|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: House of Bishops Report on Same Sex Relationships
|
bad man
Apprentice
# 17449
|
Posted
The House of Bishops has today released a Report on Marriage and Same Sex Relationships.
There is a summary in a Press Release which has also been issued, including statements from the Bishop of Norwich and the Bishop of Willesden.
The Report has reaffirmed the Canon (drafted before same sex marriage became part of the law of the land in which the Church of England is the established church) that "marriage is a union permanent and life-long, of one man with one woman…".
The Report as a whole looks like a shattering blow to any hope of real progress towards full acceptance of lesbian and gay people and their relationships in the life of the Church of England, which no amount of soft soap around the hard lines drawn in the Report can wash away.
The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement reaction is here.
Their basic point is that the Shared Conversations have come to nothing.
Sadly, it does look like that.
[ 27. January 2017, 16:01: Message edited by: bad man ]
Posts: 49 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I'm not amazed. Angry, yes: saddened, yes. Surprised, no.
IMV recent appointments to the bench of bishops make it highly unlikely there will be any change to the position on SSM: fact I wouldn't be surprised if the HoB didn't come out with something more uncharitable and unloving.
Any hope that the CofE had of redeeming its image in the eyes of the great unchurched over this issue has gone.
As for the 'Shared Conversations' they were nothing more than a figleaf - granted a pretty convoluted one - same as deanery synods, to give the illusion that the archbishops and bishops actually give a toss about what the people in the pews think, or how people who don't come to church view us. They are stuck in transmit mode, never receive.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
God hates Fags lite. Big shock from the old men in dresses.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
There are many, many good and wonderful people in the Church. Many who will put what is right before what is expedient. Many who will speak truth even when it makes them unpopular with a vicious and vocal minority. What a pity few, or none, of them ever made it to Bishop.
This sort of institutional prejudice - prejudice which so thinks itself normal that it can no longer see it is brutal - is why I no longer count myself an Anglican.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
I'm only part way through the abbreviated version in the press release but.
It uses the phrase "people who experience same sex attraction." ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I'm very saddened by this. I attend an Anglican church which is very inclusive. People who've fucked up on the marriage front and had more than one go at it like myself, people in same sex unions and the more "traditional" stable family people, all meet together to worship the Lord, confess our sins and receive the Body and Blood of Christ. No barriers spiritual or social. I love it that way. I don't know how this will affect "inclusive church" communities, but this is just a watered down version of Pope Benedict's assertion that gay relationships are "intrinsically disordered." It's the same old shit and the C of E deserves all it reaps from it among its ageing and dying congregations.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Gaaaa! I'm sorry they did that.
They mentioned it in the context of lifelong, permanent marriage. How do they handle divorce, both officially and with real parishoners?
Trying to gauge possible hypocrisy. Not my church, so apologies if I get/say something wrong.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Gaaaa! I'm sorry they did that.
They mentioned it in the context of lifelong, permanent marriage. How do they handle divorce, both officially and with real parishoners?
Trying to gauge possible hypocrisy. Not my church, so apologies if I get/say something wrong.
Well remarriage following divorce is okay if you are the Bishop of Fulham if that helps? (See here)
[ 28. January 2017, 08:40: Message edited by: TomM ]
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
I remarried after divorce 36 years ago. It was not OK then, and I have not been informed by the CofE that it is OK now.
That marriage has been successful and exclusive, but that is hardly relevant.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
wabale
Shipmate
# 18715
|
Posted
This comment is more a question. My question relates to the historical arguments relating to the Church and homosexuality. I've read nearly one third of the 'Homosexuality and Christianity' thread, and it's been an education, but generally speaking the historical arguments concerning the 'Traditional teaching of the Church' have not I think been touched on. Actually I seriously wonder whether they've been discussed much generally, or even whether the bishops have given it much thought. We tend to take history for granted, and theologians tend to think, well, theologically.
My question may appear utterly irrelevant, naïve, perhaps even ice-cold, but please bear with me. I am a heterosexual conservative evangelical who progressed from No. 5 to No. 9 (see definitions on page 1 of the 'Homosexuality and Christianity' thread!)
My question is – am I alone in thinking there hasn't been much discussion, generally, of the history of homosexuality/christianity that relates to the Church of England discussions (or to any other church's discussions for that matter) ?
A few months ago I was minding my own business reading Diarmaid MacCulloch's excellent 'A History of Christianity', when he mentioned a book by R.I.Moore, 'The formation of a persecuting society', and also John Boswell's rather more well-known book, 'Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality - Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century'.
Since changing my views some 4 years ago, I had been looking for a 'killer' text to back up my convictions - a fundamentalist habit of course - and found it unexpectedly in these two books. Actually the books do very much affect how we might interpret 'the 6 texts', as I will go on to suggest below.
The book which informed earlier Anglican discussions, and is still sometimes referred to, is 'Some issues in human sexuality – a guide to the debate', a discussion document from the House of Bishops' Group on issues in Human Sexuality [pub. Church House Publishing 2003]. This is what it said on page 14 about Boswell's book: 'The Yale historian John Boswell argued that homosexual relationships have been tolerated in some periods of Church history and that provision was even made for the blessing of same-sex unions, but his controversial claim has been not been widely accepted by historians.' The book has a footnote referring to a critical article disputing Boswell's idea (ideas?), and I deal with his critics in general below.
It is not clear from this which of Boswell's 'claims' have 'not been widely accepted by historians', to the point where I have to say that the comment was and is misleading. Actually there are multiple issues Boswell raised about the toleration of homosexual relationships over a long period of time, and he provided masses of evidence. He also wrote more than one book on the subject. (Boswell's books have been briefly mentioned on the part of the 'Homosexuality and Christianity' thread I've managed to read.)
'Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality' covered a very wide period of history, and books like that are always heavily criticised by the experts who spend their lives studying, say, 20 years of French History. I'm not an academic historian, and I'm not a medievalist, but my feeling is that many of Boswell's ideas are supported by Moore and MacCulloch and have gradually, after 30 years or so, become part of the history mainstream (if you'll pardon the expression).
These, in outline, are some of the implications of Boswell's and Moore's ideas. (Why do I get the feeling that I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs?)
1. The often-quoted idea that the church had 'traditional' teaching on homosexuality ignores the fact that it did not become anything like a consistent doctrine till about the 13th Century. Any 'progression' that occurred was, if anything, backwards.
2. Those who argue for so-called 'Traditional teaching' need to make this clear, as the term gives the misleading impression to people that there has been a consistent teaching on the subject from the time Paul wrote his letters to the present day.
3. There was no 'traditional teaching' regarding lesbian, bisexual, or transgender people.
4. For the first thousand years of the Christian faith, when reasons were occasionally advanced for homosexuality being a sin, the reasons were generally not based on scripture but on 'nature'. For example in the apocryphal Letter of Barnabas completely ludicrous and inaccurate ideas about the wild sexual behaviour of hares was presented as the main argument against humans doing the same thing. This argument was still being wheeled out a thousand years later by Church Fathers who should have known better.
5. Generally speaking, in the late Roman Empire, homosexuality was not against the law, and was not, as it were, regarded as a sin in its own right.
6. [I draw an inference of my own: the absence of evidence of the church targeting homosexuals suggests that the early church did not regard the six verses with the same emphasis as modern 'Traditionalists' have done.]
7. During the early centuries of the Christian church, although a few of the Church Fathers did condemn homosexuality, there was no consistency as to why. Clement of Alexandria, for example, used the hare 'argument' from the Letter of Barnabas.
8. When successor-states to the Roman Empire began to codify laws, there is little sign of the 'unanimous witness of Christian tradition' we have been led to expect.
9. Homosexuality was not an issue in the early Middle Ages. Later there was even a flowering of erotic poetry in monasteries from about 950 to 1050, the nature and significance of which is unclear.
10. From 1050, a significant change took place in society. The change was led by kings and nobles and by bishops, and it took the form of a general tightening of feudal obligations. While bishops played a part in this, it was primarily in their role as political leaders, not as Christian pastors. Part of this movement arose from the idea that society was under threat.
11. So while the church in the High Middle Ages is sometimes seen as entering a golden age, there was a dark side, which historians, and through them the rest of us, have hitherto often ignored. The thinking of the church, which began to be systemised by Thomas Aquinas and others, followed, rather than led, this change in society.
12. Society began to look for enemies from within. Muslims, Jews, heretics (and even lepers) became targets, followed by homosexuals.
13. Those church 'moralists' who had condemned homosexuality now came into their own, providing a hitherto ignored store of information that people were now willing to hear, and homosexuals were singled out as a threat to society.
14. By 1250 systematic persecution of homosexuals was under way.
15. This 'traditional' teaching of the church came about because of an apparent threat to society, and then provided a 'moral' basis for a sustained policy of persecution.
16. For a thousand years homosexuality had not been a major issue for the church, possibly not an issue at all. This means church doctrine changed at the end of this period. Our current 'traditional' church teaching then began and underpinned a sustained policy of persecution.
17. [Again, my own inference: the issue is now one of coming to terms with the fact that nearly all churches, and therefore many of us, are involved in a thousand year terror campaign against fellow-christians. We need to explain this to our brethren in Africa, for example. Many African Christians, I'm sure, will appreciate the honesty when it is admitted that a teaching that was passed on to them was completely flawed and unbiblical.
We need to face up to the fact it's not 'accomodation' the bishops should be talking about but repentance.]
While many of these points may be fairly well-known I would be very interested to hear from someone who is up-to-date on medieval history, or has read what the Church Fathers actually said.
Posts: 74 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I'm afraid, wabale, that this isn't about the Church's historic reception of sexualities. It isn't about rationality or critical thought at all, when you start to do a bit of digging.
I think this is really about two things. First, it's about money. In the late 90s I had a private conversation with a bishop in which we rehearsed many of the arguments you've researched. He agreed with me, privately. But then he said "But I could never say that publicly. If I did, there are six or seven big evangelical parishes in my diocese who would stop paying their parish share. We'd be bankrupt in months."
Secondly, I'm afraid this is just the Church exercising its instinct to control and exclude. It excludes because in order to maintain an identity, it helps to have some people who are "in" and some who are "out". Even a fairly amateur outfit like the CofE is pretty good at this. Just as it excludes those who are "out", it controls those who are "in" - and every despot in history has known that if you can control what people do in bed, you can control anything.
The Church knows this is about money. It may not know consciously that it's about exclusion and control, because those things are mere instinct. Like I said in the Hell thread - if you're a scorpion, you sting.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
4. For the first thousand years of the Christian faith, when reasons were occasionally advanced for homosexuality being a sin, the reasons were generally not based on scripture but on 'nature'. For example in the apocryphal Letter of Barnabas completely ludicrous and inaccurate ideas about the wild sexual behaviour of hares was presented as the main argument against humans doing the same thing.
I absolutely agree with you that the bishops are not interested in church history, but I am going to nitpick here. The verse in my copy reads:
quote:
Among other things, he also says, you are not to eat of the hare, by which he means you are not to debauch young boys, or become like those who do; because the hare grows a fresh orifice in its backside every year, and has as many of these holes as the years of its life.
The Epistle of Barnabas is trying to address the question: if food laws and other parts of the Torah aren't necessary for Christians, why were they given at all? Barnabas' answer is that they were all intended as symbols for avoiding some other kind of sin. He is not trying to explain why homosexuality is sinful: he is trying to explain why eating hares is sinful (or, at least, why the Jews were told not to do it).
That said, you may have noticed from the above translation that Barnabas says nothing about homosexuality at all, but debauching young boys. My understanding, which is very general and non-specialist, is homosexuality to the Early Church Fathers suggested pederasty, and most of *us* would find pederasty morally problematic as well.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
The other hypocritical thing about the bishops' appealing to The Traditional View Of The Church is that the Church's view on gay sex can't be separated from the Church's view on sex in general.
The Church Fathers and the Scholastics generally thought that any kind of sex that wasn't for the purpose of procreation was Bad. This, I think, was derived from idea that you should be in charge of your appetites and not the other way round, and that excesses of anything were Bad.
The hypocrisy of our bishops is that they have surrendered to modern laxity and the spirit of the world in believing that sex for pleasure is permissible (some of those revisionists even think it's a positive good), except when it's the gays doing it, when it's still Bad.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
wabale
Shipmate
# 18715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
4. For the first thousand years of the Christian faith, when reasons were occasionally advanced for homosexuality being a sin, the reasons were generally not based on scripture but on 'nature'. For example in the apocryphal Letter of Barnabas completely ludicrous and inaccurate ideas about the wild sexual behaviour of hares was presented as the main argument against humans doing the same thing.
I absolutely agree with you that the bishops are not interested in church history, but I am going to nitpick here. The verse in my copy reads:
quote:
Among other things, he also says, you are not to eat of the hare, by which he means you are not to debauch young boys, or become like those who do; because the hare grows a fresh orifice in its backside every year, and has as many of these holes as the years of its life.
The Epistle of Barnabas is trying to address the question: if food laws and other parts of the Torah aren't necessary for Christians, why were they given at all? Barnabas' answer is that they were all intended as symbols for avoiding some other kind of sin. He is not trying to explain why homosexuality is sinful: he is trying to explain why eating hares is sinful (or, at least, why the Jews were told not to do it).
That said, you may have noticed from the above translation that Barnabas says nothing about homosexuality at all, but debauching young boys. My understanding, which is very general and non-specialist, is homosexuality to the Early Church Fathers suggested pederasty, and most of *us* would find pederasty morally problematic as well.
Posts: 74 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The Church Fathers and the Scholastics generally thought that any kind of sex that wasn't for the purpose of procreation was Bad. This, I think, was derived from idea that you should be in charge of your appetites and not the other way round, and that excesses of anything were Bad.
This reminds me of how G.E.M. Anscombe, the Roman Catholic philosopher, conservative on sexuality, argued convincingly that if contraception is morally permissible then homosexual sex must be morally permissible too.
This is one of these cases where one woman's modus tollens(*) is another's modus ponens(**).
(*) A logical argument of the form, If A then B; B is not true; therefore A isn't true either. Similar to reductio ad absurdum.
(**) A logical argument of the form, If A then B; A is true, therefore B is true also.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
wabale
Shipmate
# 18715
|
Posted
Ooops - sorry to quote the entire post again.
Hi Ricardus, I did indeed misread what Boswell said and thus misunderstood Barnabas. Thanks for the correction. I take your point that originally the story related to pederasty. The general point stands: Boswell gives many examples of writers 'drawing from nature' to justify classifying homosexuality as a sin. What I found even more shocking was that Thomas Aquinas much later was still using the same kind of arguments.
Posts: 74 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I absolutely agree with you that the bishops are not interested in church history
OK, having read the report I must retract this comment. The bishops are not interested in theology AT ALL.
Well, they use the word 'theological' a lot. But nowhere in that report is an acknowledgement that people who support gay marriage might have some theological reason for doing so. They say there is no enthusiasm for revisiting our doctrines, but nowhere do they say WHY. Nowhere do they say 'Well we acknowledge that progressives make worthwhile points A, B, C, but we don't find these convincing because X, Y, Z.'
What they seem to be trying to respond to is the argument that if gay people find the Church's doctrine offensive, and the Church is all about love and unity, then prima facie the Church's doctrine must be wrong. Their response, AIUI, is that it's not the doctrine that's wrong but the way it's been presented, and therefore we must maintain the doctrine in a tolerant affirmative positive and welcoming way. Even supposing this is possible, they never explain WHY they think the problem is presentation and not the doctrine itself.
quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
Hi Ricardus, I did indeed misread what Boswell said and thus misunderstood Barnabas.
Fair enough! I haven't read Boswell but would like him to be correct. The reason for my nitpicking is that I've seen people complain that he misrepresents his sources, but without providing any examples. I'm glad to see this is not confirmation of their complaint.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
OK, having read the report I must retract this comment. The bishops are not interested in theology AT ALL.
That would be consistent with their statements on just about anything else.
Like priestly formation, mission, fracking, safeguarding, 'reform and renewal'...
And with the refusal to appoint any theologians to the bench. Since retirements of Wright and Williams, there hasn't been anyone on the bench of bishops who has taught theology in a major university, for the first time ever.
[ 28. January 2017, 18:24: Message edited by: TomM ]
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
wabale
Shipmate
# 18715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Fair enough! I haven't read Boswell but would like him to be correct. The reason for my nitpicking is that I've seen people complain that he misrepresents his sources, but without providing any examples. I'm glad to see this is not confirmation of their complaint.
There were a lot of criticisms of Boswell. You can readily find them, dating right back to 1980, when he wrote the book. There is even a comment in the 'Homosexuality and Christianity' thread here, page 21, '8th October 2003 by 'The Wasteland', but it is embedded in another argument so I won't quote it here.
One of the reasons for this criticism is that it was an academic book that won awards and was very widely read. Many people, fellow Roman Catholics and others who simply didn't like the sound of what Boswell was saying had a go at him, and I've read some criticisms by academic historians whose prejudices are showing very obviously.
Boswell wrote in a way that was bound to upset fellow historians, and he was happy to do so. For example, he was adamant, in the face of his publisher's pleas, that he would use the word 'gay' to define the community he was describing right through the period he was describing. To most historians his use of this term was anachronistic. But Boswell very deliberately set out to show that the gay community in the West had a distinctive history of its own dating back to Classical times. Again, his use of the word upset more than just his academic colleagues, and was criticised by those who were trying to make the argument that the social situation in the First Century Roman Empire was vastly different from that of today. Many gay people also criticised him for, as they saw it, letting Christianity off the hook.
As I pointed out before, because Boswell's book was ground-breaking, it was bound to attract criticism, and I just picked out a selection of some of the issues he raised which I still think stand. What is more important, but not so easily accessible, is what other historians think about it. My post was in a sense to ask the question 'is there a medievalist in the house?'
This matters, and is not just academic, because the argument of the bishops and many other 'Traditionalists', that they are upholding the Traditional teaching of the Church, is sounding thinner by the minute, and perhaps with a little more pushing this particular pillar will fall down.
What adds considerable weight to Boswell's thesis is that part of it, concerning the medieval period, is explicitly supported by both McCulloch and Moore, whom I mentioned above. R.I.Moore, some of whose points I have summarised in my list of 17, is a highly professional historian, the Editor-in-Chief of a series of books about world history published by Blackwell. His approach to history is collaborative, so that he actually added a chapter to the book I cited in order to take criticism on board. He is almost the opposite kind of historian to Boswell, who was quite open about having an axe to grind. In a sense he is more radical than Boswell, in that a reading of his book leaves you with the impression that we are all heirs of a tradition of persecution that we are yet to come to terms with. McCulloch, slightly to my surprise because it never shows in his book, turns out to be one of the Church's modern victims.
Posts: 74 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
...because the hare grows a fresh orifice in its backside every year, and has as many of these holes as the years of its life.
An excellent way to determine length of membership of the House of Bishops!
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There are many, many good and wonderful people in the Church. Many who will put what is right before what is expedient. Many who will speak truth even when it makes them unpopular with a vicious and vocal minority. What a pity few, or none, of them ever made it to Bishop.
This sort of institutional prejudice - prejudice which so thinks itself normal that it can no longer see it is brutal - is why I no longer count myself an Anglican.
Can I ask what you would have liked the report to say? That is, what was the best that they could have done given the divergence of views in the Church?
Because my own reaction is that I wish this wasn't an issue at all. I wish it was obvious to everyone (and wish that it were clearly stated in the Bible and was taught by the Church) that same-sex relationships and opposite-sex relationships are moral or immoral on exactly the same terms. Unfortunately, homosexuality is a contentious issue, and it cannot be said that the Church (of England, or generally) has concluded that it can be affirmed. If the bishops saw their job not as stating what they wished to be true, but as setting out what the Church in fact believes, I don't think that they could have produced a report very different from this one. It simply isn't true that the Church as a whole accepts that two men, or two women, may lawfully marry. I wish it did - but at this point in history, a report purporting to present that view as the teaching of the Church of England would be false.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
When I said "this sort of institutional prejudice", Eliab, I really did mean "this sort of", not "precisely this example of". I never even knew there was a report coming out - I haven't really kept in touch since I stopped regarding myself as an Anglican.
The report doesn't surprise me at all. The bishops acted according to what they laughably (or embarrassingly, depending on where you're standing) call their principles - a dull euphemism for the web of expediencies they find themselves tied up in. I suppose it would have been nice of them to chuck a few breadcrumbs to those whose line in the sand is drawn more generously in the Church's favour than my own was, but as you suggest, that was never really going to happen.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Adeodatus - I had cynically commentee on that Facebook thing that this was about tge unwritten rule of Don't Piss Off The Evanglicals. Your experience implies I'm right.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The report doesn't surprise me at all. The bishops acted according to what they laughably (or embarrassingly, depending on where you're standing) call their principles - a dull euphemism for the web of expediencies they find themselves tied up in.
I don't deny that expediency must play some part (though I'm not convinced that's necessarily a bad thing if approached in good faith - the bishops have to engage with the Church as it is).
What struck me about the report was that I can't see how anyone reading it would be able to tell whether the CofE thinks that gay sex is, or is not, morally wrong.
If we do think it's wrong, I can't how we can in good conscience talk about how important it is to make same-sex couples feel included (without challenging them to repent, at least), or how we can approve and encourage 'informal' prayer to bless their relationships, and discuss whether some more official form of blessing might be devised for them, all of which the report endorses.
But if we don't think it's wrong, then the refusal to approve gay marriage is inexplicable for a Church which still thinks that marriage is the best context for sexual expression - as is the insistence on celibacy for gay clergy. Yes, I read the part about clergy being called to a higher standard (which I'm not sure is actually true), but it seems to me that at best this could justify turning a blind eye to gay sexual relationships amongst the laity, but not half-hearted approval of them.
The conclusion, I suppose, is that as a Church we aren't claiming to have any clear idea at all about whether gay sex is ever morally acceptable. We just don't know - the only consistent way to read the report is that our highest rank of leaders, after two years concentrating on an issue which has been on society's moral agenda since decriminalisation, don't claim to know the answer. They have individual opinions, of course, but no collective certainty.
In that context, much as I dislike the conclusion itself, saying that we will allow priests to pray and bless "informally" but without an officially sanctioned liturgy that would imply that they have the support of the whole Church, while themselves avoiding conduct which is considered doubtful, doesn't seem to me to be irrational. It does reflect the (confused) mind of the Church.
I'd rather they had addressed the clerical gay-celibacy thing as a "weaker brother's conscience" thing, which on doubtful moral issues is all it can be, rather than a "higher standard" thing, because the report makes sense only if we don't claim to know whether it really is a "higher" standard or not. Of course, if they had done that, it would have taken a somewhat more brazen collection of necks to tell gay clergy that they must forgo any physical expression of (committed, faithful) sexuality in case that offends some other Christian's conscience, even though we can't say whether gay sex is right or wrong. So now I'm taking myself back into disapproving of the report.
I don't know. That's why I asked what you'd like the report to have said, given that the Church does not have one mind on this issue. What's the best that they could have done?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Ok. Bear in mind I've only read summaries and statements. Bear in mind I also have the exhilarating feeling that this is no longer my problem. I think the bishops could have said right at the outset, "This is not about the moral behaviour of a minority of our congregations. What we say is, we hope, not to be written in stone. We hope to God it is not the last word of the Church of England on the subject. What this is about, primarily, is holding together a fragile Church, and we are truly sorry to the individuals who are going to be sacrificed to that end."
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What struck me about the report was that I can't see how anyone reading it would be able to tell whether the CofE thinks that gay sex is, or is not, morally wrong.
It's in paragraph 61:
"The unity of the Church cannot be detached from our common faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and therefore from the teaching through which that gospel is faithfully passed on. In following this approach, the Church of England would be continuing to affirm unequivocally the doctrine of marriage set out in Canon B30."
Which is what pisses me off - a complex debate reduced to two sentences as though the status quo was so self-evidently correct that it doesn't need further justification.
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
That's specifically marriage, though - not sex. And while it might reasonably be thought that in Christian ethics "no marriage is allowed between A & B" implies not sex either, since we generally think married sex is morally preferable to unmarried, the report can't really be read that way.
What I get from it is that as a lay person* I might in good conscience form a committed sexual relationship with another man, that this would be no barrier to my inclusion in the Church, and that if a priest were willing to "informally" pray us and bless our loving commitment, that tis would be OK too. It implies (I'm not sure if it expressly states) that a civil partnership or marriage would not be a problem, that no one would expect me to be celibate within such a relationship, and that if I wasn't I'd still be an Anglican in good standing.
It seems to me that you can only consistently take that view AND at the same time decline to celebrate gay marriage and apply a different and harsher rule of behaviour to clergy, IF you aren't claiming to know whether gay sex is in principle wrong, and for that reason wish neither to condemn nor officially endorse it. On any other view, the guidance is wildly irrational.
(*although in my particular case I'm not sure, because the vow which is quoted throughout as disapplying this degree of latitude to clergy is to "fashion your life according to the way of Christ" which, even if we accept the dubious proposition that this is not a general obligation on all Christians, is something that that I also explicitly promised to do when becoming a Reader. But the bishops don't seem to have thought that through.)
[ 30. January 2017, 10:06: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think the bishops could have said right at the outset, "This is not about the moral behaviour of a minority of our congregations. What we say is, we hope, not to be written in stone. We hope to God it is not the last word of the Church of England on the subject. What this is about, primarily, is holding together a fragile Church, and we are truly sorry to the individuals who are going to be sacrificed to that end."
Now I don't just wish that you were still an Anglican, I wish you were a bishop.
On the bright side, if the Church can no longer state clearly, in a document forbidding same-sex relationships to the clergy, that a same-sex relationship is actually wrong, this very likely is not going to be the last word on the subject from the Church. Even if the report's conclusions are too conservative, enough ground has been given away by saying that a lay person can in good conscience be in a sexually active same-sex relationship that a repressive line is going to be unsustainable. The report may be an accurate snap-shot of the mind of the Church right now, but its clearly not a comfortable state of mind to remain in. We're going to have to move one way or the other - and the momentum is at least currently in the right direction.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
[QUOTE] I wish you were a bishop.
There's no need to get abusive. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The whole thing is a shambles and wide open to varying interpretation, depending on the prejudices of the reader - but then that is very much in the CofE tradition.
I particularly enjoyed this little gem from the Bishop of Norwich's statement quote:
...all clergy are asked at their ordination whether they will fashion their lives "after the way of Christ". We believe we should revisit how this is explored beforehand so that the same questions are addressed to all.
Before they get onto that they'll need to address what after the way of Christ means. To take just one issue, for Christ to have taught in the temple he would have had to be a married man, since that was the requirement at the time (and nowhere are we told he was challenged about his ability to teach in the synagogue, only that his subject matter and interpretation were contentious): so are the bishops saying all would-be ordinands should be married? Or are they going to take the more 'traditionalist' view that Christ was not married and therefore demand celibacy for all? There are factions supporting both viewpoints in the church so how exactly is this helpful? One of the sons remarked he presumed this meant only single, workless men should apply... and one can see his, albeit facetious, point.
I also reflected on this after the way of Christ approach as I was asked to pay admission to one of our major cathedrals at the weekend - no possible conflict there, eh?
One marriage and sexual continence: I seem to recall that, when faced with (apparently) proven adultery Christ turned the tables and asked who was so pure themselves that they could (should?) cast a stone? And he was absolutely and completely silent on "same-sex attraction" so there is no support there for the bishops either.
Its one thing to joke about theological illiteracy on the House of Bishops, quite another to see such plain and simply ignorance and stupidity on display.
I'm waiting to hear from our Shared Conversations co-ordinator person about what feedback was given to our bishop since, at the time of the SC, nothing was drafted and nothing has been sent to us since. And I'm hearing from more and more people that this travesty of a report that purports to have been produced after looking at the "results" of the SCs is nothing of the sort. Already one person has gone public in the Church Times on this and I expect more to follow.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
A thought. In addition to being inflexible old bastards themselves, perhaps they recognise the diminishing following among the youth, so speak to keep the support of other inflexible old bastards.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
That's specifically marriage, though - not sex. And while it might reasonably be thought that in Christian ethics "no marriage is allowed between A & B" implies not sex either, since we generally think married sex is morally preferable to unmarried, the report can't really be read that way.
I've been a while replying because you gave me quite a bit to think about ...
I suppose the issue for me is that the 'traditional' view of the Church is that marriage is the proper place for sex, and also that marriage is the natural endpoint of a romantic relationship.
The report makes positive noises about committed gay and unmarried relationships, and I suppose one can read the report as suggesting that although the proper definition of marriage excludes gay couples, gay (and straight) romantic relationships can find fulfilment in avenues other than marriage. The problem with this reading, to my mind, is that it is as much of a change from the 'traditional' view of the Church as allowing gay marriage would be, and it's hard to imagine many people endorsing one change and not the other.
On your question of what should the Church do given that there is no consensus on the issue, the obvious answer would surely be to do what it does for divorce, i.e. leave it to the judgement of the minister?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
bad man
Apprentice
# 17449
|
Posted
In the case of gay people, it is perfectly obvious to anyone able to contemplate an end to old prejudices and assumptions that marriage is the most Christian outcome - or, to be more precise, the outcome most closely fashioned to the particular teachings and requirements of the Church. Sex before marriage is pretty universal now, and so sex only within marriage is a lost cause, but the church turns a blind eye and concentrates on the point when relationships become stable, faithful and conventional - in marriage.
Marriage, marriage, marriage. Marriage is good - that's something the Church has taught for 500 years. Before that, admittedly, it had a preference for celibacy, and that was (we think) the path trodden by Jesus himself. But, since the reformation, and married clergy, and the abolition of the monastic life as a big presence in the Church of England, marriage is the thing.
But, until now, "marriage is good" didn't give the Church an answer for gay people - because gay people could not get married. Sex should be within marriage. Gay people can't get married. So gay people shouldn't have sex. That's how it went.
Now gay people can get married. The Gordian knot has been cut. Problem solved. The same teaching can apply across the board. Miraculous! Hallelujah!
The alternative to marriage is not celibacy, except for a tiny minority of very unusual people (and good for them, if that's their vocation). The alternative to marriage for most people is casual sex or temporary relationships. The arrival of marriage as a possibility - even an aspiration - for gay people, is the thing that brings them providentially closer than ever, barring celibacy (which is no longer pushed as the ideal for heterosexual adults) to the ecclesiastical ideal for adult sexual and romantic relationships.
But, wait - the Church of England isn't happy. Does it thank God for solving the problem of "What to say about gay relationships, if we don't want to say that they shouldn't exist?" No, it doesn't. It takes the absurd position that "There is no such thing as marriage for gay people."
But there is! It's over there! It's in the law! It's happening all around you! Aren't you pleased?
No. It's still fixated on its old assumption that gay people can't get married. It repeats a Canon drafted when gay people couldn't get married, saying gay people can't get married. La, la, la, we're not listening. There is no such thing as gay marriage - even though there is.
They're embarrassed. It's OK but, somehow, not OK. They're not saying it's wrong. They're saying it doesn't exist. They've missed the point entirely and made themselves ridiculous.
How very Anglican.
Posts: 49 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by bad man quote:
Marriage, marriage, marriage. Marriage is good - that's something the Church has taught for 500 years. Before that, admittedly, it had a preference for celibacy, and that was (we think) the path trodden by Jesus himself. But, since the reformation, and married clergy, and the abolition of the monastic life as a big presence in the Church of England, marriage is the thing.
The church's 'preference for celibacy' is not that old, having been brought into the western church during the late 11th/ early 12th century to solve problems (for the church) over inheritance and money - so nothing new there. And it was from that time that we had the nonsense about assuming that JC was not married, when there is good reason to think that he probably was. In any case, all of that applies to the priesthood, not the laity.
For the laity, the church was perfectly happy to go along with the norm for marriage that predates Christianity in these islands: that is, a couple are betrothed and the two families wait to see (a) if there are children, and (b) if they are male. No children after a period of time (usually about 5 years) means betrothal is rescinded; female only children may mean the same; male children means marriage can take place. It was only at the very highest levels of society that marriage happened before sex, or where childless wives might be tolerated - but as the case of people like Catherine of Aragon show, it didn't matter how high you were, no male child meant husbands felt entitled to discard wives, either through divorce or by the wife entering a nunnery.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by L'Organist:
quote:
The church's 'preference for celibacy' is not that old, having been brought into the western church during the late 11th/ early 12th century to solve problems (for the church) over inheritance and money - so nothing new there. And it was from that time that we had the nonsense about assuming that JC was not married, when there is good reason to think that he probably was. In any case, all of that applies to the priesthood, not the laity.
Not so. St. Paul appears to have thought that celibacy was better than marriage and a 4th century Bishop caused a certain amount of scandal when he announced that his appointment would not preclude him having conjugal relations with his wife. The reason that celibacy could be brought into the church by the medieval reformers was because there was already a body of doctrine that said sex was deeply suspect. The only sex which was entirely licit was that which was aimed at the begetting of children. The East is different, of course, but even there St. Gregory of Nyssa points out that unchastity is a way by which people who would draw the line at most of the other seven deadlies can damn themselves.
The Augustinian formula about marriage is "proles, fides, sacramentum". Children, fidelity and the sacrament. Catholics have always insisted that all three be held in tension Protestants have tended to stress fidelity at the expense of the others. Which, I think, is the real basis of the argument. If sex is ordained to the propagation of the species, then the case for gay marriage goes out of the window, if sex is primarily an expression of love then things are a lot more difficult. The problem for the C of E is that it holds, deep in the depths of its solemn little soul, that sex is really about love. But unless one holds, as some evangelicals seem to do, that gay people do not love one another it's quite hard to take that line and then insist that gay marriage is an abomination, not to be borne by a Christian people.
In any event, I think the real reason for no change was set out by the Bishop of Manchester in a radio interview recently. There wouldn't be a majority in synod. So we wait, patient and potent, hoping that by the time there is a change there is also a Church of England to effect it.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And it was from that time that we had the nonsense about assuming that JC was not married, when there is good reason to think that he probably was.
I think there was better reason to think he likely wasn't. If he was divine as Christians think he was.
Not to mention, an itinerant wanderer with no means of direct support having a family is massively irresponsible.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
St. Paul appears to have thought that celibacy was better than marriage
He got that from Jesus. The verse that equal marriage opponents use to pretend that Jesus supports their POV also includes Jesus saying marriage was for the weak and celibacy better.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
So: a group of retired bishops has broken ranks and criticised the whole process up to this point. They make strong points about bishops having effectively become "managers" and also that there seemed to have been little genuine willingness to listen to other theological views.
(Pity about the grammatical mistake in the first sentence ...).
[ 12. February 2017, 07:29: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Bearing in mind that the 14 signatories have spent a considerable period of time trying to be all things to all men, this letter is astonishing. God bless them all, and I hope that the current HoB unplug their ears, open their minds (and hearts) and withdraw their shameful "report".
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
The motion to take note of the Bishop's report has fallen. Back to the drawing board. Must try harder!
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
A glimmer of hope for something better in the future. Very much (with apologies to Churchill) the end of the beginning.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
The Church of England is a massive behemoth that moves slowly, but even so I was disappointed that the Bishops' report was such a small step.
Having listened to the Synod debate I am encouraged, the groundwork is being laid for the next step forward, and I am hoping that step will be larger.
But even if things now run quickly by CofE standards it will still be a long time coming.
My view is then whenever the church is not welcoming to anyone it is not doing the work of Christ. I pray that we may we be fully welcoming to LGBTI+ people sooner than I expect.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
I'm just wondering if the spirit of Maximum Freedom will extend to ending the persecution of clergy persons who contract equal same sex marriages. Much as I agreed with the sentiment of the Bishop of Liverpool's address, if they can't deliver that, then it's just so much cant.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
My flabber has never ben so gasted - but in a good way. A narrow margin, yes, but a majority of people who are actually doing the pastoral work the bishops claim to hold in such esteem gave the HoB a lesson in reality.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
It gets better.
Christopher Cocksworth has issued a statement to say he was 'confused' and pressed the wrong button on his handset ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Unfortunately, he then went on to claim that "several" members of the House of Clergy had told him they had done the same (how do they know, if they knew so little they pressed the "wrong" button how do they now know which is which?).
Does anyone else see this as an attempt to force another vote?
Sour grapes are sour grapes, regardless of the packaging.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
An interesting and heartening vote for people whose perspective is still from inside the Church. But there was a lot of hatred and homophobia on social media sites last night, from people styling themselves "traditional Christians" - I mean seriously nasty stuff. And then this morning, one very simple question caught my eye, from someone I don't know: "Why are gay people always made to feel we have to be grateful just for being treated like everyone else?" You can argue with that, deconstruct it, do what you like, but for me, it really sums the whole thing up.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
Christopher Cocksworth has made no comment on other Synod members. I think Peter Ould has done so. He has a vested interest in people pushing the wrong buttons.
Meanwhile, best Synod joke: do not get in a lift with the bishop of Coventry.
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
L'organist: quote:
Christopher Cocksworth has issued a statement to say he was 'confused' and pressed the wrong button on his handset
And his name really is Cocksworth?! You couldn't make it up...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
