Ship of Fools: "1928 Prayer Book Church" = "non-gay friendly"?

Thread: "1928 Prayer Book Church" = "non-gay friendly"? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025887

Posted by lilyswinburne (# 12934) on :

I saw a description of an Episcopal Church in my neighborhood that included the statement "a 1928 Prayer Book Church".

Is this a coded message that the church is not gay friendly?

Lily

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

Not in my gay experience. (In several dioceses)

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
I saw a description of an Episcopal Church in my neighborhood that included the statement "a 1928 Prayer Book Church".

Is this a coded message that the church is not gay friendly?

Lily

St. Thomas Fifth Avenue in New York City uses the 1928 BCP and as far as I can tell they have no particular axe to grind with gay rights in the Episcopal Church. Neither the 1928 nor the 1979 edition seem to speak one way or the other on the issue of homosexuality.

I've found that churches that stress "Anglican" in the U.S. as an alternate moniker to Episcopal (while remaining in TEC) tend to be more predictive of a conservative nature.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

With the partial (and only partial) exception of the Roman Catholic Church, I have never there to be any clear link between liturgical and social conservatism.

On second thought, there may be also be some link in Presbyterianism, at least in Scotland, but that's really quite far out of my experience.

Amongst Anglicans, if there is any correlation between the two, it tends to be inverse, so that more liturgically traditional churches are more likely to be socially liberal, and more socially conservative churches are more likely to adopt a free-form modern worship style. However, this inverse correlation is not a strong one, and probably doesn't apply at all amongst non-Evangelical Anglicans.

If in doubt, you can always visit and find out for yourself. Even if they are very conservative, they're unlikely to go out of their way to attack the liberal visitor. They are Anglicans, after all [Razz]

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
St. Thomas Fifth Avenue in New York City uses the 1928 BCP and as far as I can tell they have no particular axe to grind with gay rights in the Episcopal Church.

No never?

(It struck me that the guy who called it "the best spectacle in the world" clearly hadn't been to Times Square or St Ignatius, much less ASMS or St Magnus).

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
St. Thomas Fifth Avenue in New York City uses the 1928 BCP and as far as I can tell they have no particular axe to grind with gay rights in the Episcopal Church.
No never?

(It struck me that the guy who called it "the best spectacle in the world" clearly hadn't been to Times Square or St Ignatius, much less ASMS or St Magnus).

That's sad about the story.

I've never been to St Thomas, but (for what little it's worth) from what I've heard about it, it sounds very much like ASMS, which is liturgically not unlike King's College Chapel in Cambridge or Westminster Abbey on non-Royal occasions (although the content of the sermons is more markedly Catholic). The last three are, at any rate, rather conservative 'Prayer Book Catholic' (without actually using the BCP) with bells, smells, and excellent music. Very much my tradition, as it happens, although my current parish is nowhere in the same league musically.

ASMS is probably the most Roman of the three, as I think it's the only one where the servers wear cottas rather than apparelled albs, and the only one that —to my knowledge — offers benediction regularly.

S. Magnus (presuming you mean London) is much higher but does not have a distinguished music programme. If you want stratospherically high liturgy combined with a world-class music programme, I think Philadelphia may be your best, and perhaps only, bet (although I don't know the American scene very well.

(Bourne Street for the record, is high but not quite at the same level as S. Magnus and has excellent music, but not quite as excellent as ASMS; it's also a hideous little building, love it as I do).

Your mileage may, as ever, vary.

{And returning to the OP, all of the churches I've mentioned in this thread might be broadly termed 'gay-welcoming', although the active involvement in campaigns LGBT rights would seem to vary).

Posted by lilyswinburne (# 12934) on :

Thanks for all the responses.

The church in question also bills itself as "family friendly", which also raises some questions in my mind about how welcoming it would be to gay people.

I have decided to attend the local UU church, which advertises that it is "gay and straight together" on its home page.

Posted by jlav12 (# 17148) on :

All people are welcome in the church, the Left has taken "welcome" to mean "abandon Christian morality" which is unfortunate. All sinners are welcome in the Church, be they straight or gay, however, Christ calls us to repentance. Engaging in homosexual acts is a sin and must be repented of, but it should not be treated in any different way than other, perhaps more harmful sins. Divorce, remarriage, and cohabitation are far worse sins in my mind than engaging in homosexual acts.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:

The church in question also bills itself as "family friendly", which also raises some questions in my mind about how welcoming it would be to gay people.

I don't think that necessarily says anything, either. Except that they are, or claim to be, welcoming toward families with small children. Most churches claim this in my experience. Many of them even mean it. Liturgically traditional churches often feel an extra onus in this regard, as there is a presumption that they are only for adults, or even only for the geriatric set.

There ARE certain legitimate warning signs to watch out for in this regard.

'Traditional' can be one to watch out for, but don't assume that this means anything with regard to LGBT issues or women's ordination. My parish church describes itself as 'a traditional Anglican Church', but this just means that they like Mattins, Hymns Ancient and Modern, and BCP Communion celebrated in surplice and stole. As far as I can tell, they're on the liberal end of the Church of England, but I could be wrong. Churches like that very often are, though. Note that 'traditional Anglo-Catholic' tends to mean 'no women priests', but doesn't always mean this, and very rarely if ever means anything about LGBT issues.
'Orthodox Anglican' is one to watch out for.
I personally would worry about an Anglican/Episcopal church that wasn't obviously listed as such on its sign and website. That *tends* to be a sign that the church is very markedly Evangelical, and thus likely conservative on these issues. That's not infallible, though.
Finally, some churches will say where they stand. It's pretty rare, but (unsurprisingly) is more common in churches that care strongly one way or the other.

In the lack of other clues, I would have thought the default assumption about an Episcopal parish in the US was that it was 'affirming'.

Posted by lilyswinburne (# 12934) on :

jlav12, people like you are the people I am trying to avoid.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
jlav12, people like you are the people I am trying to avoid.

Quite, and in any case my understanding of the situation in NYC is that the bishop does uphold fidelity-in-marriage-and-chastity-outwith (for gay and straight families alike).

As to the substantive question: many U.S. parishes on the Continuum emphasise "1928 BCP" and "Traditional Anglican" in their publicity, and of course these bodies would subscribe, inter alia, to the St Louis Affirmation. That isn't necessarily to say that they don't have gay parishioners, or aren't "friendly," to them, of course.

[ 13. August 2013, 18:22: Message edited by: LQ ]

Posted by jlav12 (# 17148) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
jlav12, people like you are the people I am trying to avoid.

That's unfortunate. I would much like to meet and fellowship with you.

Posted by jlav12 (# 17148) on :

BTW, for the sake of the thread, I am a confirmed and communicant member of the Episcopal Church. I left AMiA for TEC. I prefer the 1928 BCP and Rite I but follow suit with my parish.

[ 13. August 2013, 19:02: Message edited by: jlav12 ]

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

jlav:

Discussion of the rights or wrongs of homosexuality is not appropriate for this board on Ship of Fools. It belongs in 'Dead Horses' so please keep such discussions in their rightful place.

We are much obliged for your cooperation.

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:

The church in question also bills itself as "family friendly", which also raises some questions in my mind about how welcoming it would be to gay people.

"Family friendly" is usually code for "we understand that children make noise sometimes, and won't glare at you because your baby squawks." I don't think it implies a position either way on gay people.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
St. Thomas Fifth Avenue in New York City uses the 1928 BCP and as far as I can tell they have no particular axe to grind with gay rights in the Episcopal Church.
No never?

(It struck me that the guy who called it "the best spectacle in the world" clearly hadn't been to Times Square or St Ignatius, much less ASMS or St Magnus).

Well, I said "as far as I know" and I did not say "never."

My main point was that the choice of 1928 is for compatibility with their choir program (particularly the 1928 psalter) and not because the 1928 BCP has magical anti-gay qualities.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

The fact that St Thomas Fifth Avenue has a substantial and vocal gay membership implies that the place itself, as opposed to the current rector, has attracted gay members at least in the recent past.

This gay man is deeply suspicious of the use of the word "family" in a church context.

If they mean "child friendly" why can't they say that?

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

I've never been to St Thomas, but (for what little it's worth) from what I've heard about it, it sounds very much like ASMS, which is liturgically not unlike King's College Chapel in Cambridge or Westminster Abbey on non-Royal occasions (although the content of the sermons is more markedly Catholic). The last three are, at any rate, rather conservative 'Prayer Book Catholic' (without actually using the BCP) with bells, smells, and excellent music. Very much my tradition, as it happens, although my current parish is nowhere in the same league musically.

ASMS is probably the most Roman of the three, as I think it's the only one where the servers wear cottas rather than apparelled albs, and the only one that —to my knowledge — offers benediction regularly.

S. Magnus (presuming you mean London) is much higher but does not have a distinguished music programme. If you want stratospherically high liturgy combined with a world-class music programme, I think Philadelphia may be your best, and perhaps only, bet (although I don't know the American scene very well.

(Bourne Street for the record, is high but not quite at the same level as S. Magnus and has excellent music, but not quite as excellent as ASMS; it's also a hideous little building, love it as I do).

Just to comment on your commentary on London Churches, Westminster Abbey never use bells, and only use smells on weekday holy days. I wouldn't describe any of the three as particularly Roman - a description reserved more for St Albans Holborn which also has an excellent music programme and two sung masses every Sunday. Bourne St. uses the BCP for the Eucharistic Prayer, as do ASMS in Advent and Lent.

It's interesting to read your description of Bourne St. I always feel far more cramped in ASMS which I think seems larger than it actually is.

All these churches are gay-friendly but I must say I don't find Bourne St at all welcoming, and St Magnus exudes a very exclusive air. ASMS is better and St Albans are warm.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:

It's interesting to read your description of Bourne St. I always feel far more cramped in ASMS which I think seems larger than it actually is.

That's because ASMS is the masterpiece of one of the great Victorian architects, built for a congregation for whom money was no concern (needless to say, like almost every CofE congregation, they've fallen on comparatively hard times).

Bourne Street was built on the cheap, expanded at a later date and has a similar Victorian utilitarian feel to the Tube station below it, although the latter is probably more solidly built. All of the gilded Travers furnishings in the world can't hide that.

At least one London Anglo-Catholic parish I know (not Bourne Street or ASMS) is so completely dominated by self-consciously outré gay men that I would have a difficult time recommending it to straight friends (or women of any orientation, for that matter). It's the sort of place where the parish social life is heavily based in certain bars in Soho. Even as a fairly camp gay man, I find it to be all good fun once and a while but wouldn't want to go there every Sunday.

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

This gay man is deeply suspicious of the use of the word "family" in a church context.

If they mean "child friendly" why can't they say that?

'Family church' might be grounds for concern. 'Family friendly' just sounds like the incumbent and PCC (insert relevant American terms here) want to attract a younger crowd and felt that a line on the website would require the least effort.

Returning to the OP:

Frankly, what you're trying to do won't work. You'd have as much luck trying to guess a man's political views from the type flowers in his garden.

In the absence of clear information one way o rh the other, the only way to find out more is to either visit yourself or ask around people who actually know the parish in question. Even then, you may not get a clear answer, but it's a better bet than trying to guess from lines on the website that almost certainly have nothing to do with the issue whatsoever.

Alternatively, you may feel that you only want to go to churches that unequivocally advertize themselves as welcoming to LGBT persons and are members of Affirming Catholicism, Inclusive Church or the like.

[ 14. August 2013, 08:07: Message edited by: S. Bacchus ]

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

At least one London Anglo-Catholic parish I know (not Bourne Street or ASMS) is so completely dominated by self-consciously outré gay men that I would have a difficult time recommending it to straight friends (or women of any orientation, for that matter). It's the sort of place where the parish social life is heavily based in certain bars in Soho. Even as a fairly camp gay man, I find it to be all good fun once and a while but wouldn't want to go there every Sunday.

I am gay too and though I have never encountered such a Church, I too would feel very uncomfortable about any church that creates that sort of ghettoised approach. It is as bad as those other churches that conciously or unconciously exclude any section of the community because of difference or dodgy theology.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

I can guess which one you mean. I've never been and have no intention of so doing. All that I hear about it, from clergy friends who go for dos, makes me feel very uncomfortable.

We're "Rite 1" in American-speak (CW Order One in Trad Language in English-speak). I think we're gay friendly - but hopefully no more so than we are straight friendly; or single friendly; or family friendly. Which, in all honesty, is not as friendly as we imagine. But we're unfriendly to everyone without prejudice.

Thurible

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

[QUOTE]Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

S. Magnus (presuming you mean London) is much higher but does not have a distinguished music programme. If you want stratospherically high liturgy combined with a world-class music programme, I think Philadelphia may be your best, and perhaps only, bet (although I don't know the American scene very well.

What about the Advent in Boston?

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I can guess which one you mean. I've never been and have no intention of so doing. All that I hear about it, from clergy friends who go for dos, makes me feel very uncomfortable.

Thurible

I think they deserve to be outed.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

As a rule, Evangelical and Charismatic parishes are likely to be the most 'family-friendly' and tend to thump on the current hot button issues more than the Anglo-Catholic parish down the road, which is likely to be accepting of its 'odd ducks' of all descriptions.

Even when it is not officially 'gay-friendly' a Catholic leaning parishes often take the attitude 'we all have our failings' and accept people in non-traditional relationships. I am sure that most traditional Anglican rectors have night sweats about the self-appointed moral police finding out about Ron and Charlie, the two middle aged guys "who share a house," or about Vicky and Hugh who are not married because of their previous experiences of abusive spouses. The trouble is that it is very easy to be a traditional Anglo-Catholic and accept people who are doing their best but don't quite fit in with convention. After all, we are all sinners.

PD

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
The trouble is that it is very easy to be a traditional Anglo-Catholic and accept people who are doing their best but don't quite fit in with convention.

Why is that 'trouble'?

Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
St. Thomas Fifth Avenue in New York City uses the 1928 BCP and as far as I can tell they have no particular axe to grind with gay rights in the Episcopal Church.
No never?

(It struck me that the guy who called it "the best spectacle in the world" clearly hadn't been to Times Square or St Ignatius, much less ASMS or St Magnus).

I don't know why of late this keeps popping up - but the charges were dismissed by the diocese as untrue.

That said there is a difference between being "gay friendly" and being a hotbed of gay activism. St Thomas is clearly not the latter.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
That said there is a difference between being "gay friendly" and being a hotbed of gay activism. St Thomas is clearly not the latter.

Of course, most/all churches are a hotbed of heterosexual activity, what with all those weddings they solemnise.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
That said there is a difference between being "gay friendly" and being a hotbed of gay activism. St Thomas is clearly not the latter.
Of course, most/all churches are a hotbed of heterosexual activity, what with all those weddings they solemnise.

I think that, for many CofE parishes, calling them a 'hotbed of activity' would be a stretch, regardless of the adjective.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
The trouble is that it is very easy to be a traditional Anglo-Catholic and accept people who are doing their best but don't quite fit in with convention.
Why is that 'trouble'?

Because both ends of the spectrum spend an awful lot of time screaming at you to commit to their solution to the this or that issue.

PD

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Hosting

Sorry, y'all ... I'm just not smelling either incense or dusty prayer books in this thread. gay issue - dead horse. Liturgical language preferences? Woteva. I think it's time for some ecclesiantical keys to be produced.

/Hosting

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0