Thread: Bloody Sentamu 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=029037
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Gay Anglican preacher forced to ‘choose between marriage or ministry'
Bloody Sentamu. Bloody, bloody Sentamu. Bloody, bloody, bloody Sentamu.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
This, of course, is the same John Sentamu who rails against all other forms of inequality such as racism. The man who, only two years ago, said in the House of Lords
quote:
It is a matter of deep personal regret and sorrow to me that homosexual people are still diminished, which is anathema to me and to the Primates of the Anglican Communion.
Of course, he conveniently seems to have 'forgotten' that he was one of four bishops (Carey, Hope & Kemp were the others) who refused to sign the Cambridge Accord.
The man is a hypocrite.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Perhaps he meant that because homosexual people are still around to be diminished, they're stil there, and that's what he regrets. What a horrible man he is. Curious list of Bishops, by the way: Carey we would expect, but if Kemp had a downer on gays that'd have ruled out half his diocesan clergy and as for Hope and his 'grey area'...
[ 13. August 2015, 15:49: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
Sentamu could do everyone a favour by retiring ASAP.
His mucky fingerprints are all over a number of disgraceful incidents in recent years. His bullying actions in preventing Jeffrey John from being considered for Bishop of Southwark are well documented. His role as the "puppet master" of Richard Inwood in the Jeremy Pemberton affair is also an open secret. And now this egregious decision.
Are all gay and lesbian Readers to be driven out of the C of E?
I hope that Jeremy Timm's group of parishes (who seem to be strongly supporting him) take action to make Sentamu back down. Unilateral withdrawal of parish share payments might be appropriate.
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on
:
The whole thing is sadly all too believable.
Crap temporal establishment
Crap Bish.
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
With the apppointment of women to the episcopate, there were cries that they needed to make sure they made a difference. How would something like the following work as a female bishop doing something different:
quote:
Alison, by divine permission, Bishop of Hull to our dearly beloved in Christ Jeremy, Greeting.
We do by these instruments instruct you to disregard the pronouncement of our brother Archbishop, and to grant you permission to officiate in the Howden Team etc. etc.
Though I assume the spine removal process was unchanged...
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
The whole thing is sadly all too believable.
Crap temporal establishment
Crap Bish.
Nothing to do with Establishment. I think Sentamu would behave like this whether the Church were established or not.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I think Sentamu would behave like this whether the Church were established or not.
In fact, I suspect he would be worse. The veneer of respectability offered by establishment does so tie his hands sometimes.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I thought this was in line with the current doctrine of the CofE regarding same sex marriage ?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Still can't understand why these people want to be part of the same church. It sounds like a marriage made in hell.
Yes, I know we're supposed to be all for unity, but 'if you love someone, set them free'. Disestablish the CofE and they might each go their own way. No more tears.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I thought this was in line with the current doctrine of the CofE regarding same sex marriage ?
There is no current doctrine of the CofE regarding same-sex marriage for lay people. The Bishops have issued guidance saying clergy shouldn't marry someone of the same sex. There is no such rule for lay people in general or lay readers in particular. Even the rule for clergy doesn't prescribe sacking as the appropriate punishment. Sentamu is just being a homophobic git and abusing his power.
Disestablishment would make little difference. The SEC is not established. TEC is not established. The Church in Wales and the Church of Ireland are not established. They're all having to deal with bigots trying to force their homophobia on congregations who don't share it, though some are better at dealing with it than others. No, the real culprit here is the Anglican Communion. There is no point trying to appease provinces who think gay people should be criminalised, and that is what Archbishop Justin has been doing, just like Archbishop Rowan before him.
[ 14. August 2015, 06:08: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
This did make me wonder for a moment whether, sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander and all that, and as catholic order seems to be going out of the window in the CofE as elsewhere, ++Barry* here in Wales (who is very inclusive of gay people) should emulate some of the African and South American bishops and offer pastoral oversight to those in other provinces who are having difficulty with their diocesan's position on sexuality. Not seriously, but a nice idle thought.
*His name is Barry. He is not Archbishop of Barry.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Maybe our Primus should do the same. Heck, we should just be able to launch a takeover of Sodor and Mann - I already live in Sodor.
[ 14. August 2015, 06:35: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
I genuinely think this might be a stretch too far on +John's part. Although many of the laity have, quite rightly, been appalled at the way clergy in same-sex marriages have been treated by the machinery of the CofE, now "their own" (i.e. laity) have been turned on as well I would expect the response to be much stronger.
Where, oh where, on earth will this stop? Are we to have Archdeacons refusing to swear in Churchwardens who are in same-sex marriages? Are churches to be instructed not to allow those in same-sex marriages to play the organ (good luck!), sing in choirs (good luck!), work with children, act as servers, readers, intercessors, chalice assistants, sidespeople?
It is really difficult to square the sort of treatment meted out to Jeremy Timms with the statement from the House of Bishops Pastoral Statement that:
quote:
Those same sex couples who choose to marry should be welcomed into the life of the worshipping community and not be subjected to questioning about their lifestyle.
Clearly, by some bizarre construction "the life of the worshipping community" excludes any sort of leadership position...
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Arethosemyfeet quote:
There is no point trying to appease provinces who think gay people should be criminalised, and that is what Archbishop Justin has been doing, just like Archbishop Rowan before him.
Hear, hear!
But I fear you're wrong about ++Justin: if he's true to his HTB roots then he'll consider the line being peddled by York is just fine.
I agree with you about Sentamu abusing his power and being a git - I'd go further but TIACW.
As for Albertus quote:
This did make me wonder for a moment whether, sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander and all that, and as catholic order seems to be going out of the window in the CofE as elsewhere, ++Barry* here in Wales (who is very inclusive of gay people) should emulate some of the African and South American bishops and offer pastoral oversight to those in other provinces who are having difficulty with their diocesan's position on sexuality. Not seriously, but a nice idle thought.
Why so, not 'serious'? After all, the CofE accepted that ++Rowan could be ABofC and as such hold post in the CofE as well as being CC&BW* of the Anglican Communion, so what's to stop ++Barry offering oversight?
Yes, I know that ++Barry, being a reasonable and decent chap is unlikely to put himself forward, but what if he were to be petitioned (in all seriousness) by people in the CofE, laypeople especially? If the CofE can have flying bishops I don't see how they could reasonably refuse people seeking episcopal oversight from someone as orthodox as Cambrensis.
* CC&BW = Chief Cook & Bottle Washer
edited to include:
iamchristianhearmeroar
You are making the mistake of thinking that ++York sees himself as primus inter pares(first among equals), whereas the evidence is overwhelming that he sees himself as primus (bishop or first), period. As for him not being clear on the legal position, I'd doubt that very much - look at his background: not only a lawyer but for a short time a high court judge. He knows exactly what he's doing: The man is a bully.
[ 14. August 2015, 10:47: Message edited by: L'organist ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As for Albertus quote:
This did make me wonder for a moment whether, sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander and all that, and as catholic order seems to be going out of the window in the CofE as elsewhere, ++Barry* here in Wales (who is very inclusive of gay people) should emulate some of the African and South American bishops and offer pastoral oversight to those in other provinces who are having difficulty with their diocesan's position on sexuality. Not seriously, but a nice idle thought.
Why so, not 'serious'? After all, the CofE accepted that ++Rowan could be ABofC and as such hold post in the CofE as well as being CC&BW* of the Anglican Communion, so what's to stop ++Barry offering oversight?
Yes, I know that ++Barry, being a reasonable and decent chap is unlikely to put himself forward, but what if he were to be petitioned (in all seriousness) by people in the CofE, laypeople especially? If the CofE can have flying bishops I don't see how they could reasonably refuse people seeking episcopal oversight from someone as orthodox as Cambrensis.
Not serious, only because I disapprove of flying bishops and even more so of bishops from one province intervening in the affairs of another. If some Nigerian or Southern Cone bishop popped up claiming to be responsible for some bunch of homophobes in Wales I'd get cross and that has to work both ways.
Mind you, this all makes me appreciate more and more how fortunate we are here in Wales at the moment, and if I were ++Barry I would certainly be very tempted to drop, unsolicited, a licence for Llandaff diocese in the post to Mr Timms- whether he'd want to use it or not.
[ 14. August 2015, 11:17: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Are all gay and lesbian Readers to be driven out of the C of E?
There was a similar case in the Diocese of Bath & Wells - two women Readers entered into a civil partnership and had their licenses withdrawn.
I've heard many nasty things about Sentamu going back to his Stepney days - that he was an awful bully to his clergy. Some explanations were racist - that his native culture encouraged leaders to be autocrats. I'd hoped that they were from people who had an axe to grind but there is obviously no smoke without fire.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I meant to add that readers are particularly vulnerable because licenses have to be renewed every 5 years - a bishop, incumbent or PCC can object.
It is not a jopb so isn't cverered by employment laws.
There's no avenue of appeal - except to the archbishop (so tough if you are in the northern province) - in any case if you appealed, you'd be very unpopular with the people with whom you want to work.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
I sometimes wonder why anyone who happens to be divorced/single/gay/asexual/celibate by choice or vocation would ever want to seek office or minister in the so-called 'Church of England'.
I'm heading steadily for the exit....a little way off yet, but not too far......
Ian J.
Posted by Masha (# 10098) on
:
TomM, that might be a bit hard on +Alison.
She's fairly new in post and this could put her in a difficult position. I don't think she'd be able to overrule the Diocesan.
This is a very depressing story. Very depressing indeed.
The CofE loses a valuable minister and faithful Christian. Why is it anything to do with the church anyway, given that this will be a civil marriage? That's very odd.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
What riles me most is that while ++York is happy to flex his muscles about a Reader marrying, he's supine when faced with Melvin Tinker (a vicar in Hull) giving interviews likening homosexuality to Paedophilia - indeed, when that happened Sentamu bent over backwards to defend the objectionable Mr Tinker's right to be loathsome, saying quote:
Clergy of the Diocese are entitled to express varying views on the question of human sexuality. That is the nature of the Church of England. How those views are expressed is central to how we are heard as Church. Our first call is to love God and one another. The principles established in recent Church of England and Anglican Communion statements on these matters are clear: alongside a reaffirmation of traditional Christian understanding of human sexuality, orientation, and behaviour, whatever one’s personal views, there is a Christian duty to offer pastoral care and friendship to all people
I particularly like the last bit - I'm sure Mr Timm and his partner are feeling the full warmth of the Archbishop's 'friendship' at the moment.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Masha says that its asking a lot to expect +Alison to stick her neck out but in fact, if the correct procedure for discipline and readers has been followed, then she must have already been consulted, together with the Dean for Lay Ministry.
As for Masha's other comment quote:
Why is it anything to do with the church anyway, given that this will be a civil marriage? That's very odd.
Well, I think the answer can be found in looking at Sentamu's opinion of SSM; no, not the semi-cuddly flannel that is pushed out by Church House and the whitewash jobs from his Press Office, but by those things he's said or written which he'd probably prefer we'd all forget. Something like the following, which formed part of his formal response to the government consultation on how to introduce equal civil marriage rights for gay and straight couples, and which The Daily Telegraph published in 2012 quote:
If the rights of civil partners are met differently in law to those of married couples, there is no discrimination in law, and if civil partnerships are seen as somehow ‘second class’ that is a social attitude which will change and cannot, in any case, be turned around by redefining the law of marriage. It may even make social attitudes go in reverse gear.
So I submit that to use the law to redefine marriage when there is no legal inequity involved is a misuse of the statute. It must never be used to give comfort or reassurance but to remedy an injustice.
Quite how he, or his press officer, squares that with "offering friendship to all people" and declaring his "personal regret and sorrow" that gay people are diminished is beyond me.
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Masha:
TomM, that might be a bit hard on +Alison.
She's fairly new in post and this could put her in a difficult position. I don't think she'd be able to overrule the Diocesan.
This is a very depressing story. Very depressing indeed.
The CofE loses a valuable minister and faithful Christian. Why is it anything to do with the church anyway, given that this will be a civil marriage? That's very odd.
I know - I am entirely in jest. I wouldn't really expect it of her, or anyone else.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I don't suppose, really, that I expected much else than this from Sentamu. I know he's a homophobe and have long suspected that he was a bully. But the idea that it's OK to be in a civil partnership but not in a civil SSM baffles me. If he'd said 'you can't be a reader because you're in a gay relationship' then I would deplore it but I could understand it: it would at elast be a consistent position. But this is weird. It's as if, in the days when the Church wouldn't remarry a divorcee with a living spouse, it had been perfectly happy that a, male reader was cohabiting with a divorced woman but had thrown a wobbly when they decided to get married (in a register offfice).
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
It might open the door to more pressure put on the church to begin performing church weddings (horrors! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
) of these newly legal sorts if positive and involved gay Christians are allowed to remain positive and involved in the CoE while married.
Posted by Masha (# 10098) on
:
Sense of humour failure on my part, TomM!
Indeed, Albertus, that's what I find so perplexing. It's almost as though he's saying, 'You are using a word I don't want you to use to describe your relationship, and being joined to one another in a ceremony I don't wish you to have, therefore, you no longer have PTO.'
I do not get it.
It's a civil marriage. He's not being asked to conduct the ceremony in York Minster.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
And indeed could not, under the current law, even if he wanted to! The statute positively forbids the CofE and CinW to conduct SSMs unless and until they go back to the government and ask them for the bar to be removed. AIUI this is for complicated reasons relating to the Human Rights Act and the different legal status of CofE/ CinW marriages from those of other churches.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
If he'd said 'you can't be a reader because you're in a gay relationship' then I would deplore it but I could understand it: it would at elast be a consistent position.
But it isn't in line with 'Issues in Human Sexuality' which says that clergy are NOT at liberty to enter into gay relastionships but LAY people may if their conscience....
To treat LAY Readers as if they are clergy is against the guidance.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Changing Attitude are discussing this a lot, for obvious reasons. It is totally not in keeping with Issues and is deeply hypocritical.
I personally would be opposed to an inclusive flying bishop - to me the concept is so deeply un-Anglican - despite being in Winchester diocese...
Bishops Finger I am a little surprised you mentioned celibate and asexual people - it's not a problem as far as I know within the CoE and is especially not a problem for religious, many of whom are ordained. That is an interesting question though - religious are not obliged to be obedient to Issues, but does that change if they are ordained?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Well, presumably Religious are expected to be celibate anyway, aren't they? Or are you including tertiaries and so on in that?
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Oh no, wasn't thinking of tertiaries. But the word on the ground is that people are being expected to *agree* with Issues, not just assenting to obeying it.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Masha:
Why is it anything to do with the church anyway, given that this will be a civil marriage? That's very odd.
Isn't marriage seen as a 'creation ordinance' so a marriage is a marriage - whether civil or religious? Unless you are going to take the line that all non-Christian marriages aren't really marriages.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
That's extremely un-Anglican. I mean, AIUI clergy don't even have to *agree* with the XXXIX Articles, just assent to them, so why Issues should have any higher status than that is beyond me! And as for Religious- surely the answer is just 'I'm keeping my pants on anyway, so there's nothing for anyone else to worry about'.
[ 15. August 2015, 07:10: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Whatever our views on this, there are inconsistencies all ways round. I know gay clergy who are co-habiting with 'unbelieving' partners with the full knowledge of their bishop.
So things are pretty mixed.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Which seems to send out the message that co-habitation (with "no questions asked") is "OK", but making it properly legal and moral by getting married is a real "no-no" ...? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Which seems to send out the message that co-habitation (with "no questions asked") is "OK", but making it properly legal and moral by getting married is a real "no-no" ...?
Ah, but if they're just cohabiting or in a civil partnership then you can put your fingers in you ears and pretend they're just good friends and most certainly aren't getting any closer than 6 inches from each other and certainly aren't having sex. But, if they're married then they absolutely must be bonking non-stop.
As ever the position of the CofE hierarchy reminds me of this sketch from the early 80s (which is depressing in itself in that we've not made much progress in 30 years):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJy2UucDcDw
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
This 'pretend nothing's happening' thing has been going on for a long time. As a potential ordinand in Southwark- then as now hardly a hotbed of homophobia- in the early 1990s, I remember feeling quite miffed that while it was made clear to me that if I and my girlfriend were to move in together then I could wave goodbye to the discernment process for the time being, I knew or knew of at least two men in cohabiting gay partnerships who were accepted for ordination, and ordained, at about that time. Ah yes, but of course, they were just sharing flats, weren't they?
I suppose you might be able to kid yourself the same way about civil partnerships- just enduring the property rights and so on. If you were stupid and wilful and hypocritical enough to do so.
I much prefer the attitude of the TEC Bishop who,IIRC, when SSM was introduced in his state,actually ordered his cohabiting gay clergy to marry or separate- because that's what he would have told straight cohabitees to do. Can't remember who it was - someone in New York State I think (do they have SSM?) but it was mentioned somewhere on these boards.
[ 15. August 2015, 11:05: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Gamaliel quote:
Whatever our views on this, there are inconsistencies all ways round. I know gay clergy who are co-habiting with 'unbelieving' partners with the full knowledge of their bishop.
Is that all? I knew one bishop who had a sexual relationship with his unbelieving partner.
In better news on the public face of bishops, Nigel Stock praught a fine sermon at the VJ service in St Martin-in-the-Fields. Don't know anything about him but today, at least, he gave bishops of the CofE a good image.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The Right Reverend John Gladwin (previous Bishop of Chelmsford) is still a patron of Changing Attitudes, as is the Right Reverend John Packer, Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, as was the Right Reverend David Stancliffe (late of Salisbury) and the Right Reverend Barry Morgan, Archbishop of Wales. Not all the English bishops are unsupportive; there are supportive bishops outside Wales.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
This 'pretend nothing's happening' thing has been going on for a long time. As a potential ordinand in Southwark- then as now hardly a hotbed of homophobia- in the early 1990s, I remember feeling quite miffed that while it was made clear to me that if I and my girlfriend were to move in together then I could wave goodbye to the discernment process for the time being, I knew or knew of at least two men in cohabiting gay partnerships who were accepted for ordination, and ordained, at about that time. Ah yes, but of course, they were just sharing flats, weren't they?
I suppose you might be able to kid yourself the same way about civil partnerships- just enduring the property rights and so on. If you were stupid and wilful and hypocritical enough to do so.
I much prefer the attitude of the TEC Bishop who,IIRC, when SSM was introduced in his state,actually ordered his cohabiting gay clergy to marry or separate- because that's what he would have told straight cohabitees to do. Can't remember who it was - someone in New York State I think (do they have SSM?) but it was mentioned somewhere on these boards.
Churches are used to turning a blind eye randomly to certain discreet behaviours that they don't officially approve of. This is where the hypocrisy lies.
The only way to avoid the hypocrisy, ISTM, is for the CofE (or any other church) publicly to change its theology on sex in general, let alone sexuality.
This would certainly clear the waters. It would also clear the decks of reactionary and conservative members, which would make the church smaller.
TEC seems better able to cope with this. I read somewhere that being surrounded by a dominant evangelical Christian culture has made it easier for TEC to distinguish itself, not just on this matter but on others. England is more secular, and its Non-conformist and sectarian Christians are weaker. The CofE therefore feels it has to be all things to all men, which leads to dissatisfaction in several quarters.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I think that's true, SvitlanaV2 - so whatever the CofE does it 'can't win' ...
@l'Organist ... you'll have to forgive me, I'm relatively new back in the CofE after many years out in the new churches and the Free Church sector ...
Where, of course, these things aren't issues at all ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sorry, it's L'organist not l'Organist ...
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Not a problem.
Anyway, what have I done? Or are you surprised at someone with something nice to say about a bishop?
I'm not saying that +Nigel played a blinder but he spoke from the heart and made sense without being either upsetting or patronising, which isn't that common among the current crop of bishops; +London manages it from time to time but then he's not typical.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You haven't done anything, L'organist ...
I was simply making the point that whilst Sentamu may be throwing his weight around on this issue, other bishops seem to turn a blind-eye ... not only to readers and lay-people co-habiting with same-sex partners but to clergy too - and that despite the rules.
I'm not saying that's right or wrong, simply that it begs the question as to why there are rules on these matters if some bishops are prepared to turn a blind eye to them whilst others go beyond them - as Sentamu appears to have done ...
I'm just wondering about the consistency of it all ... but then, we are talking about the Church of England ...
Posted by Masha (# 10098) on
:
I am of the opinion that a marriage is a marriage is a marriage. My point is that, as Leo has demonstrated, lay people do not have to abide by the same 'rules' as clergy.
Does the ABY have the right to dismiss someone for being part of a legal marriage he doesn't agree with? Really?
Similarly, no bishop opposed to OOW would be allowed to dismiss a female priest in their diocese because they did not agree with the validity of their ordination service. They would not be expected to take part, but they cannot withdraw PTO because they disagree, surely? That's what I was getting at. Oppose in principle (if you must), but don't get shitty about someone doing something they are allowed, by CofE regulations, to do and refuse to allow them to minister.
Why is that circumstance different?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Its different because its being done by ++York and the rest of the bishops won't tussle with him, either in private or public. Part of the reason for that is they think that because he trained as a lawyer and was, briefly, a judge, he (a) can be relied on to correctly interpret rules and laws; and (b) in any case, they'll do almost anything to avoid public rows or differences. (A colourful Welsh expression is They'd pee in their hat to keep the peace.)
And there's your answer Gamaliel: the 'rule' (its only guidance, actually) is meant to apply to ordained clergy but ++York is choosing to apply it to a Lay Reader. It also seems likely that he's ignored the formal disciplinary structure for withdrawal of PTO from a Reader, probably relying on those whose role he has usurped or ignored being too decent (or British) to make a fuss.
As I've said before - its bullying, simple and far from pure.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
++York is choosing to apply it to a Lay Reader. It also seems likely that he's ignored the formal disciplinary structure for withdrawal of PTO from a Reader, probably relying on those whose role he has usurped or ignored being too decent (or British) to make a fuss.id before - its bullying, simple and far from pure.
I had an email today informing me that a trustee of Changing Attitudes, who is also a reader, has been threatened by the Bishop of Bristol should be get married.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm not saying that +Nigel played a blinder but he spoke from the heart and made sense without being either upsetting or patronising, which isn't that common among the current crop of bishops; +London manages it from time to time but then he's not typical.
Although I am inclined towards pacifism, I too thought Bp Nigel did a good job this mormning AND, pertinent to this thread, I note that a prominent part in the service was taken by a lay Reader.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
++York is choosing to apply it to a Lay Reader. It also seems likely that he's ignored the formal disciplinary structure for withdrawal of PTO from a Reader, probably relying on those whose role he has usurped or ignored being too decent (or British) to make a fuss.id before - its bullying, simple and far from pure.
I had an email today informing me that a trustee of Changing Attitudes, who is also a reader, has been threatened by the Bishop of Bristol should be get married.
I wonder if such Bishops are treating lay people with official Bishop sanctioned positions functionally as Priests in the piety which is expected of them, since arguably, they are representing the Church when they preach no less than a Priest is in some aspects of his or her ministry.
Posted by simwel (# 12214) on
:
In better news on the public face of bishops, Nigel Stock praught a fine sermon at the VJ service in St Martin-in-the-Fields. Don't know anything about him but today, at least, he gave bishops of the CofE a good image. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posted by simwel (# 12214) on
:
Sorry for the lack of comment. What I wanted to say is that I am glad + Nigel had something to say. When he was in St Edmundsbury he only seemed to talk about money.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
It should be pointed out, Gamaliel et al, that clergy co-habiting with civil partners (believing or otherwise, I don't think it makes any difference) is not bending the rules at all - that is perfectly in line with current guidance. Such situations are supposed to be celibate and bishops are supposed to make sure of this - but obviously that is up to individual bishops. The CoE does not consider civil partnerships to be marriage, so this is OK (per the rules) for gay clergy.
What's not in keeping with current guidance is applying this ban on marriage to laity.
There are strong whispers from people who would know that some dioceses are being strongly encouraged to not put LGBT candidates forward for ordination regardless of their celibacy or otherwise.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Nobody believes the co-habiting clergy in civil partnerships are celibate.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Nobody believes the co-habiting clergy in civil partnerships are celibate.
That is extremely unfair, though - as if gay people are incapable of being celibate. I know it's not meant that way but it just plays into the idea of gay people being sex-crazed and not being celibate even if they say they are. I can assure you that there are plenty of co-habiting clergy in civil partnerships who ARE celibate. It is not nice or fair to accuse people of lying about their level of sexual activity.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I don't think it s a prejudice re gay people in this case, I don't think anybody would believe in a celibate hetrosexual civil partnership either.
Essentially, people may believe someone is celibate if they claim to be and are single - most people will not believe celibacy claimed in a long term intimate relationship.
Because a) it is hard to see the point of such a situation and b) people don't believe in perfect self-control.
[ 15. August 2015, 22:21: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I don't think it s a prejudice re gay people in this case, I don't think anybody would believe in a celibate hetrosexual civil partnership either.
Essentially, people may believe someone is celibate if they claim to be and are single - most people will not believe celibacy claimed in a long term intimate relationship.
Because a) it is hard to see the point of such a situation and b) people don't believe in perfect self-control.
Love? Companionship? Legal benefits? I can well believe that there are some asexual homoromantic clergy very happy with a celibate civil partnership, sex is not important to everyone. Even if not asexual, it's not like there's no history of Christian celibacy lived in community - it's not a huge leap from celibacy within a religious community to celibacy within a partnership. Of course there will be clergy who are pretending to be celibate but are really not, but the assumption that this is always the case is very harmful and plays into the modern Protestant distrust of celibacy.
Not clergy or in a civil partnership, but the women who write
A Queer Calling are celibate and in a relationship.
[ 15. August 2015, 23:00: Message edited by: Pomona ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I didn't say it couldn't happen, only that most people will not believe it. And that their disbelief is is largely not to do with sexual orientation.
Theologically it doesn't make a huge amount of sense, in that traditionally celibacy was about not being distracted from God by personal relationships - I believe strong friendships were also discouraged amongst monastics for a while.
[ 15. August 2015, 23:05: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
There are many reasons for celibacy in Christians though - and in any case, for asexual people it's the natural way of being and I'm not sure things like whether it makes theological sense should be applied to how people just are.
I think enforced celibacy is wrong, but Protestantism (including Anglicanism in that for the sake of argument) really needs to learn how to deal with celibacy in all its manifestations.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
As a gay celibate Christian woman I do understand that, but contracting a civil partnership strongly suggests a different kind of relationship, as does co-habiting
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Because a) it is hard to see the point of such a situation and b) people don't believe in perfect self-control.
Some time ago, a friend bought a house with his then-fiancee. Their wedding was all planned and scheduled, but the logistics of buying a house, starting jobs and so on meant that it made more sense for them to live in their house for a couple of months before the wedding. They intended to live together in the separate bedrooms, trousers-on sense, and I believe them.
The worthies of their local church, however, told them in no uncertain terms that this wasn't on, and that Mr. and Mrs. Old-Couple would be only too happy to have my friend lodge with them (at no charge, of course) whilst his fiancee lived in splendid isolation in their to-be marital home.
I think their local church believed their intentions of continence, too, but they knew that it would have the appearance of a sexual relationship.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Conversely, I heard years ago of a couple who were sharing a house before marriage just as your friends intended to, and were claiming benefits. Here the basic benefits for couples are a bit less than two single claimants would be entitled to. They claimed as two single people and the benefits agency didn't believe that they weren't living together as husband and wife- but they did manage to convince the agency (correctly) that for the time being house-sharers was all that they were, so they got their extra money.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
1. I can assure you that there are plenty of co-habiting clergy in civil partnerships who ARE celibate.
2. It is not nice or fair to accuse people of lying about their level of sexual activity.
1. But you don't know, do you?
2. No it's not fair and everyone should be encouraged to be honest about it, even if it isn't the easy path to take. Honesty trumps hypocrisy any day
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
It's happened (and happened now) because:
1. The CofE operates an artificial divide between lay and clergy.
2. The Lay Reader concerned is a leading member of a pressure group aiming for full acceptance
3. There's a window of opportunity as the Anglican Communion is in disarray and one further "block" on what to most people seems a reasonable request, could push it into freefall or division.
4. The tide of cultural opinion is with SSM
5. The church as a whole is more likely to follow culture than vice versa
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I think their local church believed their intentions of continence, too, but they knew that it would have the appearance of a sexual relationship.
So fucking what? Why is it the church or anyone else's business what the appearance is?
Some years ago a friend of mine rented out his spare room to a female lodger. His church came down on him like a ton of bricks, telling him he shouldn't have done this because of the "message" this would sending out to his neighbours. He told the church leaders to bog off as what he chose to do with his spare room had bugger all to do with the neighbours. He also found it strange that the church thought it would be OK for him to have a male lodger.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
A similar thing happened to me once, Spike. A female cousin stayed overnight at my flat - which had a spare room - en route for a job interview in another part of the country.
The church I was in said I shouldn't have put her up or, at the very least, I should have gone round to my neighbours' flats - I lived in a tower block - and explained to them that it was my cousin who was staying over ...
They made no such stipulation when male friends of relatives came to stay ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I can't remember now, but I think I may have knocked on a few doors and explained that I had my cousin staying ... it wouldn't surprise me if I had back in those days ...
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
On "Sunday" this morning - and I have to apologise for not having full details, but since the BBC Radio 4 moved it from 8 am to 7 am I have never been able to hear all the details, because I keep dropping off back to sleep - a personage from the CofE was elucidating on the issue. He explained that as a lay reader was in the business of expressing the teachings of the church, a lay reader should abide by the church's teaching on this very major element of doctrine, that marriage was unchangeably a matter of heterosexual partnership. Which doesn't seem to fit the actual rulings from Synod, does it, though it sounds vaguely reasonable?
Except that the nature of marriage was never presented to me, either in preparation for Congregational Church membership, or confirmation in the CofE, as a major element of doctrine.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
[Some years ago a friend of mine rented out his spare room to a female lodger. His church came down on him like a ton of bricks, telling him he shouldn't have done this because of the "message" this would sending out to his neighbours.
Yes, the message that women are people too, not merely convenient sex toys for men, is still one that is far too radical for many to cope with.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The BBC Radio 4 Sunday programme had an an interview with Jeremy Timms - link is to the programme on line.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
[Some years ago a friend of mine rented out his spare room to a female lodger. His church came down on him like a ton of bricks, telling him he shouldn't have done this because of the "message" this would sending out to his neighbours.
Yes, the message that women are people too, not merely convenient sex toys for men, is still one that is far too radical for many to cope with.
A piece this morning - late enough for me to be awake - had a quote from Lawrence Durrell, whose one-time home in Alexandria is due for demolition, in which he opined (and this a was a recording of his own voice) that women had no souls. He repeated this. Men have souls, women do not.
And don't you think "sex toys" is too polite? Toys are things cherished by children. When I heard about the leader of Isis having women to rape yesterday, it occurred to me that such malign entities (I won't call them men, that's for real people with engaged minds - and souls) are simply using women as a convenient receptacle for bodily fluids. Woman as toilet.
[ 16. August 2015, 09:15: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's happened (and happened now) because:
2. The Lay Reader concerned is a leading member of a pressure group aiming for full acceptance
Which the church allows him to be - the Pilling Report said that clergy (let alone Readers) are allowed to campaign for a change of view
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Why is it the church or anyone else's business what the appearance is?
I suppose if you join a strict church then you have to expect that your private life isn't exactly your own. There's surely not much advantage to being there if you want the other members to mind their own business!
The problem for many such churches in recent times, I imagine, is that 'sexual sin' is such a prominent part of our secular culture that they have a heightened sensitivity to it. They can't help but see it everywhere. In the past, a culture of discretion perhaps made it less apparent and less threatening.
Of course, mainstream congregations pay relatively little attention to what worshippers do in their own time, so long as the activities concerned are not presented to them as some sort of problem that needs to be sorted out.
[ 16. August 2015, 18:04: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well yes, although I'd suggest that most people who join 'strict' churches tend not to appreciate initially just how strict they can be until they find themselves on the wrong side of whatever dispute it happens to be ...
There are advantages and disadvantages - pros and cons. Bright sides and shadow sides ... same as with any other aspect of life.
I don't think people consciously weigh all these aspects up when they drift or gravitate into a 'strict' church setting ... they certainly experience a certain amount of 'cognitive dissonance' initially - I know I did - but it's a bit like young love ... you don't always see the downsides until you've got in deep.
By the time I had the real heeby-geeby WTF! moments, I was already in too deeply to get out so easily - I'd invested a lot in it in terms of time, money, commitment - even living location ...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
It's rather like girls who fall in love with bad boys and leave the good boys alone! They're looking for fun and excitement, when what they really need in the long run is something calm and moderate!
Can't see much of a solution to either problem.
[ 16. August 2015, 18:23: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
1. I can assure you that there are plenty of co-habiting clergy in civil partnerships who ARE celibate.
2. It is not nice or fair to accuse people of lying about their level of sexual activity.
1. But you don't know, do you?
2. No it's not fair and everyone should be encouraged to be honest about it, even if it isn't the easy path to take. Honesty trumps hypocrisy any day
1. Yes I do know, because the people in question are asexual.
2. You're not someone put in a very difficult position so you have zero room to judge.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Also EM, even if I didn't know, what the fuck is wrong with Christians like you who assume gay Christians are incapable of celibacy? What's wrong with people like you who can't do the decent human thing of taking people at their word?
In case you hadn't noticed, many gay people are indeed celibate, whether in celibate relationships or not.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
In any case, why do we consider it in any way reasonable for the church - in the person of its bishops - to demand the right to know about and dictate the sex life (or not) of some of its members, whether they be clergy or not.
This is nothing more than shabby prurience and should be challenged.
Whenever I encounter two particular bishops of my cognisance (2 who are anti SSM) I make a point of enquiring after their sex life. I have to say neither seems particularly comfortable about it (!) but as I've told them, sauce for the goose ... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I suppose this concern for the private activities of church people could be related to what I was reading about the sudden change in the concerns of the Icelandic Thing with the coming of the Lutheran Church. From being concerned with issues like theft and murder, the court transferred its attentions to adultery and fornication, beheading men and drowning women convicted of these offences. The reason seems to have been a conviction among the powers that be that God would punish the whole of society if such offences were not dealt with severely, and in Iceland, divine punishment would be seen as very possible.
Possible those who wish to make windows into folk's bedrooms share this fear that sulphurous fire and earthquakes will tear apart the nation if unspeakable things are permitted within the church.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Possible those who wish to make windows into folk's bedrooms share this fear that sulphurous fire and earthquakes will tear apart the nation if unspeakable things are permitted within the church.
I believe flooding is the prescribed punishment for protecting the rights of gay people, according to CofE bishops.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In any case, why do we consider it in any way reasonable for the church - in the person of its bishops - to demand the right to know about and dictate the sex life (or not) of some of its members, whether they be clergy or not.
In theory there's no point in a church having 'teachings' about sexual behaviour if there's no interest in monitoring - or indeed, censuring - the sexual behaviour of its members at any point.
In reality, though, the desire for a quiet life plus the Christian emphasis on forgiveness probably makes it easy for churches simply to pay lip service to whichever ancient liturgy or rule book it is that gives them their identity, while the members do their own thing, discreetly or not, depending on the context.
AFAICS, the CofE as an institution seems to swing from turning a blind eye to making a big censorious fuss. In this case, though, the defiance was too blatant. If the 'rule' against SSM had been made centuries ago perhaps the archbishop wouldn't have taken much notice. But to get married only a few years after the CofE had publicly rejected these marriages was too much.
[ 17. August 2015, 22:03: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE]
AFAICS, the CofE as an institution seems to swing from turning a blind eye to making a big censorious fuss. In this case, though, the defiance was too blatant. If the 'rule' against SSM had been made centuries ago perhaps the archbishop wouldn't have taken much notice. But to get married only a few years after the CofE had publicly rejected these marriages was too much.
Has the CofE (i.e. General Synod, the governing body of the Church) actually offered an opinion, let alone stated that the opinion was binding on lay people? We know the Bishops issued a rather ill-advised policy document off their own bat which laid out rules for clergy but it explicitly gave very different guidance for how lay people should be treated. Finally, the CofE last approved a version of the Catechism less than 20 years ago. Are we going to see clergy and readers have PTO withdrawn for failing to adhere to it in their teaching? Are we, for example, going to go after those who insist on breaking 24.4 and fail "to keep the Lord's day for worship, prayer and rest from work"?
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
I don't actually know what the official Welsh line is, although my personal view would be to live and let live as long as one isn't doing anything illegal, but then my personal views on a whole raft of things have shifted over the years and in fact part of that is from a particularly subversive site, the ship of fools
I don't know if Albertus knows the official position if there is one ( I'm a nobody, really!) but there's
this article
which admittedly is some years old
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In theory there's no point in a church having 'teachings' about sexual behaviour if there's no interest in monitoring - or indeed, censuring - the sexual behaviour of its members at any point.
Hmm... I wonder whether it's true, even theoretically, that moral auditing is part of being the ecclesia. It might be part of the pastoral role of nominated and reciprocally acknowledged individuals (confessors, spiritual directors etc) but in what sense am I accountable to the institution for my moral behaviour?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
It depends on what you think the institution is for. If you think of church as a community of mutual support of whatever kind then it's hard to argue that what you do from Monday to Saturday is none of the church's business.
In reality, though, I suppose we opt in and opt out at will, expecting church support sometimes yet wanting the church to butt out at others. The problem is that this is all very arbitrary. There's plenty of room for the individual and the institution to disagree.
With strict religious groups at least the level nature of interference is clearer. Over time, though, there's a tendency for the institution to interfere less and less. You see this clearly in Methodism.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's rather like girls who fall in love with bad boys and leave the good boys alone! They're looking for fun and excitement, when what they really need in the long run is something calm and moderate!
Can't see much of a solution to either problem.
Be a bad boy and then turn good ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
I don't actually know what the official Welsh line is, although my personal view would be to live and let live as long as one isn't doing anything illegal, but then my personal views on a whole raft of things have shifted over the years and in fact part of that is from a particularly subversive site, the ship of fools
I don't know if Albertus knows the official position if there is one ( I'm a nobody, really!) but there's
this article
which admittedly is some years old
Oh, I'm a nobody too! The CinW Governing Body has been consulting the dioceses in advance of debating the matter quite soon. Here in Llandaff the Diocesan Conference voted by I think about 3-2 for SSM; Monmouth voted marginally against, but it was very nearly an even split; St David's voted more heavily against. Don't know about the others- they seem not to be publicising the votes, which I can understand as not wanting things to go off at half-cock, but I think I heard someone say that Bangor was in favour.
At Pride Cymru on Saturday, where our shack was leading a worship session in the faith tent, I heard a cleric say that all six diocesans supported SSM. Don't know how true this is but I think ++Barry is pretty certainly in favour, though he's too wise and experienced to say so in so many words, not because he wants to appease opponents, but because part of his style is to minimise the fusss about things so that they can get through with less opposition. I reckon there's a good chance that we'll get at least blessing of SSMs and possibly celebration of them before long.
You can find the CinW Doctrinal Commission's papers on the subject here .
[ 18. August 2015, 13:59: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's rather like girls who fall in love with bad boys and leave the good boys alone! They're looking for fun and excitement, when what they really need in the long run is something calm and moderate!
Can't see much of a solution to either problem.
Be a bad boy and then turn good
Lots of people on the Ship seem to have started of in lively but prescriptive churches of some kind, then moved in a calmer and more moderate direction. It seems that maintaining relationships with the evangelicals seems to be a good long-term growth strategy for the other churches....
However, this doesn't help the preacher mentioned in the OP, because although he might have been happy in his tolerant congregation, upsetting the more conservative denominational CofE leaders was never going to end well.
Is he likely to join another denomination? Evangelicals from outside often end up in the CofE, but my impression is that more moderate Anglicans don't really join other denominations when they leave Anglicanism. I suppose Methodist and URC worship just seems too bland if you have very traditional Anglican tastes. And the Quakers and Unitarians offer community, but nothing else that you might be used to.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Ah- hadn't meant my flippant response to be taken seriously!
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Bit of a tangent, really, but...
SvitlanaV2 -- it seems to me that you consistently (not just on this thread) ignore the importance of beliefs when commenting on individuals who have difficulty with those in authority over them, or who are in uncomfortable situations. If, as an Anglican (for which read CofE) I believe in the Real Presence (however defined and leaving aside any attempt to define how it happens), and actually value the three-fold ministry and apostolic succession (again, leaving definition and process aside), it's simply not a matter of switching to another denomination because your own church is wrong (in your opinion) about a single issue.
Beliefs matter -- and different churches have different beliefs. For some people specific beliefs matter less than worship style or fellowship or what we in my groups call "warm fuzzy feelings" -- but for many people they don't. And when good things (worship style I like, community I like) come into conflict with beliefs, then it's not just a matter of saying "Oh well, I guess I'll go off to join x church, because really we all believe the same thing." Because in some -- many? -- cases, we don't all believe the same thing.
John
[ 18. August 2015, 19:28: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
You're right about me in the sense that I don't really see any one church as the repository of right beliefs. For me, church is primarily the body of believers. Shared beliefs are developed over time, but the sands of doctrine and theology are always shifting, so what holds churches and denominations together appears to be quite complex.
I obviously don't think that all churches are the same, though, because if that were so, what would be the point of switching from one to another?? You switch because another church suits your beliefs or your understanding of the world better. That's the Protestant way....
The practical problem with the doctrine you mention, ISTM, is that individuals may be at serious odds with their church (due to its teachings on SSM, or anything else) yet believe it's the only place where salvation may be gained. They then either put up with the whole thing unhappily or have to reject Christianity entirely. To me, this seems spiritually wasteful and psychologically destructive. But others see it differently, true. Each to his own.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Also EM, even if I didn't know, what the fuck is wrong with Christians like you who assume gay Christians are incapable of celibacy? What's wrong with people like you who can't do the decent human thing of taking people at their word?
In case you hadn't noticed, many gay people are indeed celibate, whether in celibate relationships or not.
I've never claimed that gay Christians are incapable of celibacy. I'm happy to take people at their word - but like everything else it is still open to interpretation.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
You're not someone put in a very difficult position so you have zero room to judge.
Not in that particular position, I agree. But you should not assume that I don't know anything about being in a difficult position - it's actually far from the case.
I'm not judging either. I can see from various posts the hurt that LGBT Christians have suffered over the years as well as LGBT's in general. But doesn't it better help the cause of change to make one's position totally clear, instead of living in dread? [I don't know - I'm just trying to seek a way of understanding].
The biggest issue I have is the dual standards reflected by OK for laity and not OK for clergy. I'd have more respect - although i may not agree - with a change that says SSM is ok for all.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The biggest issue I have is the dual standards reflected by OK for laity and not OK for clergy.
I don't know the niceties of the Anglican position. But isn't one of the difficulties in this case caused by the fact that the gentleman in question is a Lay Reader which, in a sense, means that he has got caught in the crack between "Lay" and "Clergy"?
On the one hand, he's not ordained. On the other hand, he's seen as a "leader" in the Church. So he's "neither fish nor fowl", and that's a position the Anglican powers-that-be don't appear to have considered. Hence the tension of knowing how he should be treated. ++ Sentamu appears to have virtually lumped him in with clergy as far as the "rules" are concerned ... others clearly differ.
(NB I'm not saying whether the "rules" are right or wrong, that's a different question. Here I'm merely questioning their application).
[ 19. August 2015, 07:41: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
There is absolutely no difficulty ( with Anglicanism anyway) with differentiating between 'Lay' and 'Clergy'.
there is no fish nor fowl dilemma.
It is Lay.
Or Clergy.
Everyone, from Archbishops to PCC members to mostly every paid up member of a parish church, knows the difference.
Leo was right at his first comment
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
++ Sentamu appears to have virtually lumped him in with clergy as far as the "rules" are concerned ... others clearly differ.
Based on my experience, many within the Evangelical tradition (which Sentamu is more or less within) would say that all church leaders should be held to whatever standards are set for clergy. What posts are considered 'leadership' are up for debate, but I suspect for the vast majority of them, Readers would definitely be included in that list... But then, some Evangelical clergy of my acquaintance think that the post of Reader is a stupid one and all readers should be ordained into Non-Stipendiary Ministry, since they see the preaching as the primary duty of the Clergy.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
some Evangelical clergy of my acquaintance think that the post of Reader is a stupid one and all readers should be ordained into Non-Stipendiary Ministry, since they see the preaching as the primary duty of the Clergy.
and they say anglo-catholics are over-clericalised!
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
And we probably have another 4 years of Sentamu to come.
Of course, he could always decide to go and join his brother Robert at the Miracle Centre Cathedral in Kampala; John obviously doesn't have a problem with prosperity theology, given that he's already preached there.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The letters page of today's Church Times is full of opprobrium for Sentamu.
Also, a suggestion that other laity could be for the chop too - churchwardens PCC members.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
PCC members, surely not- I don't think that Bishops have any particular authority over them, do they? But Churchwardens AIUI are officers of the Bishop.
What absolute stinkers Sentamu and his kind are.
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
some Evangelical clergy of my acquaintance think that the post of Reader is a stupid one and all readers should be ordained into Non-Stipendiary Ministry, since they see the preaching as the primary duty of the Clergy.
and they say anglo-catholics are over-clericalised!
Depends on the church in question, and the question of who has more people involved in clerical roles in an Evangelical church vs. Anglo-Catholic High Mass is an interesting diversion, I think it would probably get me garotted with a dull fish knife by the Hell Hosts if I tried to continue it here...
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
I think it would probably get me garotted with a dull fish knife by the Hell Hosts if I tried to continue it here...
Im curious to know how garotting could be performed with any type of knife, blunt or otherwise.
[ 21. August 2015, 12:37: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
I think it would probably get me garotted with a dull fish knife by the Hell Hosts if I tried to continue it here...
Im curious to know how garotting could be performed with any type of knife, blunt or otherwise.
I'm relatively sure I was confusing garotting and filleting. However I have every confidence in the Hell Hosts to find a way to use any unlikely implement to produce any random form of torture and/or death...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
[Sentamu] could always decide to go and join his brother Robert at the Miracle Centre Cathedral in Kampala; John obviously doesn't have a problem with prosperity theology, given that he's already preached there.
I think it's rather unfair to criticise Sentamu because of what his brother believes.
Moreover, by preaching in his brother's church it could be said that Sentamu is extending the influence of Anglicanism. It's certainly ecumenicalism in action, and that's supposed to be a good thing!
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Ah well, Svitlana2: I don't agree that ecumenism is a 'good thing' so that could account for my less than charitable take.
A thought occurs: since some of the areas are yet to have their 'facilitated conversations' maybe the subject of Sentamu, etc, will come up? Anyone on the ship involved?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0