Thread: Scotsman news article on homosexual minister 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=028617
Posted by bookburn (# 16407) on
:
Scotsman article on The Kirk and Gay Marriage
The article presents the manifold problem of 1) homosexual marriage and ministers, 2)divisions and alienations of membership, 3)how the National Church of Scotland holds up.
My silly and ignorant attitude comes down as what should happen around the world with countries that identify with a single religion, whether it be Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc.. Democracies should not allow them "favored nation" status. Not talking negative about governments with strong religious scruples, just ones using scripture as law. But being ready to admonish countries using religion as a basis for opression, and assisting oppressed countries. It's what the UN should do.
According to my narrow view, then, Scotland shouldn't have a national church to make Solomon-like judgements about the matter. Just let ministers and members vote with their feet about recognizing homosexuals for a few decades to see where the paths lead.
[Scroll lock problem with URL fixed by host]
[ 04. December 2011, 12:47: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Welcome, bookburn.
Let me draw your attention to the guidelines for the Dead Horses discussion Board. If you look at numbered paragraph 1, you'll see that Dead Horses is the appropriate Ship of Fools board for discussing any aspect of homosexuality.
There are a number of live discussion threads in DH on various aspects of homosexuality, but this one seems sufficiently distinctive, at least to me, to justify transfer there. So I'm transferring it as it stands.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Dear Bookburn
I can't help feeling it's a pity your post has been consigned to Dead Horse territory, as it seems to me your real issue isn't with gay clergy, but with there being a Church of Scotland.
It may not be how you do things in Anchorage, but a lot of countries have established churches, official religions, and many of them are recognised in international surveys of these things as more effectively democratic than either your or mine. The top four in this list all do.
I'm reluctant to take issue with an apprentice on this, but saying the UN should condemn countries which have an official religion and applauding those that don't, really strikes me as expecting the UN to impose your own values unthinkingly on the rest of the world. Certainly, it would be better, before jumping to prejudiced assumptions, to have a more careful look at the Church of Scotland, how it relates to Scottish life, how some other national churches work and how states function which have a concordat with Rome. The US Constitution is not the only way of dealing with this.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I'm a member of the Church of Scotland, and I'm not too clear what you're arguing here.
Firstly, the Church of Scotland isn't a monopoly church in Scotland. We're the national church in that C of S ministers are obliged to e.g. provide funerals for anyone who dies within their parish, whether they were church members or not. In practice, this responsibility is sometimes shared by a committee of churches; I know some Methodist churches do this.
The Church of Scotland is one group which contributed to the ongoing debate about gay marriage. Personally, I'm disappointed with the church's response to this. However, even as a practising member of the church, I don't think that anyone in the congregation within which I worship would think that, just because the church hierarchy has said something, they are bound to agree with it.
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on
:
Some random thoughts:
As a member of the C of S, AFAIK the Church is disestablished, i.e. the Church and State are separate entities, although the C of S is the National Church of Scotland and Scots without a connection to other denominations would mostly de facto regard it as their church. This is quite different from the Church of England, which is the State Church. For more information see here: Church of Scotland website
As far as the issue of same-sex marriage is concerned, as with many issues, the C of S's role is to be consulted and to provide an opinion that reflects the majority of its members, not to make the law.
Potentially if a law was passed allowing same-sex marriage and the C of S did not agree, it would have the same right as other churches in Scotland to refuse to celebrate such marriages. I think the C of E, due to its Established status might not have this leeway, although individual priests might.
There is a potential complicating issue in that in England a wedding outside a church cannot have any religious content or be performed by a minister of religion; in Scotland the same restrictions do not apply, so ministers of the C of S could go around performing same-sex marriages in hotels and castles even if the C of S vetoed such ceremonies on their property.
Which leads me to wonder, who employs a C of S minister?
<cross-posted with the far-more eloquent NEQ, whose views I agree with, BTW>
[ 04. December 2011, 12:35: Message edited by: mrs whibley ]
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Should have said - Welcome to the Ship, bookburn!
Just to add a bit of background, the Scottish government is currently consulting on the introduction of same-sex marriage. According to the press release they are meeting "a wide range of key organisations" during the consultation period, which is due to end on 9 Dec.
It seems appropriate to me that a government consulting a "wide range" of organisations should include faith groups within their remit.
Again, personally, I'm disappointed by the C of S stance, but I do think that it is right and proper that the Church of Scotland be part of the "wide range" or organisations consulted.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
To clarify a few matters, the Church of Scotland is a national church, but it is not an established church. That means that it has no say whatsoever in government beyond the usual vote of every individual member. Likewise, the state has no say in church law or polity.
Rather, it is one of many denominations in Scotland: currently the largest technically, with about 450,000 members, but with around 2.15 million claiming affiliation according to the 2001 census (out of a Scottish population of c.5 million). The Roman Catholic Church, which calculates membership differently, estimates that there are 850,000 Catholics in Scotland. The Roman Catholic population tends to be concentrated in certain areas: the Church of Scotland is the National church because of its nation-wide parish system, and its provision of the ordinances of religion (esp. marriage and funerals) to the whole population if they want it.
The Church of Scotland commented on the issue of homosexual marriage because they were asked to by the Scottish Executive. Their full response is here. The Roman Catholic Church had already commented, and stated their opposition, as has Scotland's largest mosque. No one religion is given "favoured nation" status.
All this is part of the Executive's consultation process on changing the law to allow homosexual marriage, both in terms of civil marriage and religious (for those faith groups which wish to perform such ceremonies). Comments are being garnered from every denomination and religion in Scotland, and indeed, from every individual voter. This can be done online here.
Accordingly, bookburn's characterisation of the Church if Scotland as some kind of national religion whom all must obey is entirely wrong-headed. It simply cannot make "Solomon-like judgements" because it has no legal status in government. Scotland is a very secular country indeed (there are no "Church of Scotland schools", for example), and has always recognised a crucial separation between Church and State. This is enshrined in the Scots Confession. The State has absolutely no obligation to listen to the Kirk on this matter, though it is wisely seeking as full a public consultation as possible.
Moreover, the Church of Scotland is a Presbyterian church run on a committee and assembly basis, in which every member has (at least in a devolved sense) voting rights. This may be an official response from the head office of the Kirk, but it does not speak for me, and nor does can it instruct the individual member how they should vote on this matter. This is very different from the Catholic model, in which the bishop can in theory speak for and instruct individual Catholics.
But on this point I agree with you, bookburn: I think the Kirk should not have made such a definitive statement on a policy which it has not as yet discussed in its General Assembly, and I believe that the head office has acted in 'bishop-like' fashion and far beyond its remit. The response it issued is correct in that it can do no more than repeat the Church's theology of marriage as it currently stands, based on previous Assembly debates. There would need to be a further Assembly and church-wide debate and vote before that could be changed.
But it is an altogether different matter then to say that the State cannot and should not extend marriage to gay couples. It is a far from inconsistent position to believe that gay marriage is wrong theologically, and yet recognise the right of the State to legislate apart from the church: indeed, this might be the conservative position on both issues. This matter has never been discussed or voted upon as policy, and therefore to my mind the Kirk should have issued a much much more cautious statement. This is especially given that it is still in the middle of a 2-year consultation process on the ordination of partnered gay clergy, and that the consultation so far has revealed a very divided church on this matter.
I am also very leery of the Kirk seeking to limit the freedom of other denominations and faith groups. We would be the first to jump up and down if either the State or another denomination tried to interfere with our internal decisions. To me the Church of Scotland statement violates our theological fundamental of the separation of Church and State, as summed up by Willie Rennie MSP: ""I find it difficult to fathom why the Church of Scotland seeks to impose its view on the whole of society when we do not seek to impose our views on it."
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
The Church of Scotland's status is rather complicated (link goes to PDF)
quote:
But the 1921 Act was not a disestablishing Act. Effective disestablishment of the Church of Scotland came about in two separate Acts of Parliament – the Church
Patronage (Scotland Act) of 1874 and the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowment) Act of 1925. While vestiges of Establishment remain within the life of the Church of Scotland, there are none that seriously impinge on the Church’s legal
life except when major constitutional change is discussed e.g. the discussion of the Union Settlement which includes the Act of Settlement. The Church of Scotland is, however, a national church with territorial responsibility, at least for the time being. (Declaratory Article III)
It's not an established church and hasn't been since these acts. It has, as others have said, some vestigial responsibilities over matters such as provision of funerals, but it is not the established religion of Scotland and has merely been consulted in the same way that the Catholic Church and other bodies have been consulted and in the same way as civil bodies such as the Equality Network are being consulted. The Scottish parliament consults widely when bills are at this stage.
With regard to the submission that has been made, this is not the Church of Scotland which has spoken but the 'Legal Questions Committee' of the Church of Scotland. In a Presbyterian church with many committees, views vary and different committees will be of different hues.
In this committee there appears to be a conservative majority who have made this very disappointing and anti-gay submission. However the Kirk as a whole has not spoken on this matter until or if the matter is put to the General Assembly. I also note that the Moderator has not spoken on this issue and that the person doing the running on it in the media for the anti-gay group with the Orwellian name 'Scotland for Marriage' is Ann Allen, who is the former Convener of the Church of Scotland's Board of Social Responsibility and notorious for her anti-gay views.
These people represent the conservative wing of the Kirk. They do not represent the whole Kirk by any matter of means. The fact that the General Assembly voted in 2009 by 326 to 267 to uphold the Rev. Scott Rennie (who is an openly gay and partnered minister) being called to his charge in Aberdeen gives some idea of the extent to which these people with their anti-gay views do not speak for the whole Kirk. There is a split of opinion. They do speak for a sizeable constituency but certainly not for the whole.
I too am a member of the Church of Scotland and I am one of the people who will leave if the General Assembly endorses attacks on the progress of civil rights for LGBT people. However the Legal Questions Committee of the Kirk do not speak for me, and I have sent my response to the consultation on the matter to the Equality Network - the charity which works for LGBT rights in Scotland which is also being consulted. I have also written to my MSP making clear that these people do not speak for me.
I understand the nature of a church run by committees and I know that the Kirk is not monolithic -so that sometimes there will be statements or decisions that I strongly disapprove of. But if the General Assembly comes out to attack a bill or act of parliament seeking to improve the civil rights of LGBT people in Scotland, that will be the day that I leave and ask to be taken off our communion roll. May it never come to this.
Louise
[crossposted with Cottontail who will be better informed than me!]
[ 04. December 2011, 14:00: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on
:
*sigh*
I cannot believe the LQC did this. Waaaaay beyond their remit.
They do not speak for me either.
As for Ann A: her interview statement re. 'all 500 000 members of the CofS will be delighted with this public statement' is a pile of utter rubbish. Some will be pleased, some won't be. She is, however, not the Archbishop of the CofS, so she can p*ss right off thank you very much.
Apol's for language.
As a member of the CofS, I'm disgusted by this whole sorry matter.
Posted by Shaggy (# 16844) on
:
Joan,
The reason the LQC came up with the response they did (on that point, it would be a bit weird if the CofS were to say "we have no view and therefore will not comment") is because that is what is the current situation is.
You may bemoan the response they give (personally I'm troubled that such a response has to be given by the LQC and not just a straighforward answer from the M&D Council) but like it or not, the CofS has never approved any other type of marriage other than that of one man and one woman.
Yes, the GA of 2009 voted to uphold the decision of the Presbytery of Aberdeen to induct Scott Rennie but never has the church ever given "doctrinal approval" to a homesexual relationship, let alone marriage. Granted no doubt some steps have been made towards that by the GA's decision last May but I can guarantee you any decision on gay ministers will be resoundedly chucked out by Presbyteries (assuming it goes down under the Barrier Act). It happened a few years ago very convincingly re the blessing of civil partnerships and I'm 99% certain it would happen again.
The CofS in the past never stated it either approved or disapproved of homesexual marriage because it wouldn't in it's wildest dreams imagined this would be an issue they would have to actually clarify their position on. Hence the reason many could argue Aberdeen Presbytery were right to sustain the call to Queen's Cross. However, there has also never been any formal acceptance of homesexual marriage in the CofS (indeed I know of many Presbyteries who would discipline a minister for doing so) therefore the LQC had no option but to give the response they did.
On the question of Ann Allen, perhaps she got a bit carried away with her talk but to many (including me) she is just being thankful that the CofS has for once given an orthodox christian viewpoint which happens to go against the grain of society.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Welcome to the Ship, Shaggy!
I'd be astonished if the Presbytery in which my church is situated would discipline a minister for blessing a same-sex union, and I'm fairly sure my minister would conduct a gay marriage, were he empowered to do so.
Some years ago (10?) one of the ministers in my Presbytery had a son who "came out." The minister was open about the difficulties of being gay within a clergy family and I think this meant that most of the ministers within the Presbytery had put a "human face" to the issues prior to Scott Rennie.
Personal friends of ours have been partners for many years; their church ordained them elders together in the late 1990s. I wondered at the time if their church had found a clever way of "blessing" their relationship. It's not an issue which has just suddenly surfaced from nowhere.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Sorry, forgot to say, Shaggy - there's a thread at the top of All Saints for new people to introduce themselves and be welcomed, and there's a Scottish thread (Irn-Bru Special), currently about 2/3 of the way down the first page of All Saints.
Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on
:
Hi Shaggy and welcome to the Ship.
Moving on from the LQC discussion and just to pick up on something you said in your post above:
quote:
but I can guarantee you any decision on gay ministers will be resoundedly chucked out by Presbyteries
This is NOT about making a decision on 'gay ministers'... it is about LGBT ministers who are in a relationship/ civil partnership. It's kind of important to get that terminology at least sorted out.
At the last GA it was affirmed that orientation, in and of itself is no bar to training/ ordination for ministry.
Sorry, small bug-bear of mine caused by media reportage and their persistent use of the term 'openly gay ministers'... you can be openly gay and train/ be a minister... you can't be in a relationship.
Of course, there are those in the Kirk who would rather folk who are LGBT and single not be ministers either...
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
Welcome, Shaggy. I second North East Quine's invitation to the Irn Bru thread in All Saints, and to the welcome thread there. I hope you will continue to engage, and not always on this particular issue!
I apologise in advance for the length of this post. But I felt that the issues you raise are worthy of a considered reply.
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
The reason the LQC came up with the response they did (on that point, it would be a bit weird if the CofS were to say "we have no view and therefore will not comment") is because that is what is the current situation is.
The CofS has a view on what marriage is. This is currently a default position, for as you rightly point out, this has never been discussed, but has rather been assumed alongside past societal norms.
However, the view being sought by the Scottish Executive was whether or not marriage should be made a civil and legal possibility for same-sex couples, and wider, whether this should also be a religious possibility if desired.
Implicit in the LQC's reply are several issues which do far more than merely report the Kirk's default understanding of marriage. To wit:
(a) Does the CofS's internal understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman preclude an acceptance of the State's right to legislate as it pleases?
Qualifier: where the issue is not one of justice. I fully accept our God-given mandate to shout loud and long about issues of state injustice, though we must take the consequences of that too. But this case, I submit, is not an example of state injustice, but on the contrary, is a genuine attempt by the state to promote justice through equality.
(b) Does the CofS's internal understanding of marriage permit it to insist that other religions and Christian denominations must accept this understanding also?
In other words, is the CofS prepared to compromise its own principle of religious freedom in order to limit the freedom of other religions and denominations to conduct same-sex marriages?
(c) Does the CofS's internal understanding of marriage preclude supporting the human right of gay people to equal treatment under law?
i.e., might a church hold a conservative religious position, while still campaigning for the protection and human rights of gay people in wider society? It ought to be possible.
All of these issues were raised implicitly by the CofS's response. None of them have been discussed by the General Assembly. I maintain therefore that the LQC ought to have stated the Kirk's current position re. marriage, and stopped there. What is wrong with saying that "we have no view on this matter" if the situation is that we do indeed at this moment have no view? If anything, the basic separation of Church and State are so enshrined in the Kirk, that the default position here should have been silence.
quote:
I can guarantee you any decision on gay ministers will be resoundedly chucked out by Presbyteries (assuming it goes down under the Barrier Act). It happened a few years ago very convincingly re the blessing of civil partnerships and I'm 99% certain it would happen again.
You may well be right. However, it has not happened yet, and therefore I would hope the possibility did not inform the LQC response.
quote:
The CofS in the past never stated it either approved or disapproved of homesexual marriage because it wouldn't in it's wildest dreams imagined this would be an issue they would have to actually clarify their position on ... However, there has also never been any formal acceptance of homesexual marriage in the CofS ... therefore the LQC had no option but to give the response they did.
Again, you may be right. But the fact remains that the position never has been clarified. Therefore the LQC did indeed have the option to give a more circumspect reply, explaining precisely that: that there has never been any formal acceptance of homosexual marriage in the CofS, but neither has there been any formal rejection. If the Executive and the media were then to shout 'fudge' - well, let them. That is how our Presbyterian system works, and the fuss (and hurt) which the LQC response has engendered is precisely why the system should not be bypassed in this way.
quote:
On the question of Ann Allen, perhaps she got a bit carried away with her talk but to many (including me) she is just being thankful that the CofS has for once given an orthodox christian viewpoint which happens to go against the grain of society.
I have no objection to Ann Allen stating her own viewpoint, although I would deny that it is the only "orthodox Christian viewpoint" out there. I simply maintain that she had no right to give the impression that she was speaking for the Church. I am sure you would feel equally indignant if a 'liberal' incumbent at 121 had claimed to speak on your behalf.
And as to your point about the "orthodox christian viewpoint which happens to go against the grain of society" - I realise that your phrasing indicates a more nuanced position on your part, but the truth remains, that I am getting thoroughly sick and tired of this insistence on the Church being 'counter-cultural'. Why wasn't the Church being counter-cultural back in the 17th and 18th century, when people were hanged for sodomy? Why wasn't it counter-cultural when the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 extended the anti-sodomy laws to criminalise any kind of male homosexual behaviour? Why wasn't it counter-cultural when it took Scotland until 1980! to decriminalize homosexuality?
Where was our much-self-lauded counter-cultural agenda when culture was hounding gay people, excluding them from some of the most basic human rights, forcing them to undergo brutal corrective therapies, including chemical castration, and driving them to suicide? Why wasn't the counter-cultural church jumping up and down in fury at this utterly unChristian treatment of our brothers and sisters? And why hasn't the counter-cultural church been a safe haven all along for homosexual people? Because it certainly isn't, not even now.
Sometimes I think the Holy Spirit is doing her best work precisely in our culture because the 'counter-cultural' Church has stopped listening.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Sorry for butting in, but I'm dumbstruck by this comment:
"Public opinion sent Jesus to the cross."
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by Shaggy (# 16844) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
Hi Shaggy and welcome to the Ship.
Moving on from the LQC discussion and just to pick up on something you said in your post above:
quote:
but I can guarantee you any decision on gay ministers will be resoundedly chucked out by Presbyteries
This is NOT about making a decision on 'gay ministers'... it is about LGBT ministers who are in a relationship/ civil partnership. It's kind of important to get that terminology at least sorted out.
At the last GA it was affirmed that orientation, in and of itself is no bar to training/ ordination for ministry.
Sorry, small bug-bear of mine caused by media reportage and their persistent use of the term 'openly gay ministers'... you can be openly gay and train/ be a minister... you can't be in a relationship.
Of course, there are those in the Kirk who would rather folk who are LGBT and single not be ministers either...
Before I respond to anything else let me say I sit corrected.
The use of the term "gay ministers" was quite lazy and I apologise. I know of one man in my old (very conservative evangelical) church who had a significant small group ministry etc who was very openly homesexual. He was also very open that he firmly believed that for him acting on those desires would be sinful. He was totally supported by all in that congregation (indeed he was very much admired, particularly by me) and I do not know of anyone who would want to bar him from that ministry (or indeed if he sought ordination) because of his sexual orientation.
So therefore I totally agree, I meant those ministers in an active sexual LGBT relationship.
[ 05. January 2012, 08:18: Message edited by: Shaggy ]
Posted by Shaggy (# 16844) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Welcome to the Ship, Shaggy!
I'd be astonished if the Presbytery in which my church is situated would discipline a minister for blessing a same-sex union, and I'm fairly sure my minister would conduct a gay marriage, were he empowered to do so.
Some years ago (10?) one of the ministers in my Presbytery had a son who "came out." The minister was open about the difficulties of being gay within a clergy family and I think this meant that most of the ministers within the Presbytery had put a "human face" to the issues prior to Scott Rennie.
Personal friends of ours have been partners for many years; their church ordained them elders together in the late 1990s. I wondered at the time if their church had found a clever way of "blessing" their relationship. It's not an issue which has just suddenly surfaced from nowhere.
NEQ, thanks for the welcome!
I guess it all depends what Presbytery such a situation may arise in. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) you are in the Presbytery of Aberdeen, if so I would suspect that they would not be disciplined (same in Dundee & Edinburgh). In my presbytery (or rather old, I am a traitor who now lives in Berkshire!) I can pretty much guarantee they would be. That said Presbytery is I think disproportionately made up of more Orthodox/Evangelical congregations (and no it's not the Western Isles!) who would clearly take a dim view of such an action.
As you say, it's not something which has come out of nowhere. It's been brewing for years and was very carefully managed off the agenda until it blew up at boiling points such as Section 28, blessing of civil partnerships etc.
I'm just sad that this is what many Evangelical/Orthodox ministers/congregations have decided to take a stand on. Don't get me wrong, I agree with them but by making a stand on this but not say, ministers of prominent Edinburgh churches openly denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus appears (inaccurately) somewhat homophobic.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I'm not in Aberdeen Presbytery, but in the rural North-East. We're probably close enough to Aberdeen though, for the views there to be shared.
Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on
:
Cottontail ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
When I grow up, may I please have such a beautifully ordered mind and the gift of clarity in articulation that you demonstrate? Please?
Thank you for that incredibly well-considered response.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I was thinking exactly the same thing, JK!
Cottontail
Posted by Shaggy (# 16844) on
:
Cottontail, thank you for your detailed reply. I'm not sure how to quote on this so please bear with me!
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
(a) Does the CofS's internal understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman preclude an acceptance of the State's right to legislate as it pleases?
Qualifier: where the issue is not one of justice. I fully accept our God-given mandate to shout loud and long about issues of state injustice, though we must take the consequences of that too. But this case, I submit, is not an example of state injustice, but on the contrary, is a genuine attempt by the state to promote justice through equality.
Of course the state has a right to legislate as it wishes. No-one (not even your friend Ann Allen...) is arguing that somehow the Scottish Government would be acting illegally. However one of the privileges we have in a democracy is to petition the government of the day on whatever issue we choose. That to me would include the right of the CofS to respond in a negative fashion to a government consultation.
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
(b) Does the CofS's internal understanding of marriage permit it to insist that other religions and Christian denominations must accept this understanding also?
In other words, is the CofS prepared to compromise its own principle of religious freedom in order to limit the freedom of other religions and denominations to conduct same-sex marriages?
It's an interesting topic this one. How far do we extend religious freedom? Should the CofS not speak out at say a Mormon Sect in the Highlands which practised polygamy? Or would that somehow impinge on the CofS right to worship the Risen Saviour without any state interference?
On the topic of religious freedom, when (because it will happen) churches/other religious groups are allowed to conduct homesexual weddings, no doubt there will be a clause saying no church will be forced to conduct such a ceremony etc. How long would this last? You can bet that the extremely clever and well-funded groups like Stonewall will get this changed soon enough, no doubt in the name of discrimination. Where is the religious freedom of a CofS minister who genuinely believes through his or her own careful study and prayer (and not blind intolerance) that homesexual partnerships are not something to be blessed, being forced to either go against his/her conscience or be prosecuted?
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
(c) Does the CofS's internal understanding of marriage preclude supporting the human right of gay people to equal treatment under law?
i.e., might a church hold a conservative religious position, while still campaigning for the protection and human rights of gay people in wider society? It ought to be possible.
Again it depends on what circumstances. Using the argument of polygamy in either sectish Mormomisn or parts of Islam, if marriage is to be extended to include homesexual couples, why shouldn't it also be extended to polygamist families? Why shouldn't they receive their equal treatment under the law?
Other than that, my own church (as you might guess a rather Con-Evo one) campaigned strongly against what was going on against homesexuals in Uganda. Far more so than many of the so-called "inclusive" congregations which surrounded us. Just because we believe marriage (and in extension, sex in marriage) is for one man and one woman does not mean it precludes us for campaigning against actual discrimination and persecution of homesexuals.
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
All of these issues were raised implicitly by the CofS's response. None of them have been discussed by the General Assembly. I maintain therefore that the LQC ought to have stated the Kirk's current position re. marriage, and stopped there. What is wrong with saying that "we have no view on this matter" if the situation is that we do indeed at this moment have no view? If anything, the basic separation of Church and State are so enshrined in the Kirk, that the default position here should have been silence.
Thankfully due to our church forefathers, we do have separation of church and state in Scotland. However, how that therefore means our default position should be silence is a mystery to me. I would have thought it more the opposite. I personally am separated from the state. Although I am part of the electorate who voted in this legislature which provides the government, I nor any other private citizen or indeed any non-state grouping are not the state. Does that therefore mean I or any other NGO should have a default position of silence on what the governement of the day is doing?
quote:
Again, you may be right. But the fact remains that the position never has been clarified. Therefore the LQC did indeed have the option to give a more circumspect reply, explaining precisely that: that there has never been any formal acceptance of homosexual marriage in the CofS, but neither has there been any formal rejection. If the Executive and the media were then to shout 'fudge' - well, let them. That is how our Presbyterian system works, and the fuss (and hurt) which the LQC response has engendered is precisely why the system should not be bypassed in this way.
Perhaps you are correct on this (although I don't think the CofS has ever given any positive final ruling on homesexual marriage), but it would have been nice in the past if such liberal outrage would have been shared when Moderators and such like went well beyond their remit in speaking (somewhat from a liberal and socialist perspective) for the CofS.
quote:
I have no objection to Ann Allen stating her own viewpoint, although I would deny that it is the only "orthodox Christian viewpoint" out there. I simply maintain that she had no right to give the impression that she was speaking for the Church. I am sure you would feel equally indignant if a 'liberal' incumbent at 121 had claimed to speak on your behalf.
It's happened so many times I've got over the indignance. Hence why I was so pleasantly surprised to hear the church's actual response (which incidentally did not disagree with Ann Allen).
quote:
And as to your point about the "orthodox christian viewpoint which happens to go against the grain of society" - I realise that your phrasing indicates a more nuanced position on your part, but the truth remains, that I am getting thoroughly sick and tired of this insistence on the Church being 'counter-cultural'. Why wasn't the Church being counter-cultural back in the 17th and 18th century, when people were hanged for sodomy? Why wasn't it counter-cultural when the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 extended the anti-sodomy laws to criminalise any kind of male homosexual behaviour? Why wasn't it counter-cultural when it took Scotland until 1980! to decriminalize homosexuality?
Where was our much-self-lauded counter-cultural agenda when culture was hounding gay people, excluding them from some of the most basic human rights, forcing them to undergo brutal corrective therapies, including chemical castration, and driving them to suicide? Why wasn't the counter-cultural church jumping up and down in fury at this utterly unChristian treatment of our brothers and sisters? And why hasn't the counter-cultural church been a safe haven all along for homosexual people? Because it certainly isn't, not even now.
Mostly, I agree with you. For when you talk of the degrading treatment of homesexuals by the church then absolutely. The christian church should rightly hang its head in shame although that should not therefore extend to "affirming" homesexual practice, let alone marriage.
quote:
Sometimes I think the Holy Spirit is doing her best work precisely in our culture because the 'counter-cultural' Church has stopped listening.
You mean when He worked through fine christian men such as John Newton and William Wilbeforce to abolish slavery?
Apologise for the long response Cottentail, but I felt you had put such effort into yours, the only gracious response I could come back with was an equivalently detailed post!
Soli Del Gloria.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I'm not going to attempt to answer - I know when I'm out-classed! But could I ask a question?
quote:
On the topic of religious freedom, when (because it will happen) churches/other religious groups are allowed to conduct homesexual weddings, no doubt there will be a clause saying no church will be forced to conduct such a ceremony etc. How long would this last?
Am I right in thinking that ministers can't be forced to conduct a wedding between heterosexuals? How could ministers be forced to conduct a ceremony between homosexuals if they can't be forced to conduct a ceremony between heterosexuals? Presumably they would always have the freedom to refuse to marry homosexuals if they would refuse heterosexuals in the same circumstances?
Also, presumably most people aim to have maximum joy from their wedding. Given that there will be plenty of ministers willing to provide a joyful service, why would anyone want to seek out one who will conduct the ceremony with ill grace, just to make a point? The idea of some minister being forced to conduct such a ceremony seems bizarre.
Posted by Masha (# 10098) on
:
Cottontail: You're in the Quotes File!
Posted by Shaggy (# 16844) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I'm not going to attempt to answer - I know when I'm out-classed! But could I ask a question?
quote:
On the topic of religious freedom, when (because it will happen) churches/other religious groups are allowed to conduct homesexual weddings, no doubt there will be a clause saying no church will be forced to conduct such a ceremony etc. How long would this last?
Am I right in thinking that ministers can't be forced to conduct a wedding between heterosexuals? How could ministers be forced to conduct a ceremony between homosexuals if they can't be forced to conduct a ceremony between heterosexuals? Presumably they would always have the freedom to refuse to marry homosexuals if they would refuse heterosexuals in the same circumstances?
Also, presumably most people aim to have maximum joy from their wedding. Given that there will be plenty of ministers willing to provide a joyful service, why would anyone want to seek out one who will conduct the ceremony with ill grace, just to make a point? The idea of some minister being forced to conduct such a ceremony seems bizarre.
NEQ, I think we have all been outclassed by the writings of Cottontail!
Currently no-one in the CofS is forced to conduct a marriage ceremony (although if they persistently refused for no good reason then I hope a good Presbytery would step in and sort that out). However, if the circumstances arose that a minister who happily marries heterosexual couples but would refuse to conduct such a ceremony for a homesexual couple, I imagine in time there would surely be prosecutions on the grounds of discrimination (like we have seen with registrars).
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I might be havering here (where are you, Cottontail?) but when the North East Mannie and I got married twenty-mumble years ago, we had a couple of hoops to jump through. I joined the church in my home town, but moved my lines when I left home. However, we married in my home town church, and I had to shift my lines back to my home town church prior to our wedding, then back again to the church I actually attended afterwards. (This despite the fact that my mother was a member of my home church, so there was an existing link, and the minister knew me perfectly well, as he'd been my minister when I was growing up.)
Is it still the case that your lines need to be with the church you marry in? In which case, if one half of a gay couple have their lines with a church, presumably there's an existing connection to the church, and the minister is already comfortable with the situation.
There's no faff with lines when it comes to a registry wedding; it's a different situation.
Posted by Shaggy (# 16844) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I might be havering here (where are you, Cottontail?) but when the North East Mannie and I got married twenty-mumble years ago, we had a couple of hoops to jump through. I joined the church in my home town, but moved my lines when I left home. However, we married in my home town church, and I had to shift my lines back to my home town church prior to our wedding, then back again to the church I actually attended afterwards. (This despite the fact that my mother was a member of my home church, so there was an existing link, and the minister knew me perfectly well, as he'd been my minister when I was growing up.)
Is it still the case that your lines need to be with the church you marry in? In which case, if one half of a gay couple have their lines with a church, presumably there's an existing connection to the church, and the minister is already comfortable with the situation.
There's no faff with lines when it comes to a registry wedding; it's a different situation.
NEQ, I don't know about 22 years ago, but I can categorically state that is not the case now. Some particular ministers may insist on it but I know of plenty folk who were married in my old church who were not regular adherents, let alone having their lines there.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
I got married twenty-mumble years ago,
quote:
NEQ, I don't know about 22 years ago,
Yes, 22 years ago. Was that a lucky guess?
About half the new communicants in my parish church are joining the church prior to getting married. After they're married we tend not to see them again until they're having the first baby baptised. I had assumed that church membership at least was a pre-requisite for a church wedding.
Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on
:
re. the notion of somehow 'forcing' ministers to perform marriage/ relationship ceremonies for LGBT folk.
Nope. This is a misnomer. Ministers can, and do, refuse to marry heterosexual couples at times, on grounds of conscience, etc. I know of ministers who will not marry couples who are cohabiting... and of cases where this has extended to couples who have been previously married to others and have subsequently divorced. Ministers are not forced to marry heterosexual couples and along the same lines, will not be forced in any way to marry / bless LGBT couples. What the consultation seems to be concerned with is giving to LGBT people the same options heterosexual people have, to wit, the option to have their relationship blessed within a faith context - whether Christian or other.
As an aside, this conscience clause has been used in other circumstances as well: I know of ministers who refuse to do baptisms. However, that's another matter for discussion at another time! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
Currently no-one in the CofS is forced to conduct a marriage ceremony (although if they persistently refused for no good reason then I hope a good Presbytery would step in and sort that out). However, if the circumstances arose that a minister who happily marries heterosexual couples but would refuse to conduct such a ceremony for a homesexual couple, I imagine in time there would surely be prosecutions on the grounds of discrimination (like we have seen with registrars) .
You mean like in Canada, when same-sex marriage became legal and ministers refusing to perform were arrested, prosecuted, jailed, tortured most horribly, and martyred... Oh wait, NONE OF THAT EVER HAPPENED. Ministers continue to marry whom they think appropriate, and life goes on.
Why does this same boogeyman get dragged out, over and over, when every single time reality refuses to bear out the fears of those who prop it up?
Really, Shaggy. Are there no Catholic priests in Scotland? Do they not refuse to marry persons who are legally allowed to marry, because of their beliefs about divorce etc.? Are they liable to criminal or civil action because of such refusal to marry?
And, one more time, along with the choir invisible: Registrars are public servants. As it says on the tin, they serve the public, in accordance with public policy. If they wish to register only those marriages which suit their particular beliefs, they ought - according to the same strong conscience - to quit and seek to become religious leaders in their tradition, who are under no compulsion to marry anyone not suiting their beliefs or other criteria.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
Gosh. I seem to have set myself up as a kind of sage on this matter! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Thank you for your kind comments, which are appreciated.
And thank you too, Shaggy, for your measured responses, and for your impressively instant skill with coding! There are such a lot of issues all tangled up in each other here, that I doubt I shall be able to address each one. Others have pulled out particular of your concerns, and answered them very well, so I shall also try not to duplicate. quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
However one of the privileges we have in a democracy is to petition the government of the day on whatever issue we choose. That to me would include the right of the CofS to respond in a negative fashion to a government consultation.
Yes, of course the CofS has a right to respond. However, it should first agree what that response should be. My argument is that the LQC responded with definitive-looking answers to questions on which we have as yet no definitive policy. Once we have a definitive policy, properly discussed and ratified, we can respond away. And take the consequences.
quote:
How far do we extend religious freedom? Should the CofS not speak out at say a Mormon Sect in the Highlands which practised polygamy?
This is an utterly utterly false comparison, and it ought to be rejected outright. Homosexuals are not seeking the right to marry multiple partners at the same time. They are seeking the legal right to marry one partner. The closest comparison to what they are seeking is not polygamy, but heterosexual marriage.
And also this:
quote:
... if marriage is to be extended to include homesexual couples, why shouldn't it also be extended to polygamist families? Why shouldn't they receive their equal treatment under the law?
Equal treatment under law is required for equal situations. On the most basic mathematical calculation, polygamy is not 'equal' to monogamous marriage.
(You might want to check out this recent thread which discusses why Canada refused legal recognition to polygamous marriage. Many of the concerns centre round the potential for abuse, particularly of women, in such an unequal situation.)
quote:
On the topic of religious freedom, when (because it will happen) churches/other religious groups are allowed to conduct homesexual weddings, no doubt there will be a clause saying no church will be forced to conduct such a ceremony etc. How long would this last? You can bet that the extremely clever and well-funded groups like Stonewall will get this changed soon enough, no doubt in the name of discrimination.
Others have dealt with this quite thoroughly. I will only add that, should that happen to your church, I will be right in there defending your religious freedom. Even though your church doesn't seem inclined to defend mine.
Moreover, should anyone be ill-advised enough to attempt to force a church to act against its conscience, then that church will at last have the chance to experience true persecution, and be blessed for it. At the moment, despite a certain trend among more conservative churches to depict themselves as under liberal siege (I was disappointed to detect that in your post, btw), the church in the UK has as yet no idea what persecution is really like. Though gay people do. quote:
Where is the religious freedom of a CofS minister who genuinely believes through his or her own careful study and prayer (and not blind intolerance) that homesexual partnerships are not something to be blessed, being forced to either go against his/her conscience or be prosecuted?
Where is the religious freedom of the Church of Scotland minister who genuinely believes through his or her own careful study and prayer that homosexual marriages are something to be blessed, but is currently (not hypothetically) being forced either to go against his/her conscience or to be disciplined/suspended/sacked?
quote:
Other than that, my own church (as you might guess a rather Con-Evo one) campaigned strongly against what was going on against homesexuals in Uganda. Far more so than many of the so-called "inclusive" congregations which surrounded us. Just because we believe marriage (and in extension, sex in marriage) is for one man and one woman does not mean it precludes us for campaigning against actual discrimination and persecution of homesexuals.
I am genuinely glad to hear that, and commend your church. But I would challenge you on your last sentence. I am very glad that you have campaigned against "actual persecution". But if you have not campaigned for same-sex marriage (and before that - did your church campaign for civil partnerships?), then I am afraid that you have not campaigned against "actual discrimination". To deny a same-sex couple the right to marry falls precisely into the definition of "actual discrimination", as they are being denied equal treatment in law.
Sorry to do this to you again, but if you are interested, this thread, A new Christian line on gay marriage, outlines many of the arguments both for and against. Most importantly, it contains first-hand testimonies from gay shipmates who describe the actual effects of the "actual discrimination" of not being able to marry.
I think that is enough to be going on with. I'll try and tackle your other points later this evening, or tomorrow. But thank you again for engaging so politely. It is so important that we talk over these things, and try to understand where each other is coming from.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
Oh, and I can confirm that a person does not have to be a member of the Kirk before they can be married there, though that was the traditional position, and some churches still put a lot of emphasis on this. Usually, if one of the couple is simply resident in the parish and there is no other impediment, the minister will marry them - and indeed, to some extent is obliged to do so. (You can have a 'parish marriage' just as you can have a 'parish funeral', for both are 'ordinances of religion'.) At one time, of course, almost everyone resident in the parish would have been a member anyway, so the confusion over this is part of the general transition to a more secular society.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Really, Shaggy. Are there no Catholic priests in Scotland? Do they not refuse to marry persons who are legally allowed to marry, because of their beliefs about divorce etc.? Are they liable to criminal or civil action because of such refusal to marry?
As it happens, this goes back a long way. Commissary courts with power to grant divorce on equal terms to both men and women were established after the Scottish Reformation during the 1560s, along with the right for an innocent party to remarry as if their erring spouse was naturally dead.
Since then, the state (and also the Kirk) have upheld a policy on marriage opposed by a large group of Christians who would regard themselves as traditional and orthodox, and to the best of my knowledge no church in Scotland not sharing this position has ever been forced to marry divorcees or face a legal challenge. So that's '450 years and still counting' as a reply to 'How long will it take?' for anyone who likes slippery slope arguments about how any form of marriage reform will lead to religious compulsion in marriage ceremonies.
The registrar argument actually demonstrates the very opposite of what it is claimed we should fear. It shows not that secular authorities are desirous to interfere in an offensive manner in religious ceremonies and contexts, but instead involves a religious person inappropriately importing religious considerations into an avowedly secular context.
Civil marriages are deliberately and by legislation non-religious:
quote:
A civil marriage ceremony cannot have any religious content, but you may be able to arrange for individual touches such as non-religious music and readings to be added to the legal wording, and for the ceremony to be videoed. The register office where you intend to marry will be able to tell you more about the options available.
www.directgov
To seek to import religious beliefs and disqualifications into the provision of strictly non-religious services, designed to serve people who do not want religious ceremonies is a violation of boundaries by the religious against the secular and not the other way round.
The registrar who wished to bring religious taboos into non-religious service provision was not 'prosecuted' but instead sought to sue others. ( I assume Shaggy has the Lillian Ladele case in mind). Miss Ladele herself, having been disciplined for violating her employer's workplace policy in the provision of what were meant to be secular services, took her employers before a tribunal to sue them for religious discrimination. This was a civil action and not a criminal prosecution and it was initiated by Miss Ladele and the Christian Institute.
She was quite entitled to make her challenge under employment law, but somehow her taking her employer to court has now become her being 'prosecuted' with its erroneous implication that state criminalisation of her beliefs was involved.
It's never happened, even over centuries, and even in the times of deepest religious intolerance that the churches who didn't accept divorce and remarriage were told to marry those whom the law of Scotland said were permitted to marry, or face criminal prosecution.
And despite the suffragists and suffragettes and the Equality Act and all, there hasn't been a single 'prosecution' for not accepting female ordination against those churches which don't.
So why is it, that although religiously-based sexual discrimination and discrimination against legally divorced people in churches has been going on for a long time without anyone being hauled up in front of a sheriff, we now get the the 'religious freedom in danger!' argument?
It's especially curious given that this argument involves keeping state imposed curbs on religious freedom on other Christians eg.The Society of Friends.
Here we have a Christian group famous for their fearless witness and peace testimony and commitment to social justice actually being denied freedom of worship in an important part of their testimony- yet we're given a smokescreen about breakaway Mormons and Islamic polygamy. Why not just come out and say it, Shaggy, that you are against freedom of worship for other decent Christians on this issue? And that you expect us to continue a civil injustice against gay people on the grounds that it might, just might, somehow lead to some imagined and unlikely theoretical prejudice to you, despite the fact that such changes in marital legislation never did so to anyone else in the past. Yet on the other hand you expect us to accept actual ongoing state suppression of freedom of Christian worship of blameless Christian denominations and gay people.
How privileged do you think self-labelled 'orthodox' Christians should be, that slight, theoretical and unlikely harms to them should outweigh actual harm to others? And how can you possibly cry persecution for being asked to allow others a fraction of the consideration with regard to freedom of worship that you imply that your views should be accorded by right?
Many thanks,
Louise
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
I am getting thoroughly sick and tired of this insistence on the Church being 'counter-cultural'. Why wasn't the Church being counter-cultural back in the 17th and 18th century, when people were hanged for sodomy? Why wasn't it counter-cultural when the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 extended the anti-sodomy laws to criminalise any kind of male homosexual behaviour? Why wasn't it counter-cultural when it took Scotland until 1980! to decriminalize homosexuality?
Thank you! In the Anglican Church of Canada, ever since the Civil Marriage Act 2005, one of the tropes of the right has been that the Church should not let society dictate its doctrine. Of course, given that they were quite happy for the Church to lend cover and respectability to social prejudices as expressed in the law before then, they'll forgive me my scepticism about their new-found appreciation for "counter-cultural" Christianity.
I've said a number of times that if we wanted to be "counter-cultural" we could have acted with the United Church before the law. But it's too late now unless we would take a harmful and discriminatory position at wide variance from the Gospel, just to stick it to society for the sake of counter-culture itself.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
(Got timed out for some reason ...)
We're too late to hop the Underground Railroad and do the right thing ahead of schedule, but we can at least avoid being Strom Thurmond, straining at the "evil" of equality long after it's become embarrassing to do so.
Posted by Shaggy (# 16844) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Why not just come out and say it, Shaggy, that you are against freedom of worship for other decent Christians on this issue? And that you expect us to continue a civil injustice against gay people on the grounds that it might, just might, somehow lead to some imagined and unlikely theoretical prejudice to you, despite the fact that such changes in marital legislation never did so to anyone else in the past. Yet on the other hand you expect us to accept actual ongoing state suppression of freedom of Christian worship of blameless Christian denominations and gay people.
quote:
How privileged do you think self-labelled 'orthodox' Christians should be, that slight, theoretical and unlikely harms to them should outweigh actual harm to others? And how can you possibly cry persecution for being asked to allow others a fraction of the consideration with regard to freedom of worship that you imply that your views should be accorded by right?
Louise, I have quoted bits from your post to explain why I will not respond to you. I am happy to debate with others on here in measured forms (NEQ, Cottontail as examples). I am not here to be insulted or to say I'm crying persecution because I am clearly not if you read my posts.
Disagree with me by all means (I hardly came on this board for evangelical consensus) but please keep the anger and insults to yourself. I understand personal attacks are meant for the board Hell?
This is an issue we all feel highly passionate about but there was no need for that tone of post.
Cottontail, I will respond when I get home from work!
Posted by Shaggy (# 16844) on
:
Lastly, for the avoidance of doubt, I was not meaning the high profile case most heard in the media. I know very little of the case other than what I read in the media so feel hardly qualified to comment.
I was meaning the story of my own mother who was a Registrar until very recently. With all the encouragement earlier on in this thread of looking at personal experiences I thought it may be helpful to hear from the "other side" so to speak.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Shaggy, can you let us know why you think that one group's beliefs should legally bind another group, when both groups believe that they have sought the guidance of the spirit in coming to those beliefs? i.e. why one church (e.g.CofS) should influence national governments to constrain another (e.g. the Quakers)? (Assuming that the action sought is not one which could be seen as a crime against humanity, or half of humanity.)
I don't think that Quakers would seek to compel those who rejected the possibility of homosexual marriage to carry them out, so why should the latter seek to compel them not to?
Penny
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Why not just come out and say it, Shaggy, that you are against freedom of worship for other decent Christians on this issue? And that you expect us to continue a civil injustice against gay people on the grounds that it might, just might, somehow lead to some imagined and unlikely theoretical prejudice to you, despite the fact that such changes in marital legislation never did so to anyone else in the past. Yet on the other hand you expect us to accept actual ongoing state suppression of freedom of Christian worship of blameless Christian denominations and gay people.
quote:
How privileged do you think self-labelled 'orthodox' Christians should be, that slight, theoretical and unlikely harms to them should outweigh actual harm to others? And how can you possibly cry persecution for being asked to allow others a fraction of the consideration with regard to freedom of worship that you imply that your views should be accorded by right?
Louise, I have quoted bits from your post to explain why I will not respond to you. I am happy to debate with others on here in measured forms (NEQ, Cottontail as examples). I am not here to be insulted or to say I'm crying persecution because I am clearly not if you read my posts.
Disagree with me by all means (I hardly came on this board for evangelical consensus) but please keep the anger and insults to yourself. I understand personal attacks are meant for the board Hell?
This is an issue we all feel highly passionate about but there was no need for that tone of post.
Cottontail, I will respond when I get home from work!
Louise's question was actually quite salient, and your refusal/inability to answer it says a good deal about how seriously we ought to take your offerings here.
What you're proposing has quite dramatic implications: other families, families like yours, should not be recognized by the state because they ostensibly offend your religious beliefs (even though you hold those beliefs at best inconsistently - i.e. you're not calling on heterosexuals to resist "acting on" their "sinful desire" for marriage and family - the sin apparently only comes about when it's other people). According to you, it should just be obvious to the state that those who believe in marriage consistently are wrong and you are right, and your views (at least insofar as you yourself hold them) are the ones that should be written into law. You want to argue that, even though your proposal causes prima facie harm and legal disabilities to Scottish families, and the alternative harms no one, the Scottish govt should err on the side of harm, more or less because Shaggy's pastor told him so.
This is, as I say, a big deal, and you have to be prepared to face hard questions about it. If the best you can do is cry about how mean those questions are, people will assume - fairly - that those tears are the extent of your argumentation and your position, not being intellectually serious, can be ignored.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
I am getting thoroughly sick and tired of this insistence on the Church being 'counter-cultural'. Why wasn't the Church being counter-cultural back in the 17th and 18th century, when people were hanged for sodomy?
It should have been, and it was to its shame that it wasn't.
quote:
Why wasn't it counter-cultural when the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 extended the anti-sodomy laws to criminalise any kind of male homosexual behaviour?
It should have been, and it is to its shame that it wasn't.
quote:
Why wasn't it counter-cultural when it took Scotland until 1980! to decriminalize homosexuality?
It should have been, and it is to its shame that it wasn't.
quote:
Where was our much-self-lauded counter-cultural agenda when culture was hounding gay people, excluding them from some of the most basic human rights, forcing them to undergo brutal corrective therapies, including chemical castration, and driving them to suicide?
Shamefully absent.
quote:
Why wasn't the counter-cultural church jumping up and down in fury at this utterly unChristian treatment of our brothers and sisters?
Because it was not following its Lord.
I think you have latched onto somebody who means to say "the church should be countercultural" and read them as saying, "the church has at all times been countercultural." Which is unfair.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
Why wasn't the counter-cultural church jumping up and down in fury at this utterly unChristian treatment of our brothers and sisters?
Because it was not following its Lord.
I think you have latched onto somebody who means to say "the church should be countercultural" and read them as saying, "the church has at all times been countercultural." Which is unfair.
With respect, Mousethief, I think you have misread me. I did not think Shaggy was saying that the church has always been countercultural, and I don't think he read me that way either. And as I think I made clear, this was not a rant directed specifically at Shaggy, but at the current rhetoric in conservative evangelical circles in the church we both belong to.
I was taking issue with his phrase, "an orthodox christian viewpoint which happens to go against the grain of society". For me, this phrase invoked the oft-heard 'countercultural' justification of the church's seeming 'nastiness' to gay people, in the face of the seeming 'niceness' of wider society. As well as a self-justification, the concept is also used as a deflector shield against any criticism: They would say that - We can expect to be misunderstood - Christians are being persecuted - And all because we are being countercultural. Not because we might be plain wrong.
My point was that it is only now that culture has changed its view on the matter of gay rights, that 'being countercultural' has become a virtue in itself. Before then - which is what I was illustrating - we were quite happy being cultural, thank you very much. And if the conservative evangelicals in my church ever get the control they wish over culture, then you can bet that they will go straight back to being 'cultural' again.
Being countercultural is therefore not a virtue in itself. It is only a virtue to the extent that the church is opposing injustice in culture. When the church is trying to block culture's own attempts to redress systemic injustice, it becomes a vice.
Posted by Shaggy (# 16844) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Why not just come out and say it, Shaggy, that you are against freedom of worship for other decent Christians on this issue? And that you expect us to continue a civil injustice against gay people on the grounds that it might, just might, somehow lead to some imagined and unlikely theoretical prejudice to you, despite the fact that such changes in marital legislation never did so to anyone else in the past. Yet on the other hand you expect us to accept actual ongoing state suppression of freedom of Christian worship of blameless Christian denominations and gay people.
quote:
How privileged do you think self-labelled 'orthodox' Christians should be, that slight, theoretical and unlikely harms to them should outweigh actual harm to others? And how can you possibly cry persecution for being asked to allow others a fraction of the consideration with regard to freedom of worship that you imply that your views should be accorded by right?
Louise, I have quoted bits from your post to explain why I will not respond to you. I am happy to debate with others on here in measured forms (NEQ, Cottontail as examples). I am not here to be insulted or to say I'm crying persecution because I am clearly not if you read my posts.
Disagree with me by all means (I hardly came on this board for evangelical consensus) but please keep the anger and insults to yourself. I understand personal attacks are meant for the board Hell?
This is an issue we all feel highly passionate about but there was no need for that tone of post.
Cottontail, I will respond when I get home from work!
Louise's question was actually quite salient, and your refusal/inability to answer it says a good deal about how seriously we ought to take your offerings here.
What you're proposing has quite dramatic implications: other families, families like yours, should not be recognized by the state because they ostensibly offend your religious beliefs (even though you hold those beliefs at best inconsistently - i.e. you're not calling on heterosexuals to resist "acting on" their "sinful desire" for marriage and family - the sin apparently only comes about when it's other people). According to you, it should just be obvious to the state that those who believe in marriage consistently are wrong and you are right, and your views (at least insofar as you yourself hold them) are the ones that should be written into law. You want to argue that, even though your proposal causes prima facie harm and legal disabilities to Scottish families, and the alternative harms no one, the Scottish govt should err on the side of harm, more or less because Shaggy's pastor told him so.
This is, as I say, a big deal, and you have to be prepared to face hard questions about it. If the best you can do is cry about how mean those questions are, people will assume - fairly - that those tears are the extent of your argumentation and your position, not being intellectually serious, can be ignored.
LQ, not even going to bother with your rant here. I almost replied in haste at the end of last week but after a weekend of reflection and rugby playing I would only come across as ungracious in my response.
I've been in far too many frutless back and forths over the years that I really can't see any point in responding to posts like that.
Posted by Shaggy (# 16844) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
Why wasn't the counter-cultural church jumping up and down in fury at this utterly unChristian treatment of our brothers and sisters?
Because it was not following its Lord.
I think you have latched onto somebody who means to say "the church should be countercultural" and read them as saying, "the church has at all times been countercultural." Which is unfair.
With respect, Mousethief, I think you have misread me. I did not think Shaggy was saying that the church has always been countercultural, and I don't think he read me that way either. And as I think I made clear, this was not a rant directed specifically at Shaggy, but at the current rhetoric in conservative evangelical circles in the church we both belong to.
I was taking issue with his phrase, "an orthodox christian viewpoint which happens to go against the grain of society". For me, this phrase invoked the oft-heard 'countercultural' justification of the church's seeming 'nastiness' to gay people, in the face of the seeming 'niceness' of wider society. As well as a self-justification, the concept is also used as a deflector shield against any criticism: They would say that - We can expect to be misunderstood - Christians are being persecuted - And all because we are being countercultural. Not because we might be plain wrong.
My point was that it is only now that culture has changed its view on the matter of gay rights, that 'being countercultural' has become a virtue in itself. Before then - which is what I was illustrating - we were quite happy being cultural, thank you very much. And if the conservative evangelicals in my church ever get the control they wish over culture, then you can bet that they will go straight back to being 'cultural' again.
Being countercultural is therefore not a virtue in itself. It is only a virtue to the extent that the church is opposing injustice in culture. When the church is trying to block culture's own attempts to redress systemic injustice, it becomes a vice.
Cottontail, you are right in your thinking. I read you in exactly the way you describe above so no issues there.
I also do not see being countercultural as a virtue in itself. There is no desire by any church (as far as I know) to go against culture by legalising murder (an extreme example...) or theft etc.
The countercultural I am talking about is usually not re social/political norms of the day although it seems more often to be appropriate these days. Even when the church does speak out, it normally has little to no influence in what happens. However somewhat unusally in this circumstance I think the Scottish Government would have been quite shaken by having both the Roman Catholic church (although expected) and the CofS (in my mind quite unexpected) coming out against the proposals.
I must take object with your view on what Con-Evo's would actually want to take over culture. I certainly don't. Please don't misunderstand, I'd love everyone to be saved by Jesus, live a Godly life according to the Scriptures, know God as their Father and Creator, love Jesus as their Saviour and be knowingly sustained by the Holy Spirit. However, I don't want to see that enforced by the state, forced on people who have no interest.
When it comes down to it (and this may surprise some) I'm pretty libertarian in my views. I don't see how the state has a right telling churches (or any religious institution) what they can and can't do. So yes, actually why shouldn't a Friends meeting house be able to conduct a homesexual marriage (for in effect that is what civil partnerships are)? Why should it be in the interests of the state to tell the CofS what their ministers can and can't do?
The main objection I had (and was roundly mocked for - something this "nasty-foaming at the mouth" (a previous quote...)Con-Evo has hopefully managed to avoid doing to people he disagrees with) was to do with discrimination legislation which I believe would certainly come to the fore.
Others gave an example in Canada but knowing nothing of the culture there I can't really respond to that.
However in the UK, any enabling legislation such as allowing homesexual couples to adopt has had the consequence of clamping down on the other side. We saw it with RC adoption agencies who for years placed children with families who were not Christians let alone RCs. However when they refused to place with homesexual couples and in spite of the fact there were many other secular adoption agencies providing that service, they were forced to shut down.
The point being, the legal history in this country has shown that once the doors have opened to genuine equality, the doors are in time then closed to anyone who refuses to go along with the "progressive consensus".
A hotel owner might think, "well there are plenty other hotels where a homesexual couple might stay, or even plenty twin rooms in this hotel where I wouldn't have a problem with them staying. But a double room would go against by carefully studied beliefs". However, as we've seen, he's not allowed to do that under the law even though there are plenty other places the homesexual couple could stay.
What would be the difference with a christian minister who would refuse to conduct such a ceremony? Sure, there would be plenty churches with ministers who would be delighted to conduct a homesexual marriage. However, we have seen that the law gets pushed and tested by certain groups to the point where there is no liberty of conscience to not provide that service.
Somewhat differently, what I also see as being rightly countercultural is where by being Christ-like is in conflict with "the world". For example, the office culture in The City (where I thankfully do not work anymore) is a place where I think all Christians are called to live counterculturally. How could I live for Jesus by having greed, heavy drinking, illicit sex, lies and backstabbing as my prioties in life?
You're right though, that the church shouldn't always be countercultural, it isn't a virtue in itself and sometimes the church should be more cultural. Interesting topic though.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
A hotel owner might think, "well there are plenty other hotels where a homesexual couple might stay
But would the hotel owner then help them find that other hotel room?
No, probably not.
And it doesn't take that many hotel owners to think like your hotel owner before the homosexual couple spend half the night knocking on doors hoping for a room, and risking all kinds of savage reactions.
Posted by Shaggy (# 16844) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
A hotel owner might think, "well there are plenty other hotels where a homesexual couple might stay
But would the hotel owner then help them find that other hotel room?
No, probably not.
And it doesn't take that many hotel owners to think like your hotel owner before the homosexual couple spend half the night knocking on doors hoping for a room, and risking all kinds of savage reactions.
You've no grounds on which to make that assumption re their helpfulness.
Savage reactions?
Posted by Masha (# 10098) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shaggy:
I must take object with your view on what Con-Evo's would actually want to take over culture. I certainly don't. Please don't misunderstand, I'd love everyone to be saved by Jesus, live a Godly life according to the Scriptures, know God as their Father and Creator, love Jesus as their Saviour and be knowingly sustained by the Holy Spirit. However, I don't want to see that enforced by the state, forced on people who have no interest.
I understand what you're saying - you wouldn't want to force it but you'd like to see it. However, this leads me to ask: whose version of 'Godly life according to the Scriptures' would people have to live?
For the record, two of the most Godly and wonderful people I've ever been privileged to come into contact with are gay priests. Both are compassionate, loving, warm, clever and highly esteemed by all lucky enough to benefit from their ministry. They are both partnered.
Both, to my mind, are the very model of 'Godly', I suspect they wouldn't fit the Con-Evo definition.
[ 09. January 2012, 13:32: Message edited by: Masha ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
A hotel owner might think, "well there are plenty other hotels where a homesexual couple might stay
But would the hotel owner then help them find that other hotel room?
No, probably not.
And it doesn't take that many hotel owners to think like your hotel owner before the homosexual couple spend half the night knocking on doors hoping for a room, and risking all kinds of savage reactions.
You've no grounds on which to make that assumption re their helpfulness.
Savage reactions?
No grounds? I invoke the ground of commonsense. Do you know any people against homosexuality who will encourage homosexuals to find 'gay-friendly' alternatives? It's not impossible but it's highly improbable.
As for savage reactions: the greater the number of people in a society who reject homosexuals, the more acceptable it is to react to them negatively. And history tells me that this extends to treating them as less than human. There's a sliding scale, but that scale certainly extends to reactions that can be described as 'savage'. One does not have to go very far back in history, a few decades only, to a point where being an openly homosexual couple would be a positively dangerous exercise. Because it was acceptable to react savagely.
Posted by Shaggy (# 16844) on
:
quote:
No grounds? I invoke the ground of commonsense. Do you know any people against homosexuality who will encourage homosexuals to find 'gay-friendly' alternatives? It's not impossible but it's highly improbable.
Me.
quote:
As for savage reactions: the greater the number of people in a society who reject homosexuals, the more acceptable it is to react to them negatively. And history tells me that this extends to treating them as less than human. There's a sliding scale, but that scale certainly extends to reactions that can be described as 'savage'. One does not have to go very far back in history, a few decades only, to a point where being an openly homosexual couple would be a positively dangerous exercise. Because it was acceptable to react savagely.
I don't really think this is the case any longer. Yes there will always be an ungracious or "savage" minority who would behave in this fashion, but I do not believe it would be commonplace. Britain's attitude has (rightly) totally changed towards homesexuals. I can't imagine for a few christian hoteliers (for not all would have said convictions) it would engender "savage reactions" elsewhere.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'm sure that the fact that Britain's attitude to homosexuals has 'rightly' changed will be magnificent comfort to anybody who finds they can't book a room in the same way that any other couple would.
Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on
:
re 'savage reactions'
Okay, really, enough.
The fact that there are LGBT folk who are treated in such a way that they are driven to despair and feel the need of escaping it via suicide is evidence enough of 'savage reactions'.
Couple this with those within society who find it perfectly acceptable to beat LBGT folk to death and you have savage reactions aplenty. While there have been many positive changes along tolerance/ acceptance lines, it strikes me as utterly disingenuous to query that verbal and physical bullying and violence - 'savage reactions' - still happens far too often to LGBT people.
And as for the church being 'counter-cultural': to hear phrases uttered in the courts of the kirk such as 'they are an abomination unto the Lord', and other such language that dehumanises, ... well, to be frank, I for one can live without that kind of counter-cultural expression of 'freedom of religious conscience'.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
Thank you for that long and considered reply, Shaggy. Just back from a weekend away, so sorry for any delay in replying.
We seem to have a kind of consensus on the 'countercultural' issue, so I am happy to leave that there. I'll just add that I accept your objection, that you have no desire to 'take over' culture, and that you tend towards a libertarian view. I think there are some dangerous elements within some churches which do wish to do that - to enforce so-called "Christian values" through legislation. You may have heard such rhetoric yourself. But I accept (and am glad) that this is not your position.
I can also agree with you that the state has on the whole no right to tell churches what to do. (There are of course exceptions, particularly where actual criminality might be involved.) I hope you can see, however, that this also works the other way - again, with exceptions, mainly around the area of justice. Of course, much of our debate might be about what exactly constitutes criminality on the one hand, and injustice on the other!
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
When it comes down to it (and this may surprise some) I'm pretty libertarian in my views. I don't see how the state has a right telling churches (or any religious institution) what they can and can't do. So yes, actually why shouldn't a Friends meeting house be able to conduct a homesexual marriage (for in effect that is what civil partnerships are)? Why should it be in the interests of the state to tell the CofS what their ministers can and can't do?
If I am reading you correctly, you seem now to be saying that you have no objection in principle to the state legislating for same-sex marriage, both civilly, and if so desired, religiously. Your objections seem to be more concerned with how this might work out in practice, and I will be happy to explore this aspect further if you so wish. Others are already doing so.
But if that is what you are saying - that you have no objection, or even that you could support the legislation, in principle - then we actually have something like agreement on my initial points, as extrapolated from the three questions I directed at the CofS response:
(1) that the CofS's internal understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman does not preclude an acceptance of the State's right to legislate as it pleases.
(2) that the CofS's internal understanding of marriage does not permit it to insist that other religions and Christian denominations must accept this understanding also.
(3) that the CofS's internal understanding of marriage does not preclude it supporting the human right of gay people to equal treatment under law.
Quite genuinely (I am not being snarky!) I thank you for having the grace to adjust, or perhaps just clarify, your position.
I therefore suggest to you that the CofS's reply might have been something along these lines:
quote:
The Church of Scotland's understanding of marriage is as it has always been: that a marriage is contracted between one man and one woman. Accordingly, the Church of Scotland does not request or require any such legislation, and will not as a body recognise the religious validity of same-sex marriage.
Likewise, we as the Church of Scotland maintain our traditional position on the separation of Church and State, and so recognise the Scottish Executive's right to legislate as it sees fit, while being answerable always to the electorate and, we believe, to God. We also recognise the religious freedom of all faiths and Christian denominations to administer their internal affairs as best they see fit, and so freely to conduct or refuse to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies, should that become a legal possibility. We further recognise fully the human rights of all people to equal treatment under law. Accordingly, the Church as a body will not oppose any movement by the Scottish Executive to legislate for same-sex marriage.
In summary, as a Church, we currently have no agreed position on whether we will ultimately support, oppose, or maintain a neutral position on, legislation for civil same-sex marriage. We therefore regret that we must delay any fuller response until after the 2012 General Assembly at the earliest.
So let me throw it over to you. Is that a statement you could have signed up to, or would you like to suggest some amendments?
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
LQ, not even going to bother with your rant here.
Shaggy, if you're not here for a discussion, there's really no point in your hanging around. I wasn't "ranting"; if you can't cope with an opposing viewpoint the Ship isn't the place to be. Perhaps the fact that you can't express your views without being "ungracious" or "fruitless" should be a hint about their weightiness?
Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on
:
Gayness or being queer is so good i folk here won t lose sight of the joy, the fun, the humour, lovely quirky takes on life the universe and everything.
Can t imagine Scotland without those loverly dykes queers etc !!
Also i appreciate the lesbian and gay enrichment of our communities in so many ways down the years.
also b and t
the full LesGAy pleroma ! whoooo bring it on !
G-d must be very loving to have given the world lgbt ! But i can t (right now) doubt Her ...
[ 10. January 2012, 17:45: Message edited by: crynwrcymraeg ]
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on
:
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>
Shaggy - we do try to cut Apprentices some slack while they find their feet and pick up on the ethos and practices of the Ship, and give them help and advice when relevant.
Verb Sap* - This is a Discussion Board and as such we expect shipmates to discuss the subject and not just to accuse others of 'ranting' and then refusing to respond to their views.
The latter is acceptable - no one has to reply to another's post - but the former is unacceptable and is very likely to result in a call to Hell, or, worse, intervention by a Host.
Also, as far as I can see, no-one has insulted you personally - if you feel there is a problem here please send me a PM (personal message) or email me.
And LQ, thank you for your contribution - but Hosting is best left to the Hosts. If you are unhappy about anything you can always PM one of us.
* Verb Sap: short for 'verbum sapienti sat est' (Latin) - one word is sufficient for a wise person. (Given to meet the Ship's Rule about foreign language comments)
Host Mode <DEACTIVATE>
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
And LQ, thank you for your contribution - but Hosting is best left to the Hosts.
I'm not sure what this means. I can't imagine who else it would be left to, what prompted this (obviously perfectly correct) reminder, or why it's addressed to me. I'm unhappy with Shaggy's attitude, but I'm hardly expecting the already-busy Hosts to fix that. I appreciate your rebutting the "rant" accusation but it's certainly not a uniquely hostly function to do so.
[ 11. January 2012, 01:50: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posted by Shaggy (# 16844) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>
Shaggy - we do try to cut Apprentices some slack while they find their feet and pick up on the ethos and practices of the Ship, and give them help and advice when relevant.
Verb Sap* - This is a Discussion Board and as such we expect shipmates to discuss the subject and not just to accuse others of 'ranting' and then refusing to respond to their views.
The latter is acceptable - no one has to reply to another's post - but the former is unacceptable and is very likely to result in a call to Hell, or, worse, intervention by a Host.
Also, as far as I can see, no-one has insulted you personally - if you feel there is a problem here please send me a PM (personal message) or email me.
And LQ, thank you for your contribution - but Hosting is best left to the Hosts. If you are unhappy about anything you can always PM one of us.
* Verb Sap: short for 'verbum sapienti sat est' (Latin) - one word is sufficient for a wise person. (Given to meet the Ship's Rule about foreign language comments)
Host Mode <DEACTIVATE>
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
TonyK. Thanks for the message. Will try to abide better by the rules of this board.
[ 13. January 2012, 15:45: Message edited by: Shaggy ]
Posted by Shaggy (# 16844) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
LQ, not even going to bother with your rant here.
Shaggy, if you're not here for a discussion, there's really no point in your hanging around. I wasn't "ranting"; if you can't cope with an opposing viewpoint the Ship isn't the place to be. Perhaps the fact that you can't express your views without being "ungracious" or "fruitless" should be a hint about their weightiness?
LQ, in the spirit of the rebuke I was given by the host, I apologise for calling your post a rant.
Saying that, I don't particularly appreciate being told I am crying persecution, crying out against posts because I can't respond to the arguments (au contraire - see posts passim with NEQ & Cottontail) or that I only believe things because my pastor told me so.
As it happens, my view on this has changed having read some of the arguments put forward on this site. Despite some commonly (but not universally) held conceptions, being a Conservative Evangelical does not automatically mean that I am some sort of obstinate automaton who does exactly what his pastor tells him to do. All my life I've been encouraged to think for myself, engage with arguments while still submitting to Scripture and in the ever popular phrase be "Sempor Reformanda". That means sometimes changing my view, but sometimes not. Just because I (or the church) may be reforming, doesn't mean I am right.
I haven't changed my mind in any theological way, more rather of a statist interventional manner. I still firmly believe (despite the well put arguments earlier in this thread) that any sexual activity outside the bounds of a marriage between one man and one woman is sinful and that therefore ministers should not (let alone be allowed) to solemnise/bless anything other than that.
Still not really sure what the state has to do with marriage in general (that includes polygamy btw, if women (or indeed men) of their own accord wish to be involved in a plural marriage, why shouldn't they? What does the state have to do with that?) so hence my change of tack. The one area where I hope the state pulls its finger out is the appaling level of forced and abusive marriages in this country. Something I hope we can all agree on.
The tone to which I was responded in this thread was mostly gracious enough that I was able to thoughtfully read their posts and engage with their points of view. I only hope I have been able to respond in kind.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
I'm not sure where "crying persecution" came from. I didn't use the phrase, nor did Louise (who, I might point out, is also a Dead Horses host).
Trying to draw an analogy to polygamy strikes me as quite suspect: indeed it often seems that "conservatives" are willing to stretch analogies between same-sex marriage and any number of colourful and/or unsavoury sexual arrangements save those with which they are in fact most analogous, viz. marriage.
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
On the topic of religious freedom, when (because it will happen) churches/other religious groups are allowed to conduct homesexual weddings, no doubt there will be a clause saying no church will be forced to conduct such a ceremony etc. How long would this last?
Since, as others have noted, religious officiants have the right to turn away any couple for no reason whatever or none (including many that are no impediment under the civil law, e.g. divorce), the "coercion" fear is a false one. I'm assuming this is where the "crying persecution" charge, whoever it originated from, arises.
I'm also troubled by the unquestioned assumption that there is a prayerful, studied, non-"intolerant" way of perpetuating a double standard. It seems to me that opponents wish to have it taken for granted up front that heterosexism need not be attended by bigotry, while gays understandably would wish to see evidence of the one without the other before acknowledging that they are separable phenomena. The hypothetical minister in your scenario is one who apparently believes in a God who arbitrarily blesses some families and not others. I would say that by definition that is a position one can either hold, or consider prayerfully, but not both. Indeed, the heterosexual definition of marriage only works if you don't think too hard about marriage, creation, or what Christians believe about them (or at least profess to believe until the topic is this one).
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
(connection timed out...) It also seems internally incoherent: if the minister in question really believes that permanent and exclusive unions of mutual self-giving and child-rearing fall short of the ideal if they lack a certain genital configuration, surely unions without permanence, stability, or exclusivity are even greater evils which the gay soul must be steered away from for its own salvation. Assuming the minister's priority is the salvation of the soul, then by his own logic he should be the first to be eager to bless the couple, that what they are able to offer of their family life may be dedicated to God's grace (which again, they must surely need even more than hetero couples by the minister's thinking!)
So I guess my question would be, if the minister is not going to bless the union, but is also concerned with the souls in his care and does not wish to lead them to an occasion of greater sin, then what response is he going to offer? If a relationship with all of the features listed above, but no "matching set" under the hood, is the most Christ-like way of living at someone's disposal, can the same minister justify advising anything less, or second-best? or do we worship a "pass/fail" God who is either pleased perfectly or wounded by our actions?
[ 13. January 2012, 17:08: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posted by Shaggy (# 16844) on
:
Decided to come back and flog this dead horse some more!
LQ, to see where I was accused please read your post from 06 January, 20:04 where you quoted thus.
Interesting all the developments that have happened since we last discussed this topic. As documented elsewhere, I'm against any form of state control of religion in this country. Therefore that belief makes me truly believe that homesexual couples (and other types of arrangements - if marriage is not to be for just one man and woman - who says it should be just for 2 people?) should be allowed to marry/civil partner/whatever in a religious institution if that said institution allows it to. Personally I don't think that any church should allow it, but I dont' see why the state should dictate what a church can and cannot do (within reason). Not a particularly popular policy within my circles but libertarianism isn't (sadly) a popular viewpoint.
My only reservation comes from the hope that it will be respected from the other perspective. That churches/ministers/whoever will not be forced to carry out such said ceremonies. I know the proposed legislation is not dictative on this issue, that freedom of conscience will prevail, but as we've seen before (even within churches - The CofE's current mess re female bishops - all must now be accepting no matter even if they were ordained pre-female ordination) I would be surprised if cases of discrimination (our homophobic vicar wouldn't marry us because we're gay) don't arise. However I hope to be surprised.
Anyway, to cut my rambles short, I hope freedom will be protected on both sides of the debate.
[ 09. March 2012, 10:08: Message edited by: Shaggy ]
Posted by Shaggy (# 16844) on
:
Just read a very good article by Daniel Hannan (my kind of politician...!).
Thought he was particularly spot on with this bit though:
"Part of the problem is the determination of lobbies and interest groups to keep themselves in business by fabricating new rows. Hence, for example, the ludicrous demands for hate crimes and other forms of separate legal categorisation. It is depressing to see pressure groups which spent decades honourably campaigning for the right to be treated equally now demanding the right to be treated differently."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100142646/the-gay-marriage-debate-is-primarily-a-way-to-advertise-your-values/
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
Just read a very good article by Daniel Hannan (my kind of politician...!).
Thought he was particularly spot on with this bit though:
"Part of the problem is the determination of lobbies and interest groups to keep themselves in business by fabricating new rows. Hence, for example, the ludicrous demands for hate crimes and other forms of separate legal categorisation. It is depressing to see pressure groups which spent decades honourably campaigning for the right to be treated equally now demanding the right to be treated differently."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100142646/the-gay-marriage-debate-is-primarily-a-way-to-advertise-your-values/
Can you link to some examples and quotes to show "the ludicrous demands for hate crimes and other forms of separate legal categorisation."? That would be helpful.
thanks,
L
Posted by Shaggy (# 16844) on
:
Louise, I don't need to link, I will give my own explanation.
I don't believe any crime is worse than another crime due to someone's perceived intent. If I had a family member (assume they are white, straight) who was seriously assaulted by some maniac for no apparent reason, that said maniac wouldn't receive as serious a sentence if the attack was due to race/homophobia. Why?
As much as I detest any hate crimes directed against a particular section of society, I don't see why one community should receive greater protection than another purely because of their race and/or sexual orientation. Are we not all equal under the law? Yes the argument goes that those minority communities deserve special protection under the law, but in doing so does it not make some more equal than others?
I understand why there are those calling for special sentences for scum like the men who murdered Stephen Lawrence, but surely the intentional murder of one man cannot be more or less serious than another?
As I mentioned earlier, I believe in true equality for all.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
Welcome back, Shaggy.
Might I ask you to have a look at the 1959 CofS Act Anent Re-marriage of Divorced Persons? This Act was the product of a previous Great Debate, which had similarly threatened to divide bitterly the Kirk. A further similarity to the present situation is that the demand by ministers for permission to remarry divorced persons arose out of a perceived pastoral need, in this case specifically the post-war rise in divorce.
Do you think something along similar lines for same-sex marriage could offer a constructive way forward for the Kirk?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
I understand why there are those calling for special sentences for scum like the men who murdered Stephen Lawrence, but surely the intentional murder of one man cannot be more or less serious than another?
The reason is that murdering someone on the grounds of their race or some other category that they may belong to is not only aimed at the person murdered - it is done to send a message to everybody else of the same race or other category. If Stephen Lawrence is murdered because he's a black man hanging around at a bus stop, the intention of the killers is to threaten any black man that they find hanging around at a bus stop. The crime is not only murder of the one person but also threatens the murder of other people.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
Louise, I don't need to link, I will give my own explanation.
I don't believe any crime is worse than another crime due to someone's perceived intent. If I had a family member (assume they are white, straight) who was seriously assaulted by some maniac for no apparent reason, that said maniac wouldn't receive as serious a sentence if the attack was due to race/homophobia. Why?
In the United States intent matters. There are substantially harsher penalties for premeditated murder even though all murders result in a dead person. Similarly Hate crime penalties address crimes that are part of a long standing understanding that killing those type of people doesn't matter.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Well if you just want to discuss hate crimes as a general issue Shaggy, then that belongs in Purgatory and you could start a thread there, so as not to derail this one. The general concept of 'hate crimes' is not a Dead Horse, though discussion of specific cases where DH issues are involved can be.
I can't see how vague allegations about 'lobbies and interest groups' making what are tendentiously characterised as 'ludicrous demands for hate crimes' has anything to do with gay ministers. I thought you might have specific examples to illuminate that, but it seems not. Thanks for clarifying that.
L.
Posted by Shaggy (# 16844) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Well if you just want to discuss hate crimes as a general issue Shaggy, then that belongs in Purgatory and you could start a thread there, so as not to derail this one. The general concept of 'hate crimes' is not a Dead Horse, though discussion of specific cases where DH issues are involved can be.
I can't see how vague allegations about 'lobbies and interest groups' making what are tendentiously characterised as 'ludicrous demands for hate crimes' has anything to do with gay ministers. I thought you might have specific examples to illuminate that, but it seems not. Thanks for clarifying that.
L.
Fair point about going off-piste so to speak. It was more of a "this link might be interesting" rather than an attempt to change the thrust of the thread.
Just to finalise on that, I understand totally why people wish to have particular hate crimes, but as of yet nothing has persuaded me why someone who murders a black person with racist intent should be locked up for longer than someone who murders a black person without racist intent.
[ 13. March 2012, 14:19: Message edited by: Shaggy ]
Posted by Shaggy (# 16844) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
Welcome back, Shaggy.
Might I ask you to have a look at the 1959 CofS Act Anent Re-marriage of Divorced Persons? This Act was the product of a previous Great Debate, which had similarly threatened to divide bitterly the Kirk. A further similarity to the present situation is that the demand by ministers for permission to remarry divorced persons arose out of a perceived pastoral need, in this case specifically the post-war rise in divorce.
Do you think something along similar lines for same-sex marriage could offer a constructive way forward for the Kirk?
Hi Cottontail - thanks for the welcome back!
Fascinating link as I'd never actually read the act covering this issue and am frankly amazed that it was so controversial at the time.
Firstly, it can't of been a Scriptural argument because quite clearly in the Gospels there is allowance for the re-marriage of those divorced through adultery, those abandones and also due to being married to an unbeliever (or as modern parlance may put it - irreconcilable differences...).
Secondly, it cannot be for Subordinate Standard reasons as the WCOF is quite clear on the "correct" grounds for a divorce. However, I guess there was some hesitancy because it didn't mention anything specifically regarding remarriage.
So for the sad issue of divorce I agree it was a very good act. (Although I know of many a minister - not by any means all airy fairy liberals... - who could do with actually acting out on some of the points.
Could a similar situation be put in place re Civil Partnerships / Gay Marriage? I suppose it could and I imagine it probably will in time. However, I don't think it would be supported by many of a more orthodox/evangelical persuasion.
Why? Divorce and remarriage are specifically mentioned within Scripture and the conditions put upon the remarriage of divorcees seem relatively straightforward. I don't know of many who could argue with that (I mean that certain circumstances were sanctioned in Scripture - not that there are those who hold different opinions on the remarriage of divorcees).
However, there does not seem to be such an equivocal allowance (if any) given in the Scriptures for the blessing of homesexual relationships as there is for the remarriage of divorcees in certain circumstances.
Coming from a WCOF point of view, the situation is very clear - "Marriage is to be between one man and one woman". Granted this was probably intended to prohibit any chance of polygamy - but it is still pretty hard to argue otherwise. I guess that's 'inter alia' where the freedom of conscience clause in the formula comes into play for many.
It's a shame Cottontail as I am almost certain this issue will cause even further major divisions in our church. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that it was going to happen and would sadly be over this issue and it looks increasingly likely that for many the future is outside the CofS - http://www.reformissionscotland.com/ as an example. Both parties are becoming more strident as the fight goes on longer. IMO this has happened because of what are now very different strands of Christianity (forget for a minute what sides we are on) trying to make the church be what we want it to look like.
When you have one wing of the church being in danger of worshipping "God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Scriptures...." and the other having elements of where a belief can be happily proclaimed at a GA that "Yes the Bible says that - but we know better", how can there possibly be a reconciliation?
Or how can people who would happily preach that Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead (thereby negating the theological aspects of a physical resurrection) contest that they are in the same "Communion" as those who believe Jesus both did and have to rise from the dead?
For many, their idea of a personal hell would probably consist of long conservative evangelical preaching in St George's Tron, whilst for others it is sitting in a room chanting Taize all night. There's diversity and then there's just plain different.
It's a shame as I have good friends who are more liberal christians, I loved being part of a wider diverse (although at times too diverse...) church at Youth & General Assemblies - it's just becoming increasingly clear that actually we may just all be better if rather than trying to force "the other side" to do it our way, we just amicably go our separate ways and do as we want without the constant fights and struggles for control.
[ 13. March 2012, 15:05: Message edited by: Shaggy ]
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
However, there does not seem to be such an equivocal allowance (if any) given in the Scriptures for the blessing of homesexual relationships as there is for the remarriage of divorcees in certain circumstances.
As long as you pre-redact the equivocal bits, but then I guess as a Reformation church you come by that honestly ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 13. March 2012, 16:44: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
I don't believe any crime is worse than another crime due to someone's perceived intent. If I had a family member (assume they are white, straight) who was seriously assaulted by some maniac for no apparent reason, that said maniac wouldn't receive as serious a sentence if the attack was due to race/homophobia. Why?
Intent is already a major part of criminal law in most Western nations. It's how we differentiate between murder, manslaughter, and accidental homicide, among other crimes. Likewise it is often considered a factor in sentencing, with particularly cruel or remorseless acts sentenced more harshly. What you seem to be arguing seems like a variation of the "gay panic" defense, where anti-gay animus is the only form of intent not considered criminally relevant.
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
As much as I detest any hate crimes directed against a particular section of society, I don't see why one community should receive greater protection than another purely because of their race and/or sexual orientation. Are we not all equal under the law? Yes the argument goes that those minority communities deserve special protection under the law, but in doing so does it not make some more equal than others?
This seems like a variation on "black, yellow, brown, or normal", where white folks assume race is only something non-white people have. Similarly, heterosexuals assume "sexual orientation" is something only queers have. What usually underlies this is the understanding that almost no one goes out "straight bashing", so it's not so much that straights (or whites) aren't covered by hate crimes laws as much as their presumption that they don't need such protection.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
...
It's a shame Cottontail as I am almost certain this issue will cause even further major divisions in our church. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that it was going to happen and would sadly be over this issue and it looks increasingly likely that for many the future is outside the CofS - http://www.reformissionscotland.com/ as an example. Both parties are becoming more strident as the fight goes on longer. IMO this has happened because of what are now very different strands of Christianity (forget for a minute what sides we are on) trying to make the church be what we want it to look like.
When you have one wing of the church being in danger of worshipping "God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Scriptures...." and the other having elements of where a belief can be happily proclaimed at a GA that "Yes the Bible says that - but we know better", how can there possibly be a reconciliation?
Or how can people who would happily preach that Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead (thereby negating the theological aspects of a physical resurrection) contest that they are in the same "Communion" as those who believe Jesus both did and have to rise from the dead?
For many, their idea of a personal hell would probably consist of long conservative evangelical preaching in St George's Tron, whilst for others it is sitting in a room chanting Taize all night. There's diversity and then there's just plain different.
It's a shame as I have good friends who are more liberal christians, I loved being part of a wider diverse (although at times too diverse...) church at Youth & General Assemblies - it's just becoming increasingly clear that actually we may just all be better if rather than trying to force "the other side" to do it our way, we just amicably go our separate ways and do as we want without the constant fights and struggles for control.
It would sadden me greatly if our broad church were to split into two (or more) narrow ones. I am sorry that you cannot see a way forward, even in terms of an Act which is set out carefully, so that all points of view are respected, and no one is forced to deny their convictions in this matter. As far as I am aware, those on the revisionist end of the spectrum are not trying to force the traditionalist end to do anything: merely to make room for others who believe differently. Why is this so unacceptable? What do the traditionalists want? Why can they not try to make room for me, when I am working so hard at making room for them? What will it take to get them to trust us?
(Btw, there is certainly no room for me in such alternative churches as Reformission Scotland. As a woman minister, they will not have me there, and nor will they have women elders. Are we women one of the prices that must be paid for doctrinal purity? Is that a price you personally are prepared to pay?)
I should clarify something else while I am at it. I am not a liberal. Nor am I a conservative Christian, though I claim that word 'orthodox' just as keenly as you do. You seem to equate a 'liberal' position on gay marriage with a disregard for the authority of the Bible. Not so. I don't equivocate on calling the Bible the Word of God. I believe it is inspired. I shape my life according to its witness. I believe that God speaks and reveals in Scripture today. And I certainly don't think that I know better than the Bible. We will no doubt disagree on precisely what we mean by "inerrancy" and "inspiration", although we might also find more agreement than we think. But how will we know unless we talk - and listen - to one another?
So what you cannot say is that I take the Bible less seriously than you do. On the contrary, it is precisely because I take the Bible so seriously that I am in favour of gay marriage. There are whole threads on this elsewhere, so if you want to discuss biblical interpretation re. homosexuality, then please do go to one of them and engage there. But my support of gay marriage is not me disregarding the Bible. It is me regarding the Bible so highly that I can do no other.
Moreover, on these these other 'liberal' theologies you have highlighted: Let me reassure you that I believe in the miraculous virgin birth. I believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man. I believe unambiguously in the bodily resurrection. I can say the creeds in their entirety without crossing my fingers. All these beliefs I presume I share with you and with most other conservative evangelicals. Yet because we disagree on this one issue, you can no longer work with me?
From where I am standing, the dialogue is still open. This thread is actually a good example of precisely the kind of dialogue we should be having. We are talking, and we are listening (mostly!), and we are revising our stereotypes of one another.
I am grief-stricken over what is happening in our church. Believe me, I have felt like walking away. But I am still here, and I am still trying.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
Thanks for that, Cottontail. I've noticed the tendency of proponents of the double standard to "talking around" the issue. In North American Anglicanism, where we've been experiencing schism over this issue, the leadership of the departing churches has taken great pains to paint queer inclusion as part of a broader mission to overthrow the authority of the Bible in the Church.
Never mind that those in the "Network" have far less classically Anglican* understandings of ecclesiology, ministry, and sacrament than most gay Christians I know, nor indeed why a mafia of unbelievers would wish to devote their lives to infiltrating an organization based on a text they reject. The thinness of the actual Biblical case for recognizing companionate marriages, second marriages, childless marriages, and drawing the line at gay marriages, leaves opponents attacking it more or less as a kind of theological guilt by association (and even then, the association is not straightforward).
I tangled with a blogger who was outraged by the revised rite for blessing of civil marriages a nearby bishop authorized in his diocese. He refused to recognize that many gay Anglicans would agree with him, and prefer to be included in the existing formularies than given a watered-down and theologically meandering local product. No, the fact that dodgy theology and the option for same-sex unions appeared to coexist in this one rite was proof positive that they were inevitable bedfellows always and everywhere.
Yet when, a little later, another bishop chose simply to authorize the national church's rite for the blessing of civil marriages with only the pronouns tweaked, the same blogger was just as outraged, and didn't seem to realize that this proved my point. He was complaining about SSM as a "change" in the Church's theology, but here was a demonstration that no such change was needed, and the marriages could still go off without a hitch (ahem!)
That's where I get stuck. The "Church's teaching" isn't a fuzzy abstract concept, and in this case whether something contradicts it is a something we can read for ourselves. For Anglicans, the meaning of marriage is set out in the language of our services, language we share with many Protestant traditions* (through the cross-pollination of worship books in the English-speaking world) and that language doesn't have the "smoking gun" they would have as precluding such unions. That's a matter of empirical data, and when contras shrug it off with vagaries like "I don't see it that way" or "I feel differently," they cannot sincerely claim to take offence when it is observed that prejudice and not a study of the Scripture on its own terms without preconceived conclusions is driving them.
(*regardless of which of the various understandings of these subjects you hang on the coathook of "classical Anglicanism," the independent and mostly charismatic church-planters who have found disgruntled Anglican bishops a congenial, nonterritorial "see" in which to hang their hats and who make up the new body are not it.)
(*the RC tradition at least "sins boldly" with consistency and freely owns the inanities its corruption of natural law leads into, whether at the expense of gays, the impotent, or survivors of abusive marriages).
[ 13. March 2012, 21:48: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posted by Shaggy (# 16844) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
...
It's a shame Cottontail as I am almost certain this issue will cause even further major divisions in our church. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that it was going to happen and would sadly be over this issue and it looks increasingly likely that for many the future is outside the CofS - http://www.reformissionscotland.com/ as an example. Both parties are becoming more strident as the fight goes on longer. IMO this has happened because of what are now very different strands of Christianity (forget for a minute what sides we are on) trying to make the church be what we want it to look like.
When you have one wing of the church being in danger of worshipping "God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Scriptures...." and the other having elements of where a belief can be happily proclaimed at a GA that "Yes the Bible says that - but we know better", how can there possibly be a reconciliation?
Or how can people who would happily preach that Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead (thereby negating the theological aspects of a physical resurrection) contest that they are in the same "Communion" as those who believe Jesus both did and have to rise from the dead?
For many, their idea of a personal hell would probably consist of long conservative evangelical preaching in St George's Tron, whilst for others it is sitting in a room chanting Taize all night. There's diversity and then there's just plain different.
It's a shame as I have good friends who are more liberal christians, I loved being part of a wider diverse (although at times too diverse...) church at Youth & General Assemblies - it's just becoming increasingly clear that actually we may just all be better if rather than trying to force "the other side" to do it our way, we just amicably go our separate ways and do as we want without the constant fights and struggles for control.
It would sadden me greatly if our broad church were to split into two (or more) narrow ones. I am sorry that you cannot see a way forward, even in terms of an Act which is set out carefully, so that all points of view are respected, and no one is forced to deny their convictions in this matter. As far as I am aware, those on the revisionist end of the spectrum are not trying to force the traditionalist end to do anything: merely to make room for others who believe differently. Why is this so unacceptable? What do the traditionalists want? Why can they not try to make room for me, when I am working so hard at making room for them? What will it take to get them to trust us?
(Btw, there is certainly no room for me in such alternative churches as Reformission Scotland. As a woman minister, they will not have me there, and nor will they have women elders. Are we women one of the prices that must be paid for doctrinal purity? Is that a price you personally are prepared to pay?)
I should clarify something else while I am at it. I am not a liberal. Nor am I a conservative Christian, though I claim that word 'orthodox' just as keenly as you do. You seem to equate a 'liberal' position on gay marriage with a disregard for the authority of the Bible. Not so. I don't equivocate on calling the Bible the Word of God. I believe it is inspired. I shape my life according to its witness. I believe that God speaks and reveals in Scripture today. And I certainly don't think that I know better than the Bible. We will no doubt disagree on precisely what we mean by "inerrancy" and "inspiration", although we might also find more agreement than we think. But how will we know unless we talk - and listen - to one another?
So what you cannot say is that I take the Bible less seriously than you do. On the contrary, it is precisely because I take the Bible so seriously that I am in favour of gay marriage. There are whole threads on this elsewhere, so if you want to discuss biblical interpretation re. homosexuality, then please do go to one of them and engage there. But my support of gay marriage is not me disregarding the Bible. It is me regarding the Bible so highly that I can do no other.
Moreover, on these these other 'liberal' theologies you have highlighted: Let me reassure you that I believe in the miraculous virgin birth. I believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man. I believe unambiguously in the bodily resurrection. I can say the creeds in their entirety without crossing my fingers. All these beliefs I presume I share with you and with most other conservative evangelicals. Yet because we disagree on this one issue, you can no longer work with me?
From where I am standing, the dialogue is still open. This thread is actually a good example of precisely the kind of dialogue we should be having. We are talking, and we are listening (mostly!), and we are revising our stereotypes of one another.
I am grief-stricken over what is happening in our church. Believe me, I have felt like walking away. But I am still here, and I am still trying.
CT, thank you for your honest post. My sincere apologies if you felt I was implying that. I guess I'm not very experienced at putting my point across in print.
I wasn't for a second thinking you or others on here don't take the Bible seriously (I can see how that came across with what I wrote - although my point about there being the 2 extremities within the CofS remains true). One of the benefits of having served my apprenticeship so to speak in the CofS youth setup is understanding not just what, but why others believe things from Scripture. If I had to, I would be able to argue why God would completely want to bless committed, homesexual relationships. And I mean argue in a serious, backed up by Scripture, well thoughout out theological manner. I imagine you would be able to argue from my perspective also. Do we agree with each other? Clearly not, but I don't believe that by disagreeing one or other are not serious about Scripture.
My points re the bodily resurrection etc were more to do with showing the breadth of belief within the church and how this really is the factor of the divisions. Homesexual relationships has IMO purely been a catalyst to the long inevitability of a showdown between two fiercely held positions (Con-Evo and Liberal/Revisionist) with the tolerant centre ground trying desperately to hold it all together.
I think I said in my first post that this is in fact the worst issue to have taken a stand on for the Con-Evos. If they had taken long ago as strong a position on say the bodily resurrection of Jesus, or on the issue of universalism then yes there would have been as serious a division but without much of the current vitriolic accusations on both sides (something I hope we have managed to avoid on this thread - I know I've seem to upset people but it's been quite unintentional so I'm sorry if that's been you) which helps not one iota with the proclamation of the Gospel to Scotland.
I appreciate your plea for unity and understanding and indeed your point about Reformission Scotland. How many evangelicals have behaved in the CofS is IMO nothing short of outrageous. Refusing to regularly attend (let alone serve in) Presbytery, not willing to serve on wider committees, knowing nobody outside our own wee grouping and generally having a total distrust of "the system" yet being able to happily take the money/benefits when they come.
In the spirit of sharing and listening perhaps I can share my bit. Put simply, you couldn't get much more CofS than me (a situation many of you here might be familiar with!). Son of a minister who in turn was the son of an elder, baptised by the same CofS minister who baptised my dad and uncle, professed faith in the church I grew up in, Sunday school teacher, even as a student I felt unable to go to a non CofS church (none of my other christian friends at uni were CofS). I forced myself to go to Youth Assemblies (hardly a hotbed of evangelicalism) did Summer Mission and had the privilege of serving communion at the GA as a youth rep on my 21st birthday.
Few things sadden me more that I felt (and still feel) unable in conscience to pursue any longer my life-long ambition (yes I will call it that) to preach Jesus as a mininster in the CofS. I got to the stage just before assessment conference before I concluded I could not take authority from a Presbytery who licensed folk to preach who in effect held to a totally different Gospel to me. And you know what, it hurts, so much. It hurt me when I was told at successive YAs that I was a "bigot" for daring to say I didn't believe in sex before marriage or a "fundamentalist invading our Kirk". Or that my own faith (far more in line with the WCF than many) could be publically mocked (how dare I mention that sin could be an issue) by speakers at a YA or even a GA. It hurt me when a prominent ministries staffer at 121 felt able to complain at an enquirers conference that so many ministers "all men of course..." were coming from evangelical churches. I like many from the other perspective could go on (I'm not saying others have not been given as a rough a ride from evangelicals - I know they have - I'm just giving my own experience).
I know from many late night conversations that this is an extremity and the vast majority of people within the CofS are totally unlike this (I'm beginning to well up now...). The vast majority are serious Christians who love Jesus and want to tell the people of Scotland about Him. It's that other minority who I cannot in conscience be under the same discipline of and there are very few days that I don't get upset about that.
Apologies for going on here - I feel I've kinda "gone on" but you guys whilst we disagree and I upset you, I really like you all so thought I'd share.
Posted by Shaggy (# 16844) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Thanks for that, Cottontail. I've noticed the tendency of proponents of the double standard to "talking around" the issue. In North American Anglicanism, where we've been experiencing schism over this issue, the leadership of the departing churches has taken great pains to paint queer inclusion as part of a broader mission to overthrow the authority of the Bible in the Church.
Never mind that those in the "Network" have far less classically Anglican* understandings of ecclesiology, ministry, and sacrament than most gay Christians I know, nor indeed why a mafia of unbelievers would wish to devote their lives to infiltrating an organization based on a text they reject. The thinness of the actual Biblical case for recognizing companionate marriages, second marriages, childless marriages, and drawing the line at gay marriages, leaves opponents attacking it more or less as a kind of theological guilt by association (and even then, the association is not straightforward).
I tangled with a blogger who was outraged by the revised rite for blessing of civil marriages a nearby bishop authorized in his diocese. He refused to recognize that many gay Anglicans would agree with him, and prefer to be included in the existing formularies than given a watered-down and theologically meandering local product. No, the fact that dodgy theology and the option for same-sex unions appeared to coexist in this one rite was proof positive that they were inevitable bedfellows always and everywhere.
Yet when, a little later, another bishop chose simply to authorize the national church's rite for the blessing of civil marriages with only the pronouns tweaked, the same blogger was just as outraged, and didn't seem to realize that this proved my point. He was complaining about SSM as a "change" in the Church's theology, but here was a demonstration that no such change was needed, and the marriages could still go off without a hitch (ahem!)
That's where I get stuck. The "Church's teaching" isn't a fuzzy abstract concept, and in this case whether something contradicts it is a something we can read for ourselves. For Anglicans, the meaning of marriage is set out in the language of our services, language we share with many Protestant traditions* (through the cross-pollination of worship books in the English-speaking world) and that language doesn't have the "smoking gun" they would have as precluding such unions. That's a matter of empirical data, and when contras shrug it off with vagaries like "I don't see it that way" or "I feel differently," they cannot sincerely claim to take offence when it is observed that prejudice and not a study of the Scripture on its own terms without preconceived conclusions is driving them.
(*regardless of which of the various understandings of these subjects you hang on the coathook of "classical Anglicanism," the independent and mostly charismatic church-planters who have found disgruntled Anglican bishops a congenial, nonterritorial "see" in which to hang their hats and who make up the new body are not it.)
(*the RC tradition at least "sins boldly" with consistency and freely owns the inanities its corruption of natural law leads into, whether at the expense of gays, the impotent, or survivors of abusive marriages).
LQ, please feel included in my apology above.
Re your smoking gun, how would the BCP (1662) square with that? It's section marriage clearly prescribes that marriage is between one man and one woman?
I'm not trying to catch you out. I'm just genuinely interested in how you would approach that?
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
Well, for starters, 1662 is explicit about marriage as a remedy for fornication (this language is absent from even our own 1959 BCP) which kind of takes the salt out of those who protest that SS relationships are no more or less a sin than any "other" [sic] sex outside marriage. That's another part of what puzzles me about contra arguments: it seems that all roads lead to Rome, as it were.
If you don't think there's anything out of the ordinary, salvation-wise, about unions between persons of the same gender, then you're fine and have nothing to worry about. If you think there it is a departure from God's creation ordinances for some reason, then they are fornicating and in need of a sanctifying remedy under the pastoral care of the church and its office of keys.
What I can't fathom are arguments which posit that same-gender relationships are morally anomalous and yet that somehow is a argument NOT to bless. Assuming they aren't just determined to see gays damned if they do or don't, why don't we ever hear what they think *should* be the church's response to Pittenger's "conscientious homosexual" (i.e. who wishes to pattern her home life on the Gospel) - *especially* if they believe her salvation to be at risk?
[ 14. March 2012, 16:57: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Good to see you back, Shaggy!
Posted by Shaggy (# 16844) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Good to see you back, Shaggy!
Thanks NEQ. Good to be back!
Sadly though I've seemed to deterred everyone else away!
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0