy and yes, very tedious, answer. He enumerates every milestone on the gay debate for the last fifty years or so and points out that, whenever the church published awful, lengthy documents, there was always a couple of lines saying, 'oh but wait, we oppose homophobia and violence against you.' Actually they never do, can anyone even think of a single church initiative that has done so, more than a pronouncement? Now, any gay man or woman reading this after fifty years should conclude: I am a klutz... but am I a useful one?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I guess I opened this can of worms first but I never claimed AE were thoroughly Anglicans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Now, any gay man or woman reading this after fifty years should conclude: I am a klutz... but am I a useful one?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Someone privately (why?) suggested that the recent effort to stamp out homophobia from schools should at least be acknowledged.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But the CofE doesn't support its LGBT clergy, mdijon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
if you're "useful", toe the party line in public, turn a blind eye to the conservative financial stitch-up, and put on a big smile and say everything in the garden is rosy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But the CofE doesn't support its LGBT clergy, mdijon. Or rather, my experience is that you'll be supported if you're "useful", toe the party line in public, turn a blind eye to the conservative financial stitch-up, and put on a big smile and say everything in the garden is rosy. If you don't do that, you're left to fend for yourself.

I think I'm at the stage now where, in my head, I'm no longer a member of the CofE. Now I'm just waiting for my heart to catch up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
It does indeed depend on whether one thinks "innate but not God's best" is an acceptable compromise. I think it's utter nonsense but I'd be prepared to live with the nonsense should its consequences be benign. If it means no partners, no civil partnerships, no sex, no marriage, no preferment for clergy and no leadership positions for laypeople then, frankly, what difference will it make?

---

quote:

---

oh, and no teaching kids that their relationships are 'not God's best' whereas their mate's are a beautiful sacrament and image of his love for his church. Thanks, but no thanks.

---

This touches on what I feel to be an important point, although I haven't as yet managed to articulate it to my satisfaction.

If "innate but not God's best" has about it a whiff of superiority, I agree, forget it.

I think where common ground might be found is a recognition that this phrase describes pretty well the entire human condition, albeit with the "not God's best" manifesting itself in different ways for different individuals, and with "not best" excluding neither great good nor grace.

In the specific field of sexuality, I think there are a pretty much infinite variety of ways our inclinations and behaviours can be "not God's best", but that is not a ban on us all trying to make the best (in all senses of the term) of where we find ourselves.

Where that gets complicated for everyone, of course, is how that impacts others' sensitivities. I think Paul's teaching on our own and others' consciences has a lot to say to this, but that doesn't stop it being difficult, frustrating or indeed very painful in some cases.



*I love the Adrian Plass story in which Jesus receives a young man for counselling on homosexuality and Jesus' PA is disconcerted to discover they spent most of the time talking about billiards.

[ 21. February 2016, 17:58: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
Sorry if I came across as bitter, Eutychus. I do appreciate the kindness in what you wrote. It's just awfully hard to grow up in a church school, being taught, reading in every book, that what you feel and experience is degrading simply because the object of your affection is of the same sex as yours... whereas the others get a free pass for pretty much every kind of behaviour. They can seek forgiveness because theirs are just mishaps that can be repented of, whereas yours is, allegedly anyway, some sort of inherent evil propensity. I could not understand, I still can't, and it did indeed make me feel like a moral idiot, and failure. And this is noxious when you're a teen, lethal even, for some.

[ 21. February 2016, 18:55: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]
 

---

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :
 
'Innate but not God's best' is how I was told I am by a Roman catholic priest. For context, I said that I had to be honest about who I was, to God and myself, and he told me that I could be so much more. 'Innate but not God's best' really means 'flawed'. Frankly I am not happy with that. I do accept that I am far from perfect, but I cannot accept that my sexual identity is basically like having poor eyesight, or a tendency to theft or somesuch (another commonplace which is meant in a kindly way by those who just don't understand - usually introduced with the suggestion that 'we are all tempted to sin, some tempter in particular ways, some in others, but we are all called to resist that temptation).

Human love is a reflection of God's love for us. All human desire is a reflection of our desire for God. I cannot see it as anything other than a good thing, regardless of gender.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibaculus:
'Innate but not God's best' is how I was told I am by a Roman catholic priest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibaculus:
'Innate but not God's best' is how I was told I am by a Roman catholic priest.

---

We can't say this. It's just wrong. We wouldn't say it about women, black people, the disabled, the lower classes... we can't say it about gay people either. We are all God's best.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibaculus:
'Innate but not God's best' really means 'flawed'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
We are all God's best.

---

I think believers are all simul iustus et peccator - both justified and sinners.

I really do struggle with this.

I know it's not easy, too many responses are trite or dimissive, and that a cishet happily married for over 30 years, as I am, has zero chance of walking in your shoes.

I've been through Bibaculus' list (or something like it) more than once in the past in my mind and rejected those comparisons as inadequate. But I can't get away - so far - from heterosexual monogamy as an archetype in the Bible, although not a few people here have almost persuaded me otherwise.

It follows that I see the Church as having some responsibility to uphold that archetype. At the same time it has a responsibility to welcome all, and to adapt to social change, and for that welcome not simply to be a sugar-coated poison pill that expects people to repent down the line, be cast out, or be sidelined. It's complicated

[ 21. February 2016, 21:20: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Well, I agree with you. But clearly substantial numbers of Christians don't. They see being gay as a sort of impediment or misfortune.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Not throwing that attitude back in their faces might mean putting up with a lot, and perhaps you think it's too much to ask considering everything you've had thrown in your face, but still...what if that's where their conscience has got them to? Can you find it in yourself to respect that, even in the face of mountains of perceived disrespect for who you are?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I am proud of my own record of not being sucked into equal rudeness. A newspaper article once described me as "nice," and I'm happy with that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
At the risk of sounding cheesy, this is one of the things I find so attractive about Jesus. He had this knack of confronting people whilst respecting them, and not letting their disrespect (or ire) get to him. A hard trick to pull off, but one I aspire to imitate (with nowhere near as much success as I would like, I admit).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
But part of Jesus' art was to get the timing right and not make a habit of it - thus making it all the more, um, striking. Also, I think he had his anger directed at the correct target.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
In the LGBT debate (as elsewhere) I try and seek out those on either side who I feel have arrived at their views with humilty and sincerity, and who do respect (at least as people) those who differ, and then try and get them talking to each other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
But part of Jesus' art was to get the timing right and not make a habit of it - thus making it all the more, um, striking. Also, I think he had his anger directed at the correct target.

---

That's interesting. In a couple of sentences (to avoid going too Kerygmaniay) it has always seemed to me that he directed his anger at the wrong targets - not the Romans, not Herod, not those Jews who were selling their own brethren, not the woman-in-adultery, not the Samaritans.. etc but the religious authorities who (arguably) were only doing what they were told to do by the deity. And the whole temple incident is pretty bizarre when one contemplates that JC appeared to believe that the religion of "temple and place" was being overturned and that the Kingdom of God was not a physical place but something that lived within believers wherever they were. Wouldn't it have been better to leave the temple in a huff proclaiming that God didn't live there no more?

Anyway, I think that the problem with these things is that they're open to equal and opposite claims. Who actually would Jesus be angry with today?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I can't work out if this is really patronising or what!

---

quote:

---

I'm not just talking about my views, I'm talking about my life. I think this is a huge divide that those who are on the other side from me just don't get. (...) Were I to raise, for instance, the number of divorced members of General Assembly, I'd be shouted down in flames for being too personal.

---

quote:

---

The humility has to start with recognition of the power differential - which means it has to start with the powerful.

---

quote:

---

As an example of gross disrespect, it ranks right up there, given the real attempts at dialogue and prayerful consideration that the committee undertook right around the country.

---

Yes, I admit it does. Sigh. Maybe it's time to braid a whip after all

[ 22. February 2016, 08:13: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
'In the evangelical world (which is the one I know best) it seems to me that at grassroots level, the lines are shifting, and it's those holding the power that won't budge.'

It may very well be so. I hear and read this all the time but I'm not sold. It's also very much part of the useful idiocy problem. A gay couple I know even attended St Mark's, Battersea Rise. They've given up now. They certainly fell from a very great height when they discovered what the staff were up to, bringing the parish under conservative African oversight and whatnot. Similarly, whenever faced with the gay question, Gumbel always comes up with: 'oh, but loads of gay people attend Alpha, there's even one held in (insert notorious gay American neighbourhood). We don't discriminate, we just let God do his work'... and presumably convict them of sin and call them to repentance some way down the line. Quite a few evangelical vicars I know toe the same line: everyone's welcome; it's not our job to convict, we'll just love them and preach the Gospel, God will show them...' but the Gospel they preach is pretty uncompromising in the first place and the very presence of gay people in their congregations, aka useful idiots, allows them to show they're not hateful in the slightest.

[ 22. February 2016, 08:56: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Eutychus:

quote:

---

In my opinion the importance of this nuance is borne out by your story. The power-brokers refused to listen to the grassroots OR the specialists. They are not doing what they are supposed to (in my view) in terms of being accountable to those under them - it's not fair or constructive to take their policy as representing what everyone in their constituency thinks.

In the evangelical world (which is the one I know best) it seems to me that at grassroots level, the lines are shifting, and it's those holding the power that won't budge. If that's the case, the problem isn't intrinsically about LGBT rights but about the use and misuse of power by church authorities irrespective of the issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
'everyone's welcome; it's not our job to convict, we'll just love them and preach the Gospel, God will show them...'

---

quote:

---

the very presence of gay people in their congregations, aka useful idiots, allows them to show they're not hateful in the slightest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I've never heard of 'innate but not God's ideal' before, and it's certainly an interesting, not to say, astonishing idea. I suppose it could be applied to lots of things, for example, snot. And masturbation? Not sure if that's innate though.

---

I think a more frequent comparison is with disabilities rather than bodily fluids

That's not without disagreement either - there are some Christians with a disability who view their bodies as "broken", and others who take the line that God intended their body to be blind / deaf / unable to walk / whatever.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't think it's made any easier by the fact that a lot of straight people don't feel their identity is bound up with their orientation or sexuality to the extent I perceive a lot of gay people do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
(As I type I'm wondering if "straight privilege" might be a thing in the same way "white privilege" is.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I've noticed recently how suddenly the heated argument that there was absolutely nothing of the Neanderthal in any moderns has totally disappeared (there may have been an element of Yukk about that one, with interspecies miscegenation being involved.)

---

quote:

---

innate but not God's best

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
(As I type I'm wondering if "straight privilege" might be a thing in the same way "white privilege" is.)

---

I think you are on to something here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why is this even a question?

---

For my part, because that's just how far I've got in my thinking. I apologise for not being as penetratingly lucid in all areas as you expected
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I've noticed recently how suddenly the heated argument that there was absolutely nothing of the Neanderthal in any moderns has totally disappeared (there may have been an element of Yukk about that one, with interspecies miscegenation being involved.)

---

I hope this doesn't seem petty if I point out that it may well have been data that changed this one. Genome sequencing data have shown pretty clearly that there is a lot of Neanderthal DNA in modern European humans. I suspect that people really have changed their minds, or if they haven't they only talk about it quietly and can't make a fuss.

Also (perhaps even more petty) interspecies miscegenation doesn't seem like a sensible term to me. Miscegenation is a non-biological term with a lot of racist baggage attached to it - and the completely unscientific idea that race was a term with biological meaning. It isn't and doesn't have any useful scientific evidence or meaning.

If two individuals can breed and produce fertile offspring then strictly speaking they are of the same species (although people fudge and probably have to fudge about subspecies). So I think we are left with the conclusion that Neanderthals were humans rather than a separate species.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why is this even a question?

---

For my part, because that's just how far I've got in my thinking. I apologise for not being as penetratingly lucid in all areas as you expected

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
that is the nature of such privilege; it is transparent to those who posses it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Yes, in just the same way that white people don't feel our identity is bound up in being white because we don't have to think about it, since it's presumed to be the default setting. A straight person living in a largely gay neighborhood and white person living in a largely black or brown neighborhood very quickly learn that their identity is very much bound up with their orientation and color.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Not in every case - there was one major and hilarious exception, who clearly had some ideas about houses suitable for lesbians,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
A straight person living in a largely gay neighborhood and white person living in a largely black or brown neighborhood very quickly learn that their identity is very much bound up with their orientation and color.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
A straight person living in a largely gay neighborhood and white person living in a largely black or brown neighborhood very quickly learn that their identity is very much bound up with their orientation and color.

---

I think you'd have to live in a gay/black/brown society, not just a neighbourhood, for that to be close to true.

I'm a white Brit, living in a community which is mostly white Americans, with a few Americans of color. So the thing that distinguishes me from most of my neighbours is my Britishness.

Now, Britishness is certainly part of my identity - it encapsulates a set of cultural assumptions and references that I have - but it's not any more part of my identity than it was when I was a white Brit living in Britain, surrounded by a whole bunch of other white Brits.

British forms a significant part of the way my neighbours see me, but not nearly such a large part of the way I see myself.

I imagine if I was living in a mostly black area, the situation would be similar. I'd be recognized and thought of as the white guy, but I wouldn't see "white" as a significant part of the way I see myself.

Put me in a universe where there's widespread discrimination against white folks, and I might find that I choose to identify more strongly with other people of pallor.

---

Assuming this is actually the case, you could very well be an exception.
And, being a white Brit still means you are white. So your neighbours don't likely see you as 'other' to the degree you think, and you aren't truly as other as an American black person would be in the same neighbourhood.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I've just been reading the autobiography of Fr. Geoffrey Hooper. It was only evangelical bishops who tried to stop his priestly ministry.

But an article in last week's Church Times points to asn increasing number of evangelical bishops and the majority of ordinands are now evangelicals so it looks as if things will get even worse for LGBTs in the church - lay or ordained.
 

---

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
I don't think it will be all that long before "evangelical" is no longer an automatic synonym for "traditional views on sexuality". I certainly hope not.

I go to an evangelical church, most of my Christian friends and acquaintances go to evangelical churches (not the same one, not even the same denomination, this is all over the show) and the vast majority of them* are completely unfazed by the whole sexuality thing, and only actually get aerated over the 'formal' position of some denominations/ministers/preachers/public statements.

ISTM that a lot of the noise on this, and a lot of the hard line pronouncements, is as I believe Eutychus alluded to elsewhere, precisely in reaction to a growing disconnect between the grass roots/congregations and The Powers That Be. When you have historically (and still, to my mind) conservative publications like Christianity printing various articles looking at the debate rather than pushing a single view, and giving room to different views not just to dismiss them, things are changing.

The problem, I suspect, is that as things do change the 'traditional' viewpoint will in many cases get louder, more entrenched, and (sadly, potentially) more vitriolic until we're some way past the tipping point where it's no longer the mainline position. And in a large and diverse institution laden down with tradition and all kinds of other gubbins like the CoE it's possible that the squabbling will go on much longer than it will in non-conformist evo circles.

None of which helps LGBTQ clergy right now, or speaks to their situation or classification as 'useful idiots' or otherwise, or course; nor does it in any way excuse the historic or current conduct of folks which has been and often continues to be appalling


*Admittedly a semi-self-selecting group
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Thanks, Snags. Your experience chimes exactly with my own. As was said upthread, this is at least as much about power games and the democratisation of, particularly, the Anglican Church as it is about biblical interpretation. The Powers That Be might do well to reflect that the "impregnable" Berlin Wall fell overnight.
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So your neighbours don't likely see you as 'other' to the degree you think, and you aren't truly as other as an American black person would be in the same neighbourhood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I guess I opened this can of worms first but I never claimed AE were thoroughly Anglicans.

---

No, they are definitely interdenominational. At least two of the Patrons (Steve Chalke, Ruth Gouldbourne) are Baptists. Indeed, there is even a Baptist subsection (and there may be for other denominations).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

Most Baptists wouldn't regard Steve Chalke and Ruth Gouldbourne as being evangelical. It seems peculiar that they are part of any grouping that has "Evangelical" in its name.

Both have broken ranks (and the BUGB guidelines for ministers) by their support for (and, in Chalke's case at least, participation in) SSM ceremonies.

---

So do I understand you correctly to be saying that if someone supports SSM they cannot by your (and allegedly “most Baptists’”) definition be Evangelical? Or is it just that they can’t be evangelical Baptists? Because the grouping in question ‘Accepting Evangelicals’ is composed by definition entirely of evangelicals who accept SSM.


 

---

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

Most Baptists wouldn't regard Steve Chalke and Ruth Gouldbourne as being evangelical. It seems peculiar that they are part of any grouping that has "Evangelical" in its name.

Both have broken ranks (and the BUGB guidelines for ministers) by their support for (and, in Chalke's case at least, participation in) SSM ceremonies.

---

So do I understand you correctly to be saying that if someone supports SSM they cannot by your (and allegedly “most Baptists’”) definition be Evangelical? Or is it just that they can’t be evangelical Baptists? Because the grouping in question ‘Accepting Evangelicals’ is composed by definition entirely of evangelicals who accept SSM.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
To be fair, Gracie (and my reaction comes from the stratospherically high end of the CofE), that seems to be the case. SSM and gay sex seem to be the shibboleth, as soon as you mispronounce, the Evangelical Alliance, and most evangelical bodies will expel you, and most of your evo friends will suddenly denounce you as a false teacher. I've had quite a few evangelicals cry in my vicarage about this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Most Baptists wouldn't regard Steve Chalke and Ruth Gouldbourne as being evangelical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Most Baptists wouldn't regard Steve Chalke and Ruth Gouldbourne as being evangelical.

---

Most of the ones I associate with (at a BUGB Baptist church) do. Well, definitely Chalke, I wouldn't know about Ruth Gouldbourne so much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
being faithful to a thoroughly evangelical tradition of following what the text itself actually says, rather than a particular received interpretation of that text.

---

In this sense, I aspire to be thoroughly evangelical and I wish those of like mind could somehow reclaim the word
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Good for you. So pleased to know someone goes to a church that examines male attendees to ensure they're not "wounded in the stones"; checks rigorously that church members keep kosher, and have a ritual bath-house.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Do you actually want a clarification of what I meant, which in the context of all my above posts is blindingly obviously not what you scathlingly imply, or should I just save time and aggravation all round by calling you straight to Hell?
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Call me to hell if you wish.
But as someone who has seen the damage that is still being done to good, faithful, people by others who, proclaiming their 'Christianity' act in the most un-Christian and uncharitable way, I have really lost patience with the whole business.

Frankly, the world is already full enough of mis-trust, intolerance, discrimination, suspicion and persecution without the people who go to church adding to the problem.

The CofE keeps apologising to LGBTI but I think most people to whom the apology is supposed to be directed would rather they stopped coming out with the 'sorry' word, rather changed their behaviour; in particular, dragged their minds above the waist and looked at people, not bodily function.

So yes, I was being facetious - apologies.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Frankly, the world is already full enough of mis-trust, intolerance, discrimination, suspicion and persecution without the people who go to church adding to the problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
being faithful to a thoroughly evangelical tradition of following what the text itself actually says, rather than a particular received interpretation of that text.

---

In this sense, I aspire to be thoroughly evangelical and I wish those of like mind could somehow reclaim the word

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Call me to hell if you wish.
But as someone who has seen the damage that is still being done to good, faithful, people by others who, proclaiming their 'Christianity' act in the most un-Christian and uncharitable way, I have really lost patience with the whole business.

Frankly, the world is already full enough of mis-trust, intolerance, discrimination, suspicion and persecution without the people who go to church adding to the problem.

The CofE keeps apologising to LGBTI but I think most people to whom the apology is supposed to be directed would rather they stopped coming out with the 'sorry' word, rather changed their behaviour; in particular, dragged their minds above the waist and looked at people, not bodily function.

So yes, I was being facetious - apologies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Before we rush to condemn the PP at St Brides, can we all remember that this was a first real marriage for Ms Hall, and it is to the credit of whichever one of them (or maybe both) that they chose to have a service of blessing.

But you are right that this blessing of a marriage of two people neither of whom are known to be in any way a regular worshipper throws into stark relief the fact that there will be other couples who worship (maybe even celebrate the eucharist) week after week but who are denied a blessing simply because their partner is of the same sex.

I'd dearly love to hear +Justin or +Ebor justify this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Just for clarity, Ms Hall married Lucifer in a civil wedding. I assume what happened in St Bride's was a service of Blessing After Civil Marriage, available to all the hosts of Hell, as long as they're heterosexual.

Sorry, did I say "Lucifer"? I meant "Rupert" - my delete key is playing up today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibaculus:
But the blessing is all that makes the marriage a Christian marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibaculus:
In what way, exactly?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibaculus:
In what way, exactly?

---

Well in a legal sense. In the UK, one is only married if a state official marries you. In England and Wales, this has to be done in a properly registered building.

A CofE priest is an official of the state in that he is able to declare those coming to marriage without impediment to be married as a Registrar. In a general sense, leaders of other religions are not Registrars (well, unless they apply to be assistant Registrars. Just to be confusing).

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Baptist ministers are not priests, but baptist marriages are still Christian marriages.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Joesaphat: 'Inclusive' has become a meaningless term in the church. Who's not inclusive?

---

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?

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Surely "inclusive" and "affirming" are code words, which will say something to the constituency they are aiming to reach?
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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" .
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 

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?

---

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?

---

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.'

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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 )

---

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!

---

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.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0