Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Soooo, that cleric in a civil partnership is celibate.
O. K.
By the way, all that ale in my two refrigerators? I don't actually drink it.
And don't you DARE question my truthfulness on that.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
or ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:The Church of England has developed the posture of sitting on the fence into an art form. It seems to me that the church thinks that if you give something to everyone (something, not everything they want or think is right, mind you) we can all live together in peace and harmony. This one step may be followed by others (raising expectations or fears, depending on your postion), but this is as far as the church is prepared to go at the moment.
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Isn't it a step in the right direction, though? Not as far as one would like, yes, but better than the opposite.
quote:In terms of the 2005 statement nothing has changed... strangely the documentation on civil-partnershiped Bishops being ok has been out there if you desired to read it that way.
Originally posted by Traveller:
This news story in the BBC announced the decision by the House of Bishops to allow gay clergy in civil partnerships to be become bishops. BUT (you knew there was going to be a but, didn't you?) only if they promise to remain celebate.
quote:In order to prove that he DOES have balls?!
Originally posted by Traveller:
He who sits on the fence tears his trousers.
quote:You'd think they'd be glad at their honesty. (Presuming they really are celibate, of course.) Gay bishops in the past have had to pretend they are not gay, which can't be phisically, psychologically or spiritually healthy at all.
Originally posted by leo:
I don't understand why the con evos object to celibate gays.
Surely it is not a sin to be 'tempted' as conevos would understand it.)
quote:I suppose that I am hopeful of further steps. Any kind of step is movement.
Originally posted by Traveller:
quote:The Church of England has developed the posture of sitting on the fence into an art form. It seems to me that the church thinks that if you give something to everyone (something, not everything they want or think is right, mind you) we can all live together in peace and harmony. This one step may be followed by others (raising expectations or fears, depending on your postion), but this is as far as the church is prepared to go at the moment.
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Isn't it a step in the right direction, though? Not as far as one would like, yes, but better than the opposite.
He who sits on the fence tears his trousers.
quote:The house of bishops is as complacent and immoral as ever.
Originally posted by pete173:
The logic of it is the same logic that is applied to women in the episcopate. If women can be priests, they can be bishops. The orders are indivisible.
Similarly, if there is a specific standard applied to those who are priests (that if they are in a civil partnership, they should be celibate), then the same standard should obtain in relation to those who are bishops, on the principle of indivisibility. So, at one level, it's a non-story that the BBC are running with. The House of Bishops has merely extended what many gay people see to be an inappropriate and intrusive standard for priests to those being considered for the episcopate. Conservatives will conversely see this as a step along the road towards the goal that they fear.
Has anything changed? Probably not.
quote:Reform UK and Anglican Mainstream still maintain that homosexuality is something that could and should be "cured" altogether. They don't believe someone who remains "uncured" is fit to be bishop at all, even if they don't act on it. The Africans they used as allies when Jeffrey John's appointment was first announced, generally agree. Together they make for a very shouty minority.
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:You'd think they'd be glad at their honesty. (Presuming they really are celibate, of course.) Gay bishops in the past have had to pretend they are not gay, which can't be phisically, psychologically or spiritually healthy at all.
Originally posted by leo:
I don't understand why the con evos object to celibate gays.
Surely it is not a sin to be 'tempted' as conevos would understand it.)
quote:But more Evangelicals are coming to realise that gayness is not incompatible with evangelicalism. Not just the Open Evos either, some fairly conservative ones are coming to that conclusion too.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Reform UK and Anglican Mainstream still maintain that homosexuality is something that could and should be "cured" altogether. They don't believe someone who remains "uncured" is fit to be bishop at all, even if they don't act on it.
quote:A step in the right direction or a sop to appease? You pays your money and you takes your choice.
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Isn't it a step in the right direction, though? Not as far as one would like, yes, but better than the opposite.
quote:So being anti-gay is a measure of orthodoxy now, is it?
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
The C of E is just SO dishonest.
And due to this dishonesty it will anger
a) homosexual bishops who must pretend they are celibate
b) the orthodox who know full well that 'don't ask and don't tell' is impossible to police and simply gay bishops by the back door (pardon the pun)
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:While I agree with some of your points, there are Christian groups who affirm LGBTQ relationships - Quakers, MCC, significant wings of other denominations including the CoE. Both CoE churches I attend (at home and at university) all LGBTQ people, not just celibate ones.
Originally posted by fluff:
I was on Gay Pride marches in the late 70s. People have had to FIGHT for their RIGHTS, DIGNITY and RESPECT in the face of hostility and oppression, over a long period of time, to get to even where we are now. Where was your precious church in all of that? What support did it offer?
It is horrible to see the REAL LIVES of lesbian/gay/trans people being used as a political football by these ecclesiastical bureaucrats, these spiritual politicians. It seems for them other peoples' lives are merely a theory, or a political football in the fight for some kind of power. It is also horrible to see GLBT people debated and pored over by some of the revolting homophobes that you are STILL happy to have contribute to Ship of Fools, in the name of diversity of opionion. When are you lot going to WAKE UP? Can't you see that GLBT people are real, actual living people? When are you going to act as if we are? What's wrong with you?
I certainly do have a spiritual life, but I'm not going to take it to the C of E or any Christian group, am I? And I'm right not to join, surely?
This is just one more insult among many many previous. The general population has moved on. Attitudes towards homosexuality have improved markedly during my lifetime, and I've met heterosexual people - normal, working class people - who have a genuine effort to raise their consciousness on this issue and gain greater tolerance and love. I can assure you the man at the corner shop is showing greater enlightenment than your House of Bishops. The C of E weds itself to the bigotries and ignorance of the past - and the past is where it's heading at this rate. Thank heavens.
quote:Would that be the same Peter Tatchell who in the past has defended adult men having sex with boys as young as 9 years old?
Originally posted by fluff:
This ruling is one of most ridiculous things I've ever heard in my entire life. The C of E seems determined to make a laughing-stock of itself. It is both absurd and insulting to gay and lesbian people. I really do find that this sort of thing totally discredits Christianity as far as I'm concerned. I mean, it just has no moral integrity at all, does it? And how is it to be enforced and monitored? Any thoughts anyone?
Thank God for Peter Tatchell!
quote:What is your evidenbce ? Many thanks in advance.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:Would that be the same Peter Tatchell who in the past has defended adult men having sex with boys as young as 9 years old?
Originally posted by fluff:
This ruling is one of most ridiculous things I've ever heard in my entire life. The C of E seems determined to make a laughing-stock of itself. It is both absurd and insulting to gay and lesbian people. I really do find that this sort of thing totally discredits Christianity as far as I'm concerned. I mean, it just has no moral integrity at all, does it? And how is it to be enforced and monitored? Any thoughts anyone?
Thank God for Peter Tatchell!
quote:I imagine that is the one... I certainly know of no other Peter Thatchell... and his P.I.E. connections are something all LGBT people should be fearful of being labelled with...
Originally posted by CL:
quote:Would that be the same Peter Tatchell who in the past has defended adult men having sex with boys as young as 9 years old?
Originally posted by fluff:
Thank God for Peter Tatchell!
quote:His own words:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
quote:What is your evidenbce ? Many thanks in advance.
Originally posted by CL:
quote:Would that be the same Peter Tatchell who in the past has defended adult men having sex with boys as young as 9 years old?
Originally posted by fluff:
This ruling is one of most ridiculous things I've ever heard in my entire life. The C of E seems determined to make a laughing-stock of itself. It is both absurd and insulting to gay and lesbian people. I really do find that this sort of thing totally discredits Christianity as far as I'm concerned. I mean, it just has no moral integrity at all, does it? And how is it to be enforced and monitored? Any thoughts anyone?
Thank God for Peter Tatchell!
quote:It is the furthest step they could possibly make, as long as "Issues in Human Sexuality" (linkable from the House of Bishops web page) remains the definitive CofE position. Issues in human sexuality.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:A step in the right direction or a sop to appease? You pays your money and you takes your choice.
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Isn't it a step in the right direction, though? Not as far as one would like, yes, but better than the opposite.
quote:Issues' is a study guide - and waaaay out of date.
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:It is the furthest step they could possibly make, as long as "Issues in Human Sexuality" (linkable from the House of Bishops web page) remains the definitive CofE position. Issues in human sexuality.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:A step in the right direction or a sop to appease? You pays your money and you takes your choice.
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Isn't it a step in the right direction, though? Not as far as one would like, yes, but better than the opposite.
Until they realise that this document is deeply flawed the CofE can go no further. "The convergence of Scripture, Tradition and reasoned reflection on experience," (Paragraph 5.2) The 1991 report says that reasoned reflection agreed with the traditional view of sexual orientation. Did they not speak with any psychologists?
quote:Thank you acknowledging what I've said in my post. I do take your point, but I feel identifying as a Christian is not possible for me at the moment, given the current and past record of Christianity on this issue. If I did so I really feel I would spend my whole time apologizing for Christianity's appalling dreadfulness, and indeed for being associated with it. I realize there are significant exceptions, but the general attitude of Christians and the Churches to GLBT people is simply atrocious. As Ship of Fools postings so often amply demonstrate. I feel it would be positively masochistic of me to join a church, and would involve standing around with a whole bunch of awful homophobes the whole time, attracting prejudice which I could more easily avoid. So I keep my prayers between myself and God.
While I agree with some of your points, there are Christian groups who affirm LGBTQ relationships - Quakers, MCC, significant wings of other denominations including the CoE. Both CoE churches I attend (at home and at university) all LGBTQ people, not just celibate ones.
quote:If you don't want to join a church, you clearly shouldn't, but I will have to strongly disagree that you would necessarily attract prejudice. I am married to a man, but I would never attend a church where a LGBTQ person or couple would attract prejudice. Mind that does rule out many churches that I would never attend twice, but that still leaves an awful lot of churches. I have never found myself short, certainly. Perhaps you don't want to attend church, even if there is a welcoming one nearby, because you've had too many bad experiences. It's certainly a good enough reason for me--it's your life, so any reason is good enough for me--but I guess I think it a bit unfair to the church to presume it's hard to find a welcoming church.
Originally posted by fluff:
I feel it would be positively masochistic of me to join a church, and would involve standing around with a whole bunch of awful homophobes the whole time, attracting prejudice which I could more easily avoid. So I keep my prayers between myself and God.
quote:And yet the CofE hierarchy constantly treat it as authoritative. If it's not, then we have the 1987 General Synod motion before it as our standard. Doesn't help your case.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Issues' is a study guide - and waaaay out of date.
It is nothing more than that and has no more than authority than that.
quote:I am LGBTQ, as are many other Shipmates (any homophobic posting on the Ship gets heavily criticised and not just by LGBTQ members). Most of us attend churches where our sexuality isn't a problem. Of course there is homophobia within the church but there are many churches that are not in the least bit homophobic, and plenty of others that have sympathetic leadership if not a 100% sympathetic congregation (as sometimes happens with churches with liberal leadership that have a more elderly congregation). You have your own reasons for not attending church which I do not wish to pry into, but rest assured, there are many LGBTQ-friendly churches even in denominations which aren't entirely welcoming. I'm a member of two churches and am never surrounded by a bunch of awful homophobes!
Originally posted by fluff:
Oh dearie me. More of this gay-people-all-really-pedophiles malarky, which we seem to have heard rather a lot of recently on Ship of Fools, haven't we? I will point out that I am a gay man and NOT a pedophile, and needless to say cited Mr Peter Tatchell as an example of someone who has been vocal in support of GLBT rights. Which is more than can be said for the churches, eh?
Jade Constable:
quote:Thank you acknowledging what I've said in my post. I do take your point, but I feel identifying as a Christian is not possible for me at the moment, given the current and past record of Christianity on this issue. If I did so I really feel I would spend my whole time apologizing for Christianity's appalling dreadfulness, and indeed for being associated with it. I realize there are significant exceptions, but the general attitude of Christians and the Churches to GLBT people is simply atrocious. As Ship of Fools postings so often amply demonstrate. I feel it would be positively masochistic of me to join a church, and would involve standing around with a whole bunch of awful homophobes the whole time, attracting prejudice which I could more easily avoid. So I keep my prayers between myself and God.
While I agree with some of your points, there are Christian groups who affirm LGBTQ relationships - Quakers, MCC, significant wings of other denominations including the CoE. Both CoE churches I attend (at home and at university) all LGBTQ people, not just celibate ones.
quote:Never mind out of date, it has always been wrong on several points.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Issues' is a study guide - and waaaay out of date.
It is nothing more than that and has no more than authoirty than that.
Btw what authority does a study guide have ?
quote:Heck, even in rural Texas, you can find a gay friendly church nowadays. Gay Affirming Churches - Texas
ETA: If you lived in say rural Texas, I would take back everything I have said about not a problem to find a welcoming church. I do not claim it is true for everywhere.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Well we thought he might have been elevated to the See at Bangor back in '08, but that came to nothing in the end... what with three (or is it only 2, I can't remember now) of the 6 privincial Bishops retiring maybe there might be consideration again...
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
According to the BBC, Jeffrey John was considering legal action against the CofE:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-20917616
If John is appointed bishop relatively quickly, I'm at a loss for words. Substantively, I think Jeffrey John would make an excellent bishop. However, given this news, the recent change would appear to be a blatantly political move by the CofE to dodge an embarrassing legal situation.
quote:Just a second, doesn't the RC church have married priests - especially in Latin America, who are required to live together "as brother and sister". How is that any less ridiculous ?
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
The C of E is just SO dishonest.
And due to this dishonesty it will anger
a) homosexual bishops who must pretend they are celibate
b) the orthodox who know full well that 'don't ask and don't tell' is impossible to police and simply gay bishops by the back door (pardon the pun)
quote:But the view that marriage is only a marriage when it has been consolidated with sexual interaction is false in itself - whilst marriage was the only legitimate place in which sexual intercourse could occur, it does not necessarily mean that it did - Augustine proposed his views on the marital status (I will dig out the reference I assure you) where he said that unmarried virginity was best, followed by a sexless marriage then at the bottom of the queue was a sexual marriage.
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
[QUOTE] I don't understand why the con evos object to celibate gays. Surely it is not a sin to be 'tempted' as conevos would understand it.) [QUOTE]
Because, as Anglican Mainstream said yesterday, Civil Partnerships are "ambiguous". If you interpret them as not necessarily sexual unions, then accepting them is giving support to some kind of special value placed on a same-sex friendship, and that scares AM, Reform and the Church of England Evangelical Council shitless, because that interpretation, as they well know, is not how CPs are commonly understood. Most people in society think of them as a kind of gay marriage, with the intimacy inside them that assumes a sexual relationship.
And con evos just can't bear the idea of the Church approving anything like that. Which is why Michael Lowson the Chair of the CEEC wants much more intrusive questioning of clergy in civil partnerships as to the nature of their relationship, and in particular as to whether is it sexual.
This is all revolting and abhorrent to decent people, but it is a measure of how rattled and angry they are at this development
quote:Yes. Mainly Oriental Catholic and former Anglican ones. They are not required to be sexually abstinent.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Just a second, doesn't the RC church have married priests
quote:Not that I've ever heard of.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
- especially in Latin America, who are required to live together "as brother and sister".
quote:Being a bishop is an on/off switch thing. He's distinguishably not one. The very reason he was not made a bishop is that he was already married. There is no requirement for him to be - or to pretend to be - sexually abstinent.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
And then there is the married guy who is the ordinary of the Ordinariate - who really isn't a bishop honest guv - but is almost indistinguishable in practice.
quote:Happened in the 1980s under the last pope, whilst I was in secondary school. It was quite big news at the time.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Not that I've ever heard of.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
- especially in Latin America, who are required to live together "as brother and sister".
quote:
Dear Sir,
thank you for your kind offer. Unfortunately, were I to accept such a position of leadership within your ugly little Church, I would be ashamed to show my face in public. Now FUCK OFF.
Yours in Christian love and fellowship, etc.
quote:It's definitely news to me.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:Happened in the 1980s under the last pope, whilst I was in secondary school. It was quite big news at the time.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Not that I've ever heard of.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
- especially in Latin America, who are required to live together "as brother and sister".
quote:You are quite right on both points a & b - I wasn't passing a moral judgement, or condoning or advocating anyone do as such unless they have had a vision from Heaven and have squared the whole thing with God Himself - just presenting what the reality is.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Presumably there is an ethical issue in being prepared a) to lie about this and b) to deliberately seek to gain by deception a post the church does not doctrinally permit ?
In other words, DADT is ethically wrong on both sides.
quote:I don't understand what your point is here. Catholics are not allowed to divorce and remarry unless they can obtain an annulment. There's not much of a secret about that. Catholics who defy this teaching are requested not to receive the Sacrament unless they've repented and been absolved - whether they're still sexually active or not. All this is pretty open and public - notoriously so. I'm not seing the "fudge" here.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Nor is it the only situation in which the RC church asks people in what would be expected to be a sexual relationship in the secular view, to do this.
quote:Whether JJ was considering legal action or not, I suspect that the C of E legal eagles knew that they were in a terrible position. To apply a different set of standards to bishops than to priests (and by so doing, actively discriminating against gays), left them WIIIIDE open to being spanked in court. They wouldn't have had a leg to stand on and they knew it.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
According to the BBC, Jeffrey John was considering legal action against the CofE:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-20917616
If John is appointed bishop relatively quickly, I'm at a loss for words. Substantively, I think Jeffrey John would make an excellent bishop. However, given this news, the recent change would appear to be a blatantly political move by the CofE to dodge an embarrassing legal situation.
quote:A cursory trawl of the net produced nothing I could identify as directly related to your recollection - but then it was cursory. Got any links?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:It's definitely news to me.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:Happened in the 1980s under the last pope, whilst I was in secondary school. It was quite big news at the time.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Not that I've ever heard of.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
- especially in Latin America, who are required to live together "as brother and sister".
quote:The real crunch will come if and when the government introduces SSM's - will the CofE require priests and bishops, who in the eyes of the civil law are legally married to a partner of the same sex, to be celibate? The gloves really will come off then, I fear. For example, will there be a set of opt-outs for parishes similar to those for women priests?
Originally posted by pete173:
...So, at one level, it's a non-story that the BBC are running with. The House of Bishops has merely extended what many gay people see to be an inappropriate and intrusive standard for priests to those being considered for the episcopate. Conservatives will conversely see this as a step along the road towards the goal that they fear.
Has anything changed? Probably not.
quote:Probably based on pastoral concerns... As a Bishop already has a duty to place appropriately a Curate it may require some curates having fewer options than others, and as in CinW and CofE the principal operator in appointing a Parish Priest is the parish itself then most parishes could avoid the issue certainly around SSM parish clergy.
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:The real crunch will come if and when the government introduces SSM's - will the CofE require priests and bishops, who in the eyes of the civil law are legally married to a partner of the same sex, to be celibate? The gloves really will come off then, I fear. For example, will there be a set of opt-outs for parishes similar to those for women priests?
Originally posted by pete173:
...So, at one level, it's a non-story that the BBC are running with. The House of Bishops has merely extended what many gay people see to be an inappropriate and intrusive standard for priests to those being considered for the episcopate. Conservatives will conversely see this as a step along the road towards the goal that they fear.
Has anything changed? Probably not.
quote:Eh, no.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:Happened in the 1980s under the last pope, whilst I was in secondary school. It was quite big news at the time.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Not that I've ever heard of.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
- especially in Latin America, who are required to live together "as brother and sister".
quote:Someone correct me if I am wrong, but an official position then becomes a line from which you cannot then move backwards from, or certainly can then only move backwards with great difficulty, and is a line on which you can only remain where you are or move forwards which would be, IMO, where the problems for ConEvo's arise...
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
So, correct me if I am wrong here, but haven't the conservatives in the church always said that they have no issue with a priest or Bishop being gay so long as they are not sexually active? Now that they seem to get their wish in writing, why the hulabaloo?
quote:As far as I can see, there are only two possibilities:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
So, correct me if I am wrong here, but haven't the conservatives in the church always said that they have no issue with a priest or Bishop being gay so long as they are not sexually active? Now that they seem to get their wish in writing, why the hulabaloo?
quote:To be honest I think point 1 has been the position all along - maybe quietly held whilst spouting out the things contained in point 2 - speculation is rife amongst the ConEvo's I know about what goes on in people's bedrooms without them having a shred of evidence... It's all very stereotypical terrace street gossipy ('Ooooh, Maureen did you see her net curtains twitching last night... she's upto something, I just know it! But of course don't tell anyone *nudge, nudge; wink, wink.*')
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:As far as I can see, there are only two possibilities:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
So, correct me if I am wrong here, but haven't the conservatives in the church always said that they have no issue with a priest or Bishop being gay so long as they are not sexually active? Now that they seem to get their wish in writing, why the hulabaloo?
(a) The conservatives think that any gay man who claims to be in a celibate relationship is a liar, or
(b) We're back with the old idea that it's okay to be gay as long as you're slightly ashamed of it. If you're happy with it, or want to celebrate it, then that ceases to be okay.
quote:I can't chapter and verse it, having seen the item in the English-language version of Herder Correspondence (that shows my age!) many years ago in the Milltown library in Dublin, but there was a German cleric, and an Austrian one, who did this. One was under Piux XI and the other under Pius XII.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:It's definitely news to me.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:Happened in the 1980s under the last pope, whilst I was in secondary school. It was quite big news at the time.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Not that I've ever heard of.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
- especially in Latin America, who are required to live together "as brother and sister".
quote:As far as I'm aware the only instance in which a married Latin Catholic man can advance to Holy Orders (bar the well know exceptions for convert clergy) is if his wife chooses to voluntarily enter a convent. I have no idea when the last time that occurred was though, not for centuries I'd imagine. Certainly "co-habiting" in a Josephite manner would be out of the question.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:I can't chapter and verse it, having seen the item in the English-language version of Herder Correspondence (that shows my age!) many years ago in the Milltown library in Dublin, but there was a German cleric, and an Austrian one, who did this. One was under Piux XI and the other under Pius XII.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:It's definitely news to me.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:Happened in the 1980s under the last pope, whilst I was in secondary school. It was quite big news at the time.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Not that I've ever heard of.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
- especially in Latin America, who are required to live together "as brother and sister".
I have a recollection of hearing of an example in the Two Sicilies under Charles III, but I'll be damned if I can be more specific. I really should make note of these things.
quote:I heard that discussion. There was a certain guilty pleasure in hearing Giles Fraser splutter over where to start with that nutter.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
There was a discussion about this on the PM programme today. The anti-gay woman who spoke said, among other things:
* of course you couldn't believe any gay who claimed to be celibate
* most of the population shared the same feeling of "revulsion" that she had when she thought about homosexuality
* she had recently been in New York, where the sight of men kissing had "turned her stomach"
If this is the level of argument that the anti-gay brigade is going to advance, then I think they're going to be laughed out of court!
quote:My point is, that in that article, it says remarried Catholics may take communion only if they abstain from a sexual relationship. If they do so, despite remaining in a couple, they may take communion.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:I don't understand what your point is here. Catholics are not allowed to divorce and remarry unless they can obtain an annulment. There's not much of a secret about that. Catholics who defy this teaching are requested not to receive the Sacrament unless they've repented and been absolved - whether they're still sexually active or not. All this is pretty open and public - notoriously so. I'm not seing the "fudge" here.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Nor is it the only situation in which the RC church asks people in what would be expected to be a sexual relationship in the secular view, to do this.
quote:No I don't. It was discussed in the context of our RE course, when we discussing the issues raised by the ordination of women in the CofE - why priests were not leaving and joining the RC church when they were unhappy with the move. Hence leading to a discussion of the status of married priests in the RC church.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:A cursory trawl of the net produced nothing I could identify as directly related to your recollection - but then it was cursory. Got any links?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:It's definitely news to me.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:Happened in the 1980s under the last pope, whilst I was in secondary school. It was quite big news at the time.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Not that I've ever heard of.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
- especially in Latin America, who are required to live together "as brother and sister".
quote:Whereas, I (a single, straight woman) have never been asked about what I might do in bed, or with whom, by any person involved in any part of the vocational discernment process. Not during initial discernment, selection, training, ordination, curacy or during recruitment to an incumbency. It may be that the Church of England takes the same attitude to female (homo)sexuality that Queen Victoria is supposed to have done. Perhaps I just look celibate.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
...the Priest goes on to say:
"He added that gay clergy in civil partnerships in Wales are not asked 'if we do anything naughty in bed'"
which, whilst not being a cleric/Bishop I cannot comment there, but for a layman is not quite true, since I have been asked several times to clarify if I do anything 'naughty' in bed.
quote:H'mmm I do believe you may be right .....
Originally posted by anne:
But if the church is peering into any bedrooms, it should be peering into them all. Unless this is just about old fashioned homophobia after all...
quote:Yes, I heard it too, and it could never be described as edifying. (BBC Radio4 Saturday 5th Jan 5pm just for the record.) It was a classic example of the car-crash style of broadcasting that the BBC seems to delight in setting up, in which they get two people of extremely opposed opinions (this is called ‘balance’) and leave them to sling mud at each other while neither argument is examined rigorously. So it isn’t surprising that the BBC should choose an extreme and tactless person to take the anti-gay side (and also with the underlying agenda of discrediting that side of the argument.) Yes, it did have some entertainment value, of the guilty pleasure kind – as I previously alluded to, like watching a car crash.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:I heard that discussion. There was a certain guilty pleasure in hearing Giles Fraser splutter over where to start with that nutter.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
There was a discussion about this on the PM programme today. The anti-gay woman who spoke said, among other things:
* of course you couldn't believe any gay who claimed to be celibate
* most of the population shared the same feeling of "revulsion" that she had when she thought about homosexuality
* she had recently been in New York, where the sight of men kissing had "turned her stomach"
If this is the level of argument that the anti-gay brigade is going to advance, then I think they're going to be laughed out of court!
quote:So very like the civil partnership but don't shag position of the CofE in respect of gay couples then. Which is what I was arguing in the first place.
Originally posted by Forthview:
The point about divorced and remarried Catholics not being allowed to receive Communion is that the RC church does not consider these people to be married in a sacramental sense.
At the same time the Church acknowledges that a civil marriage has taken place.A civil marriage is,however,for Catholics and for the Catholic church not a 'marriage' in the Catholic sense of the word.
Part of this problem in understanding of the meaning of the terms come from the linking in the UK and some other countries of civil and religious marriages.
Unless a Catholic who was married at one time received an annulment of marriage in the Catholic church they would not be permitted to marry again in a Catholic church.Any other marriage which they might contract either in a civil ceremony or in some other Christian denomination or indeed in some other religion would not be recognised as a Catholic marriage.In the eyes of the church such a couple would be living 'in sin' and would not be allowed to receive Communion.
At the same time the Church or some sections within it such as the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna are seeking ways of making it easier to grant an annulment.Many people enter marriage without a full understanding of the commitment needed and this is possibly a way of more easily granting annulments.
I remember many years ago speaking to a mature couple who were not married(because they got a better pension as single people).They wanted to go to Communion but couldn't unless they promised to live as bother and sister. Who would believe us,they said.The the bishop stepped in and arranged exceptionally to marry them privately religiously without the necessary civil ceremony.(This was not in the UK)
quote:I don't think telling a lie is necessarily a bad thing. Some people are not able to hear the truth - what they hear is something different - for example, not so long ago, many people thought that 'homosexuals' frequented public toilets. So if they asked someone if they were homosexual, what they really meant was 'Are you promiscuous? Hang around loos?' to which the correct answer might be 'no', whilst technically being a lie.
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
something I found remarkable was that Giles Fraser openly exhorted any homosexual bishop who was questioned about his celibacy to blatantly lie about it. I guess that Fraser isn’t evangelical in his beliefs, but this does still rather destroy his credibility as a spiritual guide and advisor,
quote:Doublethink, I imagine you will agree that neither of these links does anything to substantiate your recollection that Latin American priests were allowed to marry so long as they remained sexually abstinent.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:No I don't. It was discussed in the context of our RE course, when we discussing the issues raised by the ordination of women in the CofE - why priests were not leaving and joining the RC church when they were unhappy with the move. Hence leading to a discussion of the status of married priests in the RC church.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:A cursory trawl of the net produced nothing I could identify as directly related to your recollection - but then it was cursory. Got any links?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:It's definitely news to me.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:Happened in the 1980s under the last pope, whilst I was in secondary school. It was quite big news at the time.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Not that I've ever heard of.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
- especially in Latin America, who are required to live together "as brother and sister".
I have found this discussion of why it is more of a hot button issue in Latin America. There were signs of movement pre-1980s.
But then this was pr-internet saturation of everything.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:So very like the civil partnership but don't shag position of the CofE in respect of gay couples then. Which is what I was arguing in the first place.
Originally posted by Forthview:
<snip> Unless a Catholic who was married at one time received an annulment of marriage in the Catholic church they would not be permitted to marry again in a Catholic church.Any other marriage which they might contract either in a civil ceremony or in some other Christian denomination or indeed in some other religion would not be recognised as a Catholic marriage.In the eyes of the church such a couple would be living 'in sin' and would not be allowed to receive Communion. <snip>
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
How so? The Church does not permit these second marriages at all.
quote:There is no technicality about it. A lie is an attempt to mislead or to avoid the truth - whether everyone can or does hear the truth is a moot point but everyone deserves the opportunity to have a go at hearing it.
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]I don't think telling a lie is necessarily a bad thing. ...... whilst technically being a lie.
quote:I've just read Giles Fraser's piece and on this occasion I think he's way off mark. What he doesn't seem to realise is that in Gayworld, we have a special word for lying about youself, your lovers, and your love: that word is "closet". Fraser is telling gay bishops to go back in the closet.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Giles Fraser does expand on his view in the Guardian today. I have to say I don't think he's right but if I squint I can kind of see his point. The thing is I think I'd rather have it clear that the church has a bizarre attitude to sex rather than pretending that lying is an acceptable solution to a problem. I think those Bishops who have taken the approach with their clergy of not asking questions to which they don't want to know the answer have a slightly better, if still imperfect, approach.
quote:How is that different from the current status quo? With the exception of JJ, I don't know many CofE clergy who are "out and proud."
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:I've just read Giles Fraser's piece and on this occasion I think he's way off mark. What he doesn't seem to realise is that in Gayworld, we have a special word for lying about youself, your lovers, and your love: that word is "closet". Fraser is telling gay bishops to go back in the closet.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[qb] Giles Fraser does expand on his view in the Guardian today. I have to say I don't think he's right but if I squint I can kind of see his point. The thing is I think I'd rather have it clear that the church has a bizarre attitude to sex rather than pretending that lying is an acceptable solution to a problem. I think those Bishops who have taken the approach with their clergy of not asking questions to which they don't want to know the answer have a slightly better, if still imperfect, approach.
quote:Maybe he hasn't got one. I haven't.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I noticed that Father did not mention a partner.
quote:I'm very uneasy about Giles Fraser's line on this, but leo has a point if you read his remarks in context. To use a completely non-controversial example, I am a retired priest in the C of E, hence an ex-vicar if you like. If someone asks me (as they often do) 'Are you a vicar?' I don't usually give them a tutorial in Anglican terminology, I usually say 'yes' because I know what they mean. But technically my answer is a lie.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:There is no technicality about it. A lie is an attempt to mislead or to avoid the truth - whether everyone can or does hear the truth is a moot point but everyone deserves the opportunity to have a go at hearing it.
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]I don't think telling a lie is necessarily a bad thing. ...... whilst technically being a lie.
quote:Wouldn't dream of it. Everyone knows that chilled ale (i.e. proper beer) tastes bloody awful: if you were going to drink it you'd have stored it in the cupboard- so it's obviously in the fridge to keep it out of temptation's way.
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Soooo, that cleric in a civil partnership is celibate.
O. K.
By the way, all that ale in my two refrigerators? I don't actually drink it.
And don't you DARE question my truthfulness on that.
quote:I think your point is a good one, but I did rather admire Giles' article as well. I suppose the trouble with lying, is that nobody knows you are! So in a way, the rebellious nature of it is hidden away, and as you say, back in the closet.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:I've just read Giles Fraser's piece and on this occasion I think he's way off mark. What he doesn't seem to realise is that in Gayworld, we have a special word for lying about youself, your lovers, and your love: that word is "closet". Fraser is telling gay bishops to go back in the closet.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Giles Fraser does expand on his view in the Guardian today. I have to say I don't think he's right but if I squint I can kind of see his point. The thing is I think I'd rather have it clear that the church has a bizarre attitude to sex rather than pretending that lying is an acceptable solution to a problem. I think those Bishops who have taken the approach with their clergy of not asking questions to which they don't want to know the answer have a slightly better, if still imperfect, approach.
Call me radical, but I think the only honourable course at the moment is for any gay person in a relationship to refuse the episcopate. Loudly. And publicly.
quote:I don't understand what is confusing you.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:So very like the civil partnership but don't shag position of the CofE in respect of gay couples then. Which is what I was arguing in the first place.
Originally posted by Forthview:
<snip> Unless a Catholic who was married at one time received an annulment of marriage in the Catholic church they would not be permitted to marry again in a Catholic church.Any other marriage which they might contract either in a civil ceremony or in some other Christian denomination or indeed in some other religion would not be recognised as a Catholic marriage.In the eyes of the church such a couple would be living 'in sin' and would not be allowed to receive Communion. <snip>
quote:But you aren't taking into account what I've already pointed out is the difference. The difference is that the CofE is saying to its clerics: "Go ahead - you may certainly contract your civil partnerships - no problem! Oh, by the way, no sex though, right?" That's where the "ridiculousness / hypocrisy" (not my choice of words) lies.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:I don't understand what is confusing you.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
So very like the civil partnership but don't shag position of the CofE in respect of gay couples then. Which is what I was arguing in the first place.
RRP was saying it was somehow uniquely ridiculous / hypocritical for the CofE to ask clergy in a secular partnership - not recognised as marriage by the CofE - to remain celibate in order to remain in good standing with their church.
The RC church asks couples in a secular partnership - not recognised as marriage by the RC church - to remain celibate in order to remain in good standing with their church.
Hence ridiculousness / hypocrisy not limited to anglicans alone.
That is all. I am not arguing the position is theologically incorrect.
quote:To address the second point: Although I continue to defend and support the CinW (much to the puzzlement and annoyance of my partner) I am slowly coming round to the idea that it maywell be just basic institutionalised and personal homophobia at work in the Church with it's current stance. I know of one gay couple in a CP where one of them is a priest however tehy are not in the Parish system and I'm not entirely sure they are under the same sort of scruitiny etc. as a Parish Priest. And several of the gay Parish Priests I know have vaguely known to others partners but it is very much more based on teh fact they do not live together.
Originally posted by anne:
Whereas, I (a single, straight woman) have never been asked about what I might do in bed, or with whom, by any person involved in any part of the vocational discernment process.
...
But if the church is peering into any bedrooms, it should be peering into them all. Unless this is just about old fashioned homophobia after all...
quote:If you can find a link to the documentary that he did I suggest you find it and watch if you have not already done so, I remember it being rather good!
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
How is that different from the current status quo? With the exception of JJ, I don't know many CofE clergy who are "out and proud."
Even in this article: http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/religion/2013/01/what-makes-gay-vicar-stay-church-england
I noticed that Father did not mention a partner.
quote:As I think I've said before, when I (a straight man, at that time single with a long-term girlfriend with whom I was not cohabiting) was going through the discrenment process in a notably liberal CofE diocese some twenty years ago, the question was IIRC raised, ever so delicately, by my (discreetly gay!) DDO. Yet I knew of a couple of cohabiting gay men who got through the process in the same diocese at about the same time: it may be that they were celibate or it may have been 'don't ask (don't need to ask?), don't tell'.
Originally posted by anne:
Whereas, I (a single, straight woman) have never been asked about what I might do in bed, or with whom, by any person involved in any part of the vocational discernment process. Not during initial discernment, selection, training, ordination, curacy or during recruitment to an incumbency. ...
But if the church is peering into any bedrooms, it should be peering into them all. Unless this is just about old fashioned homophobia after all...
quote:Maybe the thing to take from all of this is that the Church is not very consistant in its application of rules and questioning of people...
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:As I think I've said before, when I (a straight man, at that time single with a long-term girlfriend with whom I was not cohabiting) was going through the discrenment process in a notably liberal CofE diocese some twenty years ago, the question was IIRC raised, ever so delicately, by my (discreetly gay!) DDO. Yet I knew of a couple of cohabiting gay men who got through the process in the same diocese at about the same time: it may be that they were celibate or it may have been 'don't ask (don't need to ask?), don't tell'.
Originally posted by anne:
Whereas, I (a single, straight woman) have never been asked about what I might do in bed, or with whom, by any person involved in any part of the vocational discernment process. Not during initial discernment, selection, training, ordination, curacy or during recruitment to an incumbency. ...
But if the church is peering into any bedrooms, it should be peering into them all. Unless this is just about old fashioned homophobia after all...
quote:Anytime you like - I've got a couple of PCCs and a Social Committee meeting you can have for starters!
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
If you feel left out I will happpily swap you for a couple of meetings...
quote:To add to the anecdotal data, a friend of mine (straight and married) was explicitly asked if s/he was prepared to live within the rules set out in Issues in Human Sexuality.
posted by Albertus:quote:As I think I've said before, when I (a straight man, at that time single with a long-term girlfriend with whom I was not cohabiting) was going through the discrenment process in a notably liberal CofE diocese some twenty years ago, the question was IIRC raised, ever so delicately, by my (discreetly gay!) DDO. Yet I knew of a couple of cohabiting gay men who got through the process in the same diocese at about the same time: it may be that they were celibate or it may have been 'don't ask (don't need to ask?), don't tell'.
Originally posted by anne:
Whereas, I (a single, straight woman) have never been asked about what I might do in bed, or with whom, by any person involved in any part of the vocational discernment process. Not during initial discernment, selection, training, ordination, curacy or during recruitment to an incumbency. ...
But if the church is peering into any bedrooms, it should be peering into them all. Unless this is just about old fashioned homophobia after all...
quote:Wow - I'm impressed.
Originally posted by pete173:
DDOs always need to include within the Sponsoring Papers at this section the sentence: ‘I have discussed Issues in Human Sexuality with X and he/ she is content to live within these guidelines.’"
quote:Humbug; those 'standards' were the general expectation of the church community before then. The fact that a few people chose to close their eyes to that their behaviour was always an act of defiance of the general consensus (aka 'a prophetic act), doesn't give them the right to expect there to be no consequences to their defiance.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Many people were ordained before these so-called 'standards' came in.
quote:Very fortunate, indeed. Certainly the BUGB would stop the discernment process for ordination at the moment this was discovered and only re consider it once the relationship had been "regularised."
Originally posted by kingsfold:
[QUOTE] A further (straight) friend in the same diocese went all the way through the discerment process and training whilst living with a partner ....
quote:Indeed - as far as I'm concerned, the policy over all these things should be to accept the word of the person over an issue - but with the fall back that deception would constitute a criminal offence. So the straw man of 'cameras in the bedroom' is exactly that - but a moment of candour that demonstrates that actually they've been acting in a manner inconsistent with 'celibacy' should have major consequences. However Giles Fraser makes this attitude naive; perhaps we do need the cameras since apparently liberals aren't honourable in any meaningful sense.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Come to think of it though, it's possible to dissemble even there .... at no point was I asked to prove that I was married to Mrs M.
quote:Simply untrue.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:Humbug; those 'standards' were the general expectation of the church community before then.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Many people were ordained before these so-called 'standards' came in.
quote:Which I would think constitued a DADT policy, or certainly how the thing would play out - I'm yet to meet a sensible person who goes around confessing to crimes they commit, and ican't see the Church seeking prosecutions for fear of all the negative press it would receive...
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:Indeed - as far as I'm concerned, the policy over all these things should be to accept the word of the person over an issue - but with the fall back that deception would constitute a criminal offence.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Come to think of it though, it's possible to dissemble even there .... at no point was I asked to prove that I was married to Mrs M.
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
However Giles Fraser makes this attitude naive; perhaps we do need the cameras since apparently liberals aren't honourable in any meaningful sense.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:It's NOT a DADT policy because, as is already implemented for ordinands who are expected to conform to 'Issues', the question is asked. The question should also be asked of people being licensed to a new parish, and a breach would be the basis for a dismissal for moral failure.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:Which I would think constitued a DADT policy, or certainly how the thing would play out - I'm yet to meet a sensible person who goes around confessing to crimes they commit, and ican't see the Church seeking prosecutions for fear of all the negative press it would receive...
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:Indeed - as far as I'm concerned, the policy over all these things should be to accept the word of the person over an issue - but with the fall back that deception would constitute a criminal offence.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Come to think of it though, it's possible to dissemble even there .... at no point was I asked to prove that I was married to Mrs M.
quote:Thank you... I wanted to look something up three days ago and promptly forgot what it was. Your comment has reminded me!
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
... if a future member of the Royal Family comes out?
quote:I really have no idea about how consultations went for this one, but we need to remember that the previous long-time régime placed people in a situation where the only options were disciplinary action -- and in my lifetime that meant removal from parishes or even the ministry -- or leaving oneself open to blackmail. As Ender's Shadow notes, the standards were the universal expectation before then, and clerical friends have told me that bishops (I speak of the 1970-2005 period) were very clear to them in private discussions.
No-one was ever consulted about the change, which this 'policy' represents.
quote:My point is though, that it would quickly decend into a DADT scenario - although asked, the answer given (accoring to what ever conscious decision made) in accordance with 'Issues' would be accepted and left.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's NOT a DADT policy because, as is already implemented for ordinands who are expected to conform to 'Issues', the question is asked. The question should also be asked of people being licensed to a new parish, and a breach would be the basis for a dismissal for moral failure.
The scenario where a 'crime' might be 'confessed' to is the priest in service who goes public about his sexual relationship at a LBGT friendly conference to try and make a point. Or where a parishioner challenges the priest, and the priest fails to lie. It's that sort of scenario that should lead to the criminal option - and certainly the loss of position, and IMHO pension.
Certainly I would expect the church wardens to feel free to ask the 'obvious' question if there is an 'obvious' issue. IF being an Anglican is to mean anything, then respect for the rules should happen. Of course if we are to accept 'anything goes', then there is no basis for anything - and certainly enforcing women bishops is especially fatuous: 'the only thing the CofE thinks is necessary is that both men and women should be bishops' - no belief in God, virgin birth, resurrection... just men and women equal.
quote:Yes, the answer would be accepted and left, but its acceptance should be based on the strange idea that a member of the clergy will tell the truth in an area where he is being held legitimately to account. DADT is based on the claim that the person should not be held to account on the issue. If you are seriously suggesting, along with Giles Fraser, that it's OK for clergy to lie in this area, then we are totally different planets. I have this strange idea that everyone's word should be trustable, especially a cleric's. You appear to believe its all right for them to disciples of that nice Mr Machiavelli. Or am I missing something?
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
My point is though, that it would quickly decend into a DADT scenario - although asked, the answer given (accoring to what ever conscious decision made) in accordance with 'Issues' would be accepted and left.
quote:No I'm not saying it is right, everyone should tell the truth and be trusted to tell the truth (a lack of trust in the Church is a major problem linked to many DH debates I fear), many do however find ways to absolve their conscience of all guilt and still answer in accordance with what the Church expects to hear.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:Yes, the answer would be accepted and left, but its acceptance should be based on the strange idea that a member of the clergy will tell the truth in an area where he is being held legitimately to account. DADT is based on the claim that the person should not be held to account on the issue. If you are seriously suggesting, along with Giles Fraser, that it's OK for clergy to lie in this area, then we are totally different planets. I have this strange idea that everyone's word should be trustable, especially a cleric's. You appear to believe its all right for them to disciples of that nice Mr Machiavelli. Or am I missing something?
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
My point is though, that it would quickly decend into a DADT scenario - although asked, the answer given (accoring to what ever conscious decision made) in accordance with 'Issues' would be accepted and left.
quote:Simply not true.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Imersge Canfield writes:
quote:I really have no idea about how consultations went for this one, but we need to remember that the previous long-time régime placed people in a situation where the only options were disciplinary action -- and in my lifetime that meant removal from parishes or even the ministry -- or leaving oneself open to blackmail. As Ender's Shadow notes, the standards were the universal expectation before then, and clerical friends have told me that bishops (I speak of the 1970-2005 period) were very clear to them in private discussions.
No-one was ever consulted about the change, which this 'policy' represents.
quote:There have certainly been members of the windsor family who have been (or who are) gay or bisexual. Wasn't it an ex Duke of Kent or Gloucester?
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Or Westminster Abbey if a future member of the Royal Family comes out?
quote:What's your evidence or experience of that?
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
[QUOTE]Simply untrue.
quote:My experiences mean I tend to agree with you on that one.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[QUOTE] However Giles Fraser makes this attitude naive; perhaps we do need the cameras since apparently liberals aren't honourable in any meaningful sense.
quote:I could not blame some one for 'saving their own skin' in order to avoid the force of the law or of public scape-goating, and destruction of my life.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:My experiences mean I tend to agree with you on that one.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[QUOTE] However Giles Fraser makes this attitude naive; perhaps we do need the cameras since apparently liberals aren't honourable in any meaningful sense.
How can you trust an individual in a significant position in the community if they are prepared to lie or dissemble to save his own skin? What else will he/she be lying about?
I may not agree with many people's views on same sex relationships but I admire them for openness.
quote:Hmm - so it's OK as the leader of an organisation that is supposed to provide a moral lead in society to lie when your own financial interests are at stake... Therefore it's ok for anyone to lie when their financial interests are at stake. No wonder bankers act as they do when their spiritual leaders are able to justify such self-serving behaviour. One feels that the British Bankers Association should write to Giles Fraser asking for an apology for his condemnatory words at the time of the occupy fiasco.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
[S]o it's easy to decry others, facing the loss of everything.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:I spoke of execution and imprisonment.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:Hmm - so it's OK as the leader of an organisation that is supposed to provide a moral lead in society to lie when your own financial interests are at stake... Therefore it's ok for anyone to lie when their financial interests are at stake. No wonder bankers act as they do when their spiritual leaders are able to justify such self-serving behaviour. One feels that the British Bankers Association should write to Giles Fraser asking for an apology for his condemnatory words at the time of the occupy fiasco.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
[S]o it's easy to decry others, facing the loss of everything.
quote:The past is sometimes never past - it is always with us.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
What's past is past.
The future beckons http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/01/09/1419811/national-cathedral-opens-to-same-sex-weddings/
quote:Oh please - surely we're talking about the scenario NOW - not some time in the past when that was true. Just because in the past being in a gay relationship was the cause of total disaster - and I'm well aware that as late as the 1950s that was the case as Manchester's Alan Turing so horribly demonstrates. But it's not now. So perhaps to clear the air - do you believe, along with Giles Fraser, that it is appropriate NOW for CofE priests in gay relationships to lie about the nature of those relationships, given that the worse that they will suffer is the loss of job and house? Or does that prospect give them the right to deceive their parishioners and the donors throughout the diocese who are being leant on to pay for their ministry, let alone give bankers the excuse to also lie as required for their convenience.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
quote:I spoke of execution and imprisonment.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:Hmm - so it's OK as the leader of an organisation that is supposed to provide a moral lead in society to lie when your own financial interests are at stake... Therefore it's ok for anyone to lie when their financial interests are at stake. No wonder bankers act as they do when their spiritual leaders are able to justify such self-serving behaviour. One feels that the British Bankers Association should write to Giles Fraser asking for an apology for his condemnatory words at the time of the occupy fiasco.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
[S]o it's easy to decry others, facing the loss of everything.
Carry on vomitting
quote:1. None of those applies today. Even if a priest did admit to being in a consensual same sex relationship that involved physical sexual activity, the Anglican Church would do - nothing. The idea of persecution is really a straw man: if, as so many claim that public opinion is now on their side, the CofE hierarchy (see my thought on the Bishop of Buckingham above) wouldn't run in the face of that opinion to sack or discipline anyone.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[qb] [QUOTE]1. I could not blame some one for 'saving their own skin' in order to avoid the force of the law or of public scape-goating, and destruction of my life.
2. I doubt if EM or ES have faced such rigours themselves, so it's easy to decry others, facing the loss of everything.
quote:Ah I hadnt realised that you think all persecuation of lgbt has stopped in UK and its churches.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:1. None of those applies today. Even if a priest did admit to being in a consensual same sex relationship that involved physical sexual activity, the Anglican Church would do - nothing. The idea of persecution is really a straw man: if, as so many claim that public opinion is now on their side, the CofE hierarchy (see my thought on the Bishop of Buckingham above) wouldn't run in the face of that opinion to sack or discipline anyone.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[qb] [QUOTE]1. I could not blame some one for 'saving their own skin' in order to avoid the force of the law or of public scape-goating, and destruction of my life.
2. I doubt if EM or ES have faced such rigours themselves, so it's easy to decry others, facing the loss of everything.
quote:you think there are no gay individuals and couples alive today, who set off in those 'bad old days' ? Do you ?
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:Oh please - surely we're talking about the scenario NOW - not some time in the past when that was true. Just because in the past being in a gay relationship was the cause of total disaster - and I'm well aware that as late as the 1950s that was the case as Manchester's Alan Turing so horribly demonstrates. But it's not now.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
quote:I spoke of execution and imprisonment.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:Hmm - so it's OK as the leader of an organisation that is supposed to provide a moral lead in society to lie when your own financial interests are at stake... Therefore it's ok for anyone to lie when their financial interests are at stake. No wonder bankers act as they do when their spiritual leaders are able to justify such self-serving behaviour. One feels that the British Bankers Association should write to Giles Fraser asking for an apology for his condemnatory words at the time of the occupy fiasco.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
[S]o it's easy to decry others, facing the loss of everything.
Carry on vomitting
quote:1. I didn't say that, nor do I believe that, nor do I condone it. Unless of course you think it unsupportable that I (and others') have reservations about the validity of certain expressions of same sex relationships.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
[QUOTE]
1. Ah I hadnt realised that you think all persecuation of lgbt has stopped in UK and its churches.
2. What can I say ?
3. Then there are all the countries which still execute and imprison gays.
quote:I beg to differ and actually find your comment offensive.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
[QUOTE]Do not talk to me about 'deceptive'. There's nothing more deceptive than the heteronormative society and its churches.
quote:You have no authority to command me to speak or to be silent.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
[qb] [QUOTE]Do not talk to me about 'deceptive'. There's nothing more deceptive than the heteronormative society and its churches.
quote:Ditto - I also beg to differ and find your comments offensive as you must know,.. actually.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:I beg to differ and actually find your comment offensive.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
[QUOTE]Do not talk to me about 'deceptive'. There's nothing more deceptive than the heteronormative society and its churches.
quote:1. It's a mark of the current situation in many a DH debate that it has come to the point where if you can't support something fully you are labelled as something hideous, despite where you actually stand... Emotions get flared on everyside and a proper sort of debate needs to happen that uses the emotions that will always come into this in a constructive manner rather than the negative, descent into faeces throwing that it tends to become...
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:1. I didn't say that, nor do I believe that, nor do I condone it. Unless of course you think it unsupportable that I (and others') have reservations about the validity of certain expressions of same sex relationships.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
[QUOTE]
1. Ah I hadnt realised that you think all persecuation of lgbt has stopped in UK and its churches.
2. What can I say ?
3. Then there are all the countries which still execute and imprison gays.
2. Try not assuming you know what I am and where I've come from for a start. I have actually put home and career on the line in the interests of truth so I know something of which I speak.
3. Yes there are and it is very very wrong. But it doesn't happen in the UK. We are discussing Bishops in the UK not attitudes in other countries.
quote:Tell me you're joking. My diocesan bishop has warned all the clergy here that if i got a whiff of that he would investigate and suspend licenses.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Even if a priest did admit to being in a consensual same sex relationship that involved physical sexual activity, the Anglican Church would do - nothing.
quote:You are doing a superb job at muddying the water. Let's try and take a step back. AFAICS you are confusing the situations of the
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
you think there are no gay individuals and couples alive today, who set off in those 'bad old days' ? Do you ?
Do not talk to me about 'deceptive'. There's nothing more deceptive than the heteronormative society and its churches. Lgbt are oppressed today.
You could clear the air by saying you are not profoundly anti-gay -
but I wouldn't want you to lie, even though you have nothing riding upon it.
quote:I'm not joking. So Mike at Bristol has said that has he? I'll have to ask a few of my chums in Bristol to see if that's the case - last time I spoke to a couple, it wasn't policy. I know of one instance where it definately hasn't been applied in that Diocese and as they say I am not unacquainted with the geographical area in question ......
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Tell me you're joking. My diocesan bishop has warned all the clergy here that if i got a whiff of that he would investigate and suspend licenses.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Even if a priest did admit to being in a consensual same sex relationship that involved physical sexual activity, the Anglican Church would do - nothing.
quote:Which is suprising, since it is not a view much expressed by many CofE peeps I talk to when we discuss things...
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
... members of the CofE who have gained the impression that the clergy are expected to conform to the standards of 'Issues'.
quote:Oh those have been going on for donkeys years... talk to enough gays/lesbians you will come across someone who has attended one at somepoint in the past 40 years...
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Blind eyes are turned to "private" ceremonies for SSM's that amount to a marriage blessing.
quote:Louise
Originally posted by Louise:
hosting/
This thread put on several posts that l cross posted with. Imersge Canfield and Exclamation mark, you need to stop this now or take your discussion to Hell.
Louise
DH host
hosting off
quote:Turn everything into a court case? Sure, bring it on.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:Wow - I'm impressed.
Originally posted by pete173:
DDOs always need to include within the Sponsoring Papers at this section the sentence: ‘I have discussed Issues in Human Sexuality with X and he/ she is content to live within these guidelines.’"
My own feeling is that we need to make clear to ALL clergy that they are expected to live by those standards, and that if they aren't, then they are receiving their stipend by deception. If AT ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE it comes out that they have deliberately ignoring the rules, then they should be charged with the criminal offence of receiving money by deception and their pension should be suppressed to act as repayment for the money that they have stolen.
And yes - of course this applies to straights as well as gays. But note the 'deliberately'; if a person ends up in what they know to be a sinful situation, then that is a totally different matter.
quote:Ouch. Yes, if the guy is playing by the rules of 'Issues', then that is wholly unacceptable, and the bishop should be challenged. Court? If absolutely necessary - but I suspect he'd buckle if challenged if the facts are what we're assuming.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Turn everything into a court case? Sure, bring it on.
As long as we can also make court cases out of those bishops and clergy who are openly and viciously homophobic (such as the new bishop who told a friend of mine, "I don't like homosexuals who are out of the closet. And while I'm bishop in this diocese you'll never get another job.")
quote:The trouble is that I have no idea what is really meant by 'listen to'. It DOESN'T mean 'come to agree with the perspective of. In modern society it is rather hard NOT to hear the stories of gay people - or at least of the ones who have come to the politically acceptable answer. And of course, the stories of the ones who've come to the 'wrong' answer. Which - just to head off the comment - doesn't begin to justify any sort of rejection of people simply because of their same sex attraction.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
And how about those bishops who have deliberately ignored their (contractual?) obligation under Lambeth 1998 to listen to gay people?
You up for that?
quote:It seems that hte link goes to an article which is full of answers inline with Issues and how many would like to think about it - my sexuality is a struggle that is part of my fallen state, I try hard to work at it and be a good celibate.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
And of course, the stories of the ones who've come to the 'wrong' answer. Which - just to head off the comment - doesn't begin to justify any sort of rejection of people simply because of their same sex attraction.
quote:Indeed - that's the traditional theological position, and is one held by some gay people, including the one in the article. Of course it's not the conclusion that you've come to - but I don't think the listening process specified 'don't listen to the people who've rejected what the church has always taught but only pay attention to the ones whose views are similar to the growing consensus outside the church'.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:It seems that hte link goes to an article which is full of answers inline with Issues and how many would like to think about it - my sexuality is a struggle that is part of my fallen state, I try hard to work at it and be a good celibate.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
And of course, the stories of the ones who've come to the 'wrong' answer. Which - just to head off the comment - doesn't begin to justify any sort of rejection of people simply because of their same sex attraction.
quote:Good grief, no! Where on earth can consensus and mutual moving forwards come from if we just listen to who we like... Surely I do not come across as an advocate of only listening to views I like...
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:Indeed - that's the traditional theological position, and is one held by some gay people, including the one in the article. Of course it's not the conclusion that you've come to - but I don't think the listening process specified 'don't listen to the people who've rejected what the church has always taught but only pay attention to the ones whose views are similar to the growing consensus outside the church'.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:It seems that hte link goes to an article which is full of answers inline with Issues and how many would like to think about it - my sexuality is a struggle that is part of my fallen state, I try hard to work at it and be a good celibate.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
And of course, the stories of the ones who've come to the 'wrong' answer. Which - just to head off the comment - doesn't begin to justify any sort of rejection of people simply because of their same sex attraction.
quote:Sure. But changes in social norms can make us think about our theology, and may take us to somewhere that we hadn't expected.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And if 'listening' means 'conforming to the standards of this world', then count me out. Any change in stance has to be theologically, not socially driven. I'm sick of hearing how the Church should 'keep in step with public opinion' or be 'relevant'. That attitude taken too far would have had the early martyrs burning incense to Caesar in no time...
quote:Absolutely. Let's not pretend for a moment that the Church decided on its own - or even decided willingly - that homophobia is a bad thing. It was the "world" that led the way. If the Church had its way, it'd still be kicking us in the neck on a regular basis.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:Sure. But changes in social norms can make us think about our theology, and may take us to somewhere that we hadn't expected.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And if 'listening' means 'conforming to the standards of this world', then count me out. Any change in stance has to be theologically, not socially driven. I'm sick of hearing how the Church should 'keep in step with public opinion' or be 'relevant'. That attitude taken too far would have had the early martyrs burning incense to Caesar in no time...
quote:Since the Bishop of Chester advocated, back in 2003, that gay people needed psychiatry and that 're-alignment' thearapies worked, he should have been either defrocked or pushed to retire early just from a general pastoral pov - how someone who believes that homosexuality is a disease still (40 years this year I believe since it was taken of the list) can sensitively approach pastoral issues I'm not entirely sure...
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
ES, I'm glad you agree with me about homophobic bishops. You'll perhaps recall that a few years ago the Bishop of Chester was spoken to by the police about alleged homophobic language. He's still in post. Should he be?
quote:He made a statement at a diocesan synod - I wasn't there and maybe it was in response to a question from one of the more conservative members.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:I'm not joking. So Mike at Bristol has said that has he? I'll have to ask a few of my chums in Bristol to see if that's the case - last time I spoke to a couple, it wasn't policy. I know of one instance where it definately hasn't been applied in that Diocese and as they say I am not unacquainted with the geographical area in question ......
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Tell me you're joking. My diocesan bishop has warned all the clergy here that if i got a whiff of that he would investigate and suspend licenses.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Even if a priest did admit to being in a consensual same sex relationship that involved physical sexual activity, the Anglican Church would do - nothing.
quote:Absolutely. Let's not pretend for a moment that the Church decided on its own - or even decided willingly - that homophobia is a bad thing. It was the "world" that led the way. If the Church had its way, it'd still be kicking us in the neck on a regular basis.[/qb][/quote]
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Sure. But changes in social norms can make us think about our theology, and may take us to somewhere that we hadn't expected.
quote:But I rather think I am not reading their words in the way that they intended them to be understood...
The Church of England Evangelical Council said that the appointment of priests in civil partnerships as bishops was "not a justice issue", but "an issue of example setting to the nation. . . The watching world may well conclude that same-sex relationships are simply OK for followers of Jesus Christ."
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I seem to find myself agreeing with the CofE Evangelical Council, as reported in today's Church Times
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:
But I rather think I am not reading their words in the way that they intended them to be understood...
quote:Without reading the whole quote where you've missed out a bit, I think I can assent to the quote above...
The Church of England Evangelical Council said that the appointment of priests in civil partnerships as bishops was "not a justice issue", but "an issue of example setting to the nation. . . The watching world may well conclude that same-sex relationships are simply OK for followers of Jesus Christ."
My thoughts exactly when I read it!
quote:Humbug: the early church was quite clear about not allowing certain behaviours amongst its membership - so it was no more 'loving' than the world outside on those issues. The only question is what those behaviours are.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
(This is something I heard in a sermon once, so it must be true!) The Church in the first three centuries earned the admiration of the secular world because of the quality of its love. Not only did Christians accept persecution because of their principles but, if times of plague followed, they would risk their lives to care for those who persecuted them.
If that is true, then it seems to me that it explains why the Church today has lost the respect of the modern secular world. The Church tells other people they must sacrifice their lives, while the world shows itself to be more loving than the Church.
quote:Ender's Shadow, Since Robert didn't mention about accpetable and unacceptable behaviour within the membership I'm not entirely sure why you've humbugged...
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:Humbug: the early church was quite clear about not allowing certain behaviours amongst its membership - so it was no more 'loving' than the world outside on those issues. The only question is what those behaviours are.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
(This is something I heard in a sermon once, so it must be true!) The Church in the first three centuries earned the admiration of the secular world because of the quality of its love. Not only did Christians accept persecution because of their principles but, if times of plague followed, they would risk their lives to care for those who persecuted them.
If that is true, then it seems to me that it explains why the Church today has lost the respect of the modern secular world. The Church tells other people they must sacrifice their lives, while the world shows itself to be more loving than the Church.
quote:yeah I sort of guessed that... I have a particular dislike of street-preachers, but that's more because of the ones I've met than with those are are probably out there doing both...
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Thank you SM. Apart from the additional material on street preachers, you have made my point better than I did.
quote:Fair enough
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
My basic point remains. Christians are meant to be known by their love.
quote:Really? What do you mean by that? There are some churches that do a great line in legalism etc. etc. But there always have been. What do you think changed, and when?
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
For a long time now (much longer than 50 years) the World has shown itself to be a more loving place than the Church.
quote:Naw - the church lost the plot long before 50 years ago. It's messing around with various political games, most obviously appeasement before WWII, was particularly crass. But in general it had lost its spiritual dynamic by the late 1950s, which is why it made such a complete prat of itself during the sixties cultural revolution in the West and has never recovered. But the fantasy that there was ever a golden time when it was a truly loving community, and it's lost the plot since then, is not justifiable. There have always been good churches and bad ones. The fact that the ones that last are generally those with a stronger commitment to traditional theology, whilst the liberal ones tend to leave no spiritual descendants, is an observation that raises hard questions about the propensity to fail of the liberal project.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Is it any wonder that the Church is not held in repute any longer?
quote:1963 doesn't seem a terribly significant date to me; why do you highlight it?
The problem with the 'let's be known for our love' strategy is that it's been what has been practiced by most of the mainstream church for the past 50 years
quote:The issue of there being a massive divergence between the beliefs of the church and the attitudes of the wider public emerged in the 1960s, and the response of many liberals at the time was to strongly emphasis the elements of the faith that did conform to the vision of the '60s'. Whilst this is, of course, a valid strategy, unfortunately too many went too far by effectively abandoning any challenge to 'repentance' as being 'judgemental - an allegation also made against the Alpha course by the way by some Evangelicals - except of course of comfortably corporate sins that one can then be 'prophetic' about.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
ES, I mentioned 50 years because of your comment:quote:1963 doesn't seem a terribly significant date to me; why do you highlight it?
The problem with the 'let's be known for our love' strategy is that it's been what has been practiced by most of the mainstream church for the past 50 years
quote:You seem to be arguing some form of manichaeism - the Church as a spiritual entity is good, no good can be found in the world outside of the Church.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It isn't right for those right-wing evangelicals. But I would take serious issue with your assumption that something good can come from 'worldly' values.
quote:And it is, of course, the year that sexual intercourse began ('between the end of the Chatterley ban and the Beatles' first LP'- Larkin).
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
ES, I mentioned 50 years because of your comment:quote:1963 doesn't seem a terribly significant date to me; why do you highlight it?
The problem with the 'let's be known for our love' strategy is that it's been what has been practiced by most of the mainstream church for the past 50 years
quote:'comfortably'????
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
comfortably corporate sins that one can then be 'prophetic' about.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:Comfortably corporate in the sense of having effectively nothing to do with me. To take an extreme example - ranting happily from an English pulpit about the terrible way that the American government treats its aboriginal people seems to attract the quotation:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:'comfortably'????
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
comfortably corporate sins that one can then be 'prophetic' about.
quote:My understanding is that this is simply a return to the previous position after a lengthy moratorium for consultation and reflection. In addition, there's a fairly obvious difference between (effectively) internal expectations of behaviour and allowing an entirely new group to hold certain posts which were previously expressly closed to them.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
From the little bits of news discussion about this that I could be bothered to listen to - several questions immediately sprang up in my mind -
- How come this doesn't have to go through all three houses of synod, like the women thing had to? Which part of the constitution explains that, or are they just making this stuff up as they go along??
quote:Now I'm even more confused - So it was never expressly closed off to civilly-partnered men to become bishops?
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:My understanding is that this is simply a return to the previous position after a lengthy moratorium for consultation and reflection. In addition, there's a fairly obvious difference between (effectively) internal expectations of behaviour and allowing an entirely new group to hold certain posts which were previously expressly closed to them.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
From the little bits of news discussion about this that I could be bothered to listen to - several questions immediately sprang up in my mind -
- How come this doesn't have to go through all three houses of synod, like the women thing had to? Which part of the constitution explains that, or are they just making this stuff up as they go along??
quote:No, the 2005 (have I got the date right?) paper on Civil-partnered clergy, when read how you like, failed to mention Bishops in C-P's and how they would be not allowed, so allowed a reading that said it was fine for there to exist celibate, C-P'ed Bishops to exist. It is a return to the position of that document after pause and reflection.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:Now I'm even more confused - So it was never expressly closed off to civilly-partnered men to become bishops?
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:My understanding is that this is simply a return to the previous position after a lengthy moratorium for consultation and reflection. In addition, there's a fairly obvious difference between (effectively) internal expectations of behaviour and allowing an entirely new group to hold certain posts which were previously expressly closed to them.
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
From the little bits of news discussion about this that I could be bothered to listen to - several questions immediately sprang up in my mind -
- How come this doesn't have to go through all three houses of synod, like the women thing had to? Which part of the constitution explains that, or are they just making this stuff up as they go along??
quote:This might be me being especially thick, but I'm still struggling with it ~ The recent change is that there is, in fact, going to be no change??
Originally posted by pete173:
... The recent change, as most of the contributors to this thread appear to have understood, related to a reconsideration of whether it should extend to bishops or those being considered for ordination to the episcopate...
quote:And Giles Fraser response, showing that we can't trust what the hierarchy says given that he hasn't been slapped down for it, so the bishops of Southwark diocese appear to agree with him, has made for a far more interesting story.
Originally posted by pete173:
Ask the BBC. I told them it was a non-story. They didn't agree.
quote:Indeed - my open Evangelical friends who try to keep the two issues separate are wildly upset when I try that logic on them - from the other side...
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I would guess that most people outside of the CofE, would be inclined to think that if bishops can be gay and partnered, they can be female. And therefore the difference in handling the two issues is newsworthy.
quote:He's only coming round to the current position anyway, gay relationships are ok as long as they're monogamous - no seeming mention of marriage...
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Leading Evangelical pastor of Oasis London embraces gay relationships, and announces it the Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prominent-evangelical-pastor-reverend-steve-chalke-declares-support-for-monoga mous-same-sex-relationships-8452572.htm
Now the bishops can follow suit in the spirit of the late, great, openly gay Bishop Mervyn Stockwood and many others.
quote:The full piece is here.
He's only coming round to the current position anyway, gay relationships are ok as long as they're monogamous - no seeming mention of marriage...
quote:Wow. I'm deeply honoured that someone should remember something I said over three years ago and know where to find it - something incidentally I'd stand by to this day. Thank you.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
'I don't think a [sermon] is either prophetic or of much value if it is saying the world would be a better place if other people, not present and usually more important than we are, were different.'
as Enoch expressed it.
quote:Well, I have, and so (I think) have most married couples I know!
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Wondering if heterosexuals will ever embrace monogamy for themselves ?
I guess not.
No day soon.
quote:No confusion. Straight society is not monogamous itself and then projects its stuff on to sexual minsorities.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:Well, I have, and so (I think) have most married couples I know!
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Wondering if heterosexuals will ever embrace monogamy for themselves ?
I guess not.
No day soon.
But perhaps you are mixing up monogamy with celibacy?
quote:That's because you were wrong.
Originally posted by pete173:
Ask the BBC. I told them it was a non-story. They didn't agree.
quote:Won't make much difference - most evangelicals think he is a dangerous liberal ever since he denied PSA.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Leading Evangelical pastor of Oasis London embraces gay relationships, and announces it the Independent
quote:I'm in the process of winding up to do research degree, and your quote is rather relevant to what I'm hoping to look at, so I recorded it at the time... I suspect it will end up in my thesis in the end - but that's a good few years off.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Wow. I'm deeply honoured that someone should remember something I said over three years ago and know where to find it - something incidentally I'd stand by to this day. Thank you.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
'I don't think a [sermon] is either prophetic or of much value if it is saying the world would be a better place if other people, not present and usually more important than we are, were different.'
as Enoch expressed it.
quote:Indeed - for many of us the two events are intimately linked: he's run from the Scriptural logic on one matter - now he abandoned the scriptural argument in favour of 'let's be nice to gays' - which actually is all that his argument comes down to at the end. Of course we all want to be 'nice' to gays - it's just that us conservatives believe that a sexualised gay relationship is an inherently bad thing. Unfortunately that message tends to get lost in a lot of real homophobia*, of which too many of us have been guilty.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Won't make much difference - most evangelicals think he is a dangerous liberal ever since he denied PSA.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Leading Evangelical pastor of Oasis London embraces gay relationships, and announces it the Independent
quote:Which of course brings us back to the real reason this is a Dead Horse (too dead even for Tesco). According to you, then, homophobia is believing the only good gay is a dead gay; conservative non-homophobia is believing that the only good gay is a hypocrite. If you act against your orientation, against your God-given nature, then and only then you are acceptable to God. Which seems nonsensical to me.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
* Real homophobia being defined as a rejection of a gay person purely because of their orientation, not because of their actions.
quote:Does it though? I thought he explained at some length (quite a lot of length!) how and why his view had changed, and drawing parallels with views on women in leadership and slavery.
'let's be nice to gays' - which actually is all that his argument comes down to at the end
quote:And you get to define "real" homophobia why?!
* Real homophobia being defined as a rejection of a gay person purely because of their orientation, not because of their actions.
quote:As a straight person, it is not for you to define homophobia because you will never be a victim of it. And what Angloid said.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:Indeed - for many of us the two events are intimately linked: he's run from the Scriptural logic on one matter - now he abandoned the scriptural argument in favour of 'let's be nice to gays' - which actually is all that his argument comes down to at the end. Of course we all want to be 'nice' to gays - it's just that us conservatives believe that a sexualised gay relationship is an inherently bad thing. Unfortunately that message tends to get lost in a lot of real homophobia*, of which too many of us have been guilty.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Won't make much difference - most evangelicals think he is a dangerous liberal ever since he denied PSA.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Leading Evangelical pastor of Oasis London embraces gay relationships, and announces it the Independent
----
* Real homophobia being defined as a rejection of a gay person purely because of their orientation, not because of their actions.
quote:Endorsing monogamy over non-monogamy is standard Christian belief and is not inherently homophobic (it can be when it is assumed that gay people are incapable of monogamy). I believe in monogamy over non-monogamy, but it has nothing to do with sexuality.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
quote:No confusion. Straight society is not monogamous itself and then projects its stuff on to sexual minsorities.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:Well, I have, and so (I think) have most married couples I know!
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Wondering if heterosexuals will ever embrace monogamy for themselves ?
I guess not.
No day soon.
But perhaps you are mixing up monogamy with celibacy?
Individuals such as you or I may be but I am talking about the way the whole thing works.
Think teens and young adults 'dating'.
Think so-called 'serial monogamy' (of say the middle aged) which is nothing of the sort.
Think divorce and what follows.
I think we all know from the culture around us that monogamy lifelong is the exception not the rule.
Just sayin
quote:Well then gay marriage should be.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
We are trying to reinterpret God's opinions in light of the 21st century. God does not change his opinions. Sex outside marriage is not allowed.
quote:What are they then?
We are trying to reinterpret God's opinions
quote:Again, what are they? I'd also hope that my G-D is more than just some thing or person who has *opinions*.
God does not change his opinions.
quote:Says who? Where?
Sex outside marriage is not allowed.
quote:Very true.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Endorsing monogamy over non-monogamy is standard Christian belief and is not inherently homophobic (it can be when it is assumed that gay people are incapable of monogamy). I believe in monogamy over non-monogamy, but it has nothing to do with sexuality.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
quote:No confusion. Straight society is not monogamous itself and then projects its stuff on to sexual minsorities.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:Well, I have, and so (I think) have most married couples I know!
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Wondering if heterosexuals will ever embrace monogamy for themselves ?
I guess not.
No day soon.
But perhaps you are mixing up monogamy with celibacy?
Individuals such as you or I may be but I am talking about the way the whole thing works.
Think teens and young adults 'dating'.
Think so-called 'serial monogamy' (of say the middle aged) which is nothing of the sort.
Think divorce and what follows.
I think we all know from the culture around us that monogamy lifelong is the exception not the rule.
Just sayin
quote:Oh, absolutely. The attitudes of con-evos towards LGBTQ people and to divorce would certainly suggest that heterosexual non-monogamy is fine with a lot of them, so long as those icky gays don't get to do it too - but then, the issue is not with monogamy but with those people.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
quote:Very true.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Endorsing monogamy over non-monogamy is standard Christian belief and is not inherently homophobic (it can be when it is assumed that gay people are incapable of monogamy). I believe in monogamy over non-monogamy, but it has nothing to do with sexuality.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
quote:No confusion. Straight society is not monogamous itself and then projects its stuff on to sexual minsorities.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:Well, I have, and so (I think) have most married couples I know!
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Wondering if heterosexuals will ever embrace monogamy for themselves ?
I guess not.
No day soon.
But perhaps you are mixing up monogamy with celibacy?
Individuals such as you or I may be but I am talking about the way the whole thing works.
Think teens and young adults 'dating'.
Think so-called 'serial monogamy' (of say the middle aged) which is nothing of the sort.
Think divorce and what follows.
I think we all know from the culture around us that monogamy lifelong is the exception not the rule.
Just sayin
I just notice that 'monogamy' is honoured in the breach, by churches, that is preached but not practiced. WHILE these churches talk and act, in ways that put all that burden of expectation on to lgbt.
Woman's Hour this morning had a very intersting piece in which 2 women spoke of their sex lives down the years. A number of others spoke of their lives and partners after they divorced or separated.
Can still be heard on-line I imagine.
LGBT have historically often had to go without sex or sexual loving due to the arrangements of societies down the centuries, including far-flung villages etc.
'standard Christian belief' in monogamy - 'one man and one woman for life' (that's it isn't it ?) is a 'belief' unpracticed, by a great many people, including many religious, clergy and popes, I am given to understand.
Genetic evidence also bears this out.
quote:I'm not sure what this refers to, but if it's referring to monogamy - lots of Christians who object to homosexual sexual activity seem not to object nearly as strongly to divorce and heterosexual non-monogamy. On a well-known anti-fundie board I read, there is speculation that polygyny would be considered by some fundamentalists* for this reason.
Originally posted by Albertus:
Where on earth are you getting all this from?
quote:You can't really repeat 'monogamy for life' and still call it 'monogamy' can you ? Callling it monogamy, while trying to call the shots to lgbt is something to which I am objecting.
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, I suppose so. It's not a world I'm familiar with, I'm glad to say. I think - I can't know- that most of the married people I know take their vows pretty seriously and if they have divorced and remarried it's because they do, perhaps inconsistently but genuinely, believe in monogamy for life and wanted to have another go at achieving it.
quote:I don't think it's true to say that straight people who end up divorced don't take their marriage vows seriously or that it's not monogamy. People divorce for all sorts of reasons, not just sexual infidelity. I agree with you about the kind of hypocrites who rail against homosexuality but marry and divorce many times, but not all who practice serial monogamy fit into that mould. In fact, I would say that even amongst Christians, it's not the majority. You can take your marriage vows seriously and still end up divorced, unfortunately.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
quote:You can't really repeat 'monogamy for life' and still call it 'monogamy' can you ? Callling it monogamy, while trying to call the shots to lgbt is something to which I am objecting.
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, I suppose so. It's not a world I'm familiar with, I'm glad to say. I think - I can't know- that most of the married people I know take their vows pretty seriously and if they have divorced and remarried it's because they do, perhaps inconsistently but genuinely, believe in monogamy for life and wanted to have another go at achieving it.
quote:I can't believe the irony here. LGBT peope can't even give their vows one shot, let alone several! And some of us would take our same-sex vows extremely seriously. How can heteros be so hypocritical?
Yes, I suppose so. It's not a world I'm familiar with, I'm glad to say. I think - I can't know- that most of the married people I know take their vows pretty seriously and if they have divorced and remarried it's because they do, perhaps inconsistently but genuinely, believe in monogamy for life and wanted to have another go at achieving it.
quote:Gay people who marry still divorce. Monogamy or the lack of it has nothing to do with sexuality. Obviously those straight people who object to SSM on 'Biblical' grounds but marry and divorce are hypocrites, but many straight divorcees have no objection to SSM at all.
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Albertus says:quote:I can't believe the irony here. LGBT peope can't even give their vows one shot, let alone several! And some of us would take our same-sex vows extremely seriously. How can heteros be so hypocritical?
Yes, I suppose so. It's not a world I'm familiar with, I'm glad to say. I think - I can't know- that most of the married people I know take their vows pretty seriously and if they have divorced and remarried it's because they do, perhaps inconsistently but genuinely, believe in monogamy for life and wanted to have another go at achieving it.
quote:Where on earth do you get that one from? I have been in Con Evo circles for over 30 years and have never come across it. Especially today most con evos are looking to teach and live "Eros Redeemed" - that is to discover or rediscover God's intention for human sexuality.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Oh, absolutely. The attitudes of con-evos towards LGBTQ people and to divorce would certainly suggest that heterosexual non-monogamy is fine with a lot of them, so long as those icky gays don't get to do it too ...
quote:Why should that (on its own at least) invalidate the 'standard Christian belief', though? Because some Christians tell lies, does that mean we should likewise abandon striving for truth?
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
'standard Christian belief' in monogamy - 'one man and one woman for life' (that's it isn't it ?) is a 'belief' unpracticed, by a great many people, including many religious, clergy and popes, I am given to understand.
Genetic evidence also bears this out.
quote:Uh? Why on earth would you find such a straightforward description obnoxious?
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
By the way, to pick up our conversation on another thread the PC) one, I find the term "straight" as obnoxious as you'd find "homosexual" or "bent" (which seems to be the opposite).
quote:So would you be ok with the Church blessing a gay couples relationship as long as they vow to be celibate?
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Of course we all want to be 'nice' to gays - it's just that us conservatives believe that a sexualised gay relationship is an inherently bad thing.
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:- it's just that us conservatives believe that a sexualised gay relationship is an inherently bad thing.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Won't make much difference - most evangelicals think he is a dangerous liberal ever since he denied PSA.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Leading Evangelical pastor of Oasis London embraces gay relationships, and announces it the Independent
quote:Surely it'll make a difference in the sense that gay evangelicals in London now know that there's an evangelical church they can attend without being in the closet. And this church may plant others. I know of a coupls of 'Oasis' churches in my city, and I'm wondering if they teach the same thing.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Won't make much difference - most evangelicals think he is a dangerous liberal ever since he denied PSA.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Leading Evangelical pastor of Oasis London embraces gay relationships, and announces it the Independent
quote:In an increasingly non-Christian world, yes the arguments do not hold any sway, butt he other problem those arguments ahve is that they are all so unsteady and too easy to disprove.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think many of the arguments used by opponents are just incomprehensible to many people, e.g. the natural law arguments, the idea that God instituted marriage and so on. I think the UK is too secularized now for those arguments to wash.
quote:It doesn't really work in the theological either. Since we infer what the end intended by God is from nature in the main, if it happens in nature it is quite possible to make the claim that it is an acceptable good for that thing... i never could get my head around the idea of 'hacking a system' since if it were 'hacking a system' it wouldn't be so damn easy to do...
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The other issue for me is that many of these arguments seem riven by the is/ought fallacy. Thus, because something occurs in nature, does that mean it ought to occur?
Thus, the arguments that men have dicks, and women have handy receptacles for them, seems to lead on to a moral consequence - that we ought therefore to insert one into the other, and that is the basis of marriage. Where does the 'ought' come from? From God, I suppose.
Of course, men also have a handy receptacle, but that is 'ought not'. (Well, so do women of course, so you have multiple choice here).
This kind of argument is not going to work in a secular culture.
quote:Given that Paul does his nut about a member of the Corinthian church (1 Cor 5) having a sexual relationship with his step mother, I suspect it probably is wrong. And of course we've crossed the border into 'adultery' territory here, given that having a mother in law implies having a wife...
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think buggering your mother-in-law is definitely in bad taste; not sure if it's 'wrong'.
quote:I've absolutely seen a casual attitude to divorce while being hardline on homosexuality amongst con-evos, mostly in US megachurches but also elsewhere. I don't quite understand the comparison to camp A-C priests though?
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:Where on earth do you get that one from? I have been in Con Evo circles for over 30 years and have never come across it. Especially today most con evos are looking to teach and live "Eros Redeemed" - that is to discover or rediscover God's intention for human sexuality.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Oh, absolutely. The attitudes of con-evos towards LGBTQ people and to divorce would certainly suggest that heterosexual non-monogamy is fine with a lot of them, so long as those icky gays don't get to do it too ...
It is a part of God's creation to be enjoyed within a committed and publicly recognised relationship. Call it marriage and call it monogamy if you will. For some that can only be expressed in sexual activity between a man and woman. others (in con evo circles) take the view that same sex rlaionships are permissible but on the same monogamous and recognised basis as hetersexual ones.
Nowhere have I seen nor have I ever heard the hypocrisy you ascribe to Con Evos. It doesn't help the cause to peddle tribal arguments because it just isn't true - just as not all camp A-C priests are actively gay.
By the way, to pick up our conversation on another thread the PC) one, I find the term "straight" as obnoxious as you'd find "homosexual" or "bent" (which seems to be the opposite).
quote:I have to agree with Jade on this one ExclamationMark. All Churches are guilty to some degree of relaxing the rules on one thing and being as strict on other things still.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I've absolutely seen a casual attitude to divorce while being hardline on homosexuality amongst con-evos...
quote:Secular society tends to have parameters that are conformed to an understanding of:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Maybe it would be easier to list those sexual acts which all of us would count as 'inherently wrong', and then identify what makes them so?
Does secular society have parameters enabling us to do this, beyond that which happens to be illegal?
quote:The third gender is very complicated, but incredibly fun to study from an anthropoligical point of view (I'm no anthropologists, just did several elective modules in that area for my BA).
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Patriarchy also tends to condemn homosexuality, since the ideal male is virile, war-like, aggressive, and above all, fertile, producing loads of kids.
The counter-example to this is the 'third gender' in some societies, who were/are permitted to wear women's clothes, and do female tasks, and possibly have sex with men. For example, still found in Samoa and India. It's all very complicated.
quote:It depends what we count as macho and also the different cultural, religious and philosophical ideas that play with each other in the area.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Actually, an anthropological theory of patriarchy will be more sophisticated than this. For example, in his book 'Manhood in the Making', David Gilmore (American anthropologist), argues that patriarchy becomes more abrasive (and homophobic), as the environment becomes more harsh. He takes the Mediterranean as a case-study, and argues that the societies around it were faced with very harsh conditions, with poor soil, and so on, and hence men were forced to be macho, and also homophobia was widespread. However, in less harsh conditions, men were not required to be as macho, and homophobia reduced. This seems to be an eminently testable thesis, but I don't know if it has been tested or not.
quote:We would hopefully win in that situation (although I had to look it up, something new learnt today,
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, patriarchy seems to be declining. It used to have an iron grip over women, gays, children, and in fact, over men themselves, who had certain duties and roles they had to perform.
Thus, we can argue that the ancient prejudices against women are declining, ditto the treatment of children as property or cheap labour, ditto the pathologization of gays.
I suppose it's always possible to have a reversal - thus, some right-wing or theocratic regimes can become very nasty, misogynist, homophobic, etc.
Venceremos!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
happy day!)quote:As opposed to followers of the zeitgeist?
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Do the 'God Squad' have anything useful to add to the above points???
quote:The focus of the debate for conservative Christian is that homosexuality DOES do harm to the participants, not least, but not only, because it damages their relationship to God. That's the argument. That this point is disputed is of course obvious...
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Secular society tends to have parameters that are conformed to an understanding of:
1. public decency,
2. public outrage and disgust
3. the idea of harm to oneself and to others.
quote:Huh? So homosexual incest isn't a problem? Surely the other element is that intra-family relationships should NOT be sexualised - so that there is freedom to relate without fear of that issue being under the surface. Actually this is, I suspect, an element in 'homophobia'; when a person comes out unexpectedly, what had previously been a non-sexual relationship is suddenly more ambiguous. Of course in reality that's a gross oversimplification, but I suspect it is an element in some situations.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Incest is out because it does harm to those that might result from such a relationship.
quote:It does seem to have developed that way.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One of the interesting things about religion, is that it often seems to act as an ideological repository. Thus, in relation to patriarchy, and patriarchal attitudes to women and gays, the churches seem to be amongst the toughest nuts to crack. That is, they are reluctant to give up their traditional misogyny and homophobia.
I'm not sure why this is, but it is certainly is piquant to see the Tory party embracing gay marriage, and the churches not!
UKIP are loving it, as they can siphon off homophobic Tories now, plus all the other right-wing stuff.
quote:I thought I was making a comment on secular societies standards rather than talking about the Churches standards... I did somewhat misread the question I was responding to, but not greatly, adn just happened to point out that society seems to govern it's relationships based on three principles... whilst I gave an example for incest usign one of the criteria it does not necessarily follow that is the only criteria. Most people find that incest of any kind insults their communal sense of decency and so fails there as well.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The focus of the debate for conservative Christian...
- sorry the shortening made me laugh) and how he somehow makes this beautifully ill-informed and generally sweeping comment:quote:He has made a point that the three Abrahamic faiths are all in agreement about the nature of marraige: that would be misinformed point number one.
‘Christianity, Islam and Judaism - the Abrahamic faiths - share the same fundamental view of marriage, as a relationship between two people of the opposite sex and the gift of sex is something that belongs, at best, within marriage, so adultery or sleeping around or abuse of sex falls below that standard.
‘What I think they are all trying to say is it would be a mistake to drop that standard. We understand a lot more about same-sex sexuality now and we would be fools to ignore that, but at the same time we don’t want to ignore a good ethical ideal. Judaism has been established for 4,000 years so it would be re-writing that in fewer than 10 years.
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:As opposed to followers of the zeitgeist?
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Do the 'God Squad' have anything useful to add to the above points???
Not opposed to, no ~ in useful addition to ... There's no getting around the zetitgiest for an established church.
quote:EVERY church must engage with the zeitgeist - it's just that the fight is somewhat more visible in an established church, and the sense of ownership by everyone makes it harder for the church to resist at times. However that doesn't mean that such a church is right to 'conform to the world'. Indeed some of the worst moments in church history have been when the church HAS conformed to the zeitgeist: in the 20th century its uncritical support for WWI followed by its support for appeasement in the 30s being rather blatant examples, whilst the role of churchmen as useful idiots should make us highly sceptical about the ability of our church leaders to discern anything. Given that record, it's crucial that we don't simply go with the flow but ask some very hard questions...
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:Not opposed to, no ~ in useful addition to ... There's no getting around the zetitgiest for an established church.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:As opposed to followers of the zeitgeist?
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Do the 'God Squad' have anything useful to add to the above points???
quote:Of course. But the implication shouldn't therefore be that the zeitgeist is always wrong (or even most likely to be).
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given that record, it's crucial that we don't simply go with the flow but ask some very hard questions...
quote:
I mean, I've got no problem with it [SSRs], but I can't say that in my assignment because I wouldn't want the vicar to read it.
quote:But the number of gay people is likely to be finite, whereas the number of divorcees is mostly dependent on the surrounding culture, and therefore the numbers could increase almost indefinitely. It's not apparent that large numbers of straight people are ever likely to know large numbers of gay people, though I suppose it depends on where you live.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
As more and more people come to know homosexuals, and realise that they are ordinary people, maybe even Christians, struggling to do their best with the hand life has dealt them, I think that compassion will grow and judgmentalism wither.
quote:Maybe because you weren't in my congregation this morning, when I opined from the pulpit:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I haven't heard anyone express the possibility that having gay bishops (for example) will assist in the reinvigoration of a declining church or that it might have positive evangelistic outcomes.
quote:or more succinctly from a correspondent to the Church Times:
... look at the telly, the papers, the internet and blow me if the Church isn't messily and noisily turning the rich wine of God's love into plain water. In our internal bickering and recrimination spill out of the kitchen, our wranglings over human sexuality, our willingness to perpetuate worn-out gender stereotypes,
It's hardly surprising that The Church of England becomes seen by people like our Christmas visitors as utterly irrelevant to their daily lives,a place of judgementalism and exclusion, the last refuge of out-dated prejudice in a modern society. Who on earth would want to get involved more than once a year?
And yet, and yet, if we listen carefully, we hear the Mother of God speaking to the body of Christ again: “But they have no wine!”
[...]
And I'm absolutely convinced that St X's has a God-given vocation to stand up and say to the people of this time and this place, alienated by our public antics: “It doesn't have to be like this!”
Surely to God, literally, surely to God, the riches of the best wine are for everyone who comes to drink,everyone is summoned to the wedding banquet of the Lamb.
In this part of the Church of England, all who come are welcome to share in the full life of the Church, of whatever age or gender or sexual orientation or whatever other wonderful variety of human that God has created.
quote:Do these suggest a "positive evangelistic outcome"?
Sir, - You report the Church of England Evangelical Council as saying (News, 11 January) that the appointment of priests in civil partnerships as bishops is "an issue of example-setting to the nation. . . The watching world may well conclude that same-sex relationships are simply OK for followers of Jesus Christ."
I do hope so.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:You make it sound like a good thing, ignoring the clear teaching of the founder of the organisation that we are supposed to be here to worship. I really really can't see how this doesn't totally match the behaviour that Jesus excoriates:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
There is very clear Biblical, even Dominical, teaching on the subject of divorce (as opposed to the handful of obscure verses on homosexuality). Therefore, at one time divorce was taboo among Christians in Britain. The reason it is largely accepted now, I suspect, is that more and more people got to know divorcees, and came to realise that their situations needed compassion and not judgmentalism.
quote:Mk 7:5-13
5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”
6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
quote:Well said Qoheleth - I am sure we will hear more and more such sense and truth preached in the CofE in the future. Progress takes time.
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
Surely to God, literally, surely to God, the riches of the best wine are for everyone who comes to drink,everyone is summoned to the wedding banquet of the Lamb.
In this part of the Church of England, all who come are welcome to share in the full life of the Church, of whatever age or gender or sexual orientation or whatever other wonderful variety of human that God has created.
quote:I can only assume that you are referring to the statement:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
Are you reading the rest of that chapter??
quote:There was a documentary recently on how American comedy shows reflect society. This showed (among other things) how positively gay characters were now portrayed, and claimed that, by now, every American either had a gay member of their family or knew someone gay. No idea what justification there is for this, but it seems reasonable to me.
It's not apparent that large numbers of straight people are ever likely to know large numbers of gay people, though I suppose it depends on where you live.
quote:I'm not sure about the claim every American has a gay family member (that they know - of course everyone has at least one gay family member!) or they know one in their friendship/social circles, but I would say television is starting to present gay people in a more balanced and truthful light. Although the 'stereotypical' type still appears it is balanced with the more serious, intelligent and good in their demanding career types. Both types of gay person exist so it is a good rebalancing.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
There was a documentary recently on how American comedy shows reflect society. This showed (among other things) how positively gay characters were now portrayed, and claimed that, by now, every American either had a gay member of their family or knew someone gay. No idea what justification there is for this, but it seems reasonable to me.
...
ES, forgive me, but you seem to me to act as though the ultimate revelation of God to us is a book, which must be followed in all its details. That is the view Muslims hold of the Qur'an; for Christians the ultimate revelation is a human being. Jesus' words on divorce, at the time, were full of human compassion for the needs of women, who had very little protection. It is that human compassion we are called to emulate.
quote:Indeed so. It's just a question of how far back you consider your family. According to my rough back-of-envelope calculations, if you take your immediate family to include parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews, then there's an evens chance of one being gay. (Assuming current average UK family size). I think that sounds reasonably typical of what people mean when they talk about family these days.
...of course everyone has at least one gay family member!
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's not apparent that large numbers of straight people are ever likely to know large numbers of gay people, though I suppose it depends on where you live.
I missed this. Why should the proportion of gay people in the population vary according to where you live? I thought 'the only gay in the village' was a blatant caricature of reality.
quote:The distribution of gay people in the community is far from homogeneous. If you Google for it you will find figures of around 14 or 15% cited for places such as San Francisco and Brighton. Outside such centres, the general level of prevalence is far lower. For example the 2010 ONS survey (which was a huge survey with nearly a quarter of a million participants) claims 1.5% in the broader region of SE England.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's not apparent that large numbers of straight people are ever likely to know large numbers of gay people, though I suppose it depends on where you live.
quote:That's a somewhat different issue though! The point that the statistics show is that if you live in non-metropolitan SE England (excluding also a couple of other places such as Brighton), only one in 66 people on average is likely to be gay. And by the law of averages again that is surely likely to be even lower in some places. So there are going to be plenty of people who are genuinely able to say they have no gay friends or acquaintances.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Getting on for 20 years ago I used to know someone who would boast that he didn't know any gay people. My response was to think, "I bet you do - but they probably are never going to tell you".
quote:I'm reading that chapter and the one before it in context, lining it up with an overarching theme of the ministry of Jesus--who, as others have noted, was the embodied Word Of God and moved around a fair bit more than a book does.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:I can only assume that you are referring to the statement:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
Are you reading the rest of that chapter??
Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”
which is almost immediately followed by the statement:
He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”
which, given that Jesus has defined marrying a previously divorced person as adultery, would appear to offer little for your attempt to 'nullify the word of God'. YMMV.
quote:Those working against lgbt oppression around the world are bravely going against the flow of violence and violent repression.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:Of course. But the implication shouldn't therefore be that the zeitgeist is always wrong (or even most likely to be).
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given that record, it's crucial that we don't simply go with the flow but ask some very hard questions...
(BTW is zeitgeist an English word? ITTWAAW)
quote:Precisley ! He was comment upon himself and no-one else !
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Getting on for 20 years ago I used to know someone who would boast that he didn't know any gay people. My response was to think, "I bet you do - but they probably are never going to tell you".
