Ship of Fools: Double Standards Anyone?

Thread: Double Standards Anyone? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030668

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

Church of England gives blessing to recognising civil partnerships

This will probably descend rapidly into DH territory, unless we just stick to the main issue, which is that the C of E seems to be giving out mixed messages when it comes to SSM and blessings. This being so, how are Anglicans supposed to know what is pleasing to God and what is not, if their churches can't be clear about it?

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts
This being so, how are Anglicans supposed to know what is pleasing to God and what is not, if their churches can't be clear about it?

Perhaps it's because Anglicans don't regard their Church as 'God' (aka idolatry), and therefore they do not need their Church to do their thinking for them.

In other words, the institution encompasses diverse opinions, because it champions freedom of conscience.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

[Killing me]

Mark, most Anglicans do not consider what the church hierarchy thinks as being the sole source of information as to what God approves of or doesn't.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I think it highly unlikely this will manage avoid the dead horse. However, FWIW, I think you are right - the message from the CofE is very confusing.

I suppose that the nearest approximation in ortho land is the differing standards over marriage and clergy. What does it say that clergy may not marry - but if a man is married he may still become a priest. And whilst either man might be a priest, neither may become a bishop. What does this tell us about the attitude to sex and marriage in the orthodox tradition and is it consistent ?

Perhaps we can learn something from how it is justified, that might allow a chain of theological reasoning regarding blessing same sex partnerships whilst withholding marriage - and why it is possible for the laity and not the clergy (in theory).

[ 10. April 2013, 09:15: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
how are Anglicans supposed to know what is pleasing to God and what is not,

Through prayer and studying of scripture, might I suggest?

Posted by Lucrezia Spagliatoni Dayglo (# 16907) on :

...and from The Grauniad
The Grauniad

..seems everyone is confused [Yipee]

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Perhaps it's because Anglicans don't regard their Church as 'God' (aka idolatry), and therefore they do not need their Church to do their thinking for them.

In other words, the institution encompasses diverse opinions, because it champions freedom of conscience.

Very well put.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

To paraphrase what someone who used to post here said, Christmas trees, cribs, WWJD bracelets, rosaries, houses, cars, tanks and ships get blessed. It is strange to exclude relationships.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Perhaps it's because Anglicans don't regard their Church as 'God' (aka idolatry)...

Please!! Who has ever regarded their Church to be God?

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Mark Betts:

Did you not notice the inverted commas around the word 'God'?

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Perhaps it's because Anglicans don't regard their Church as 'God' (aka idolatry)...
Please!! Who has ever regarded their Church to be God?

But isn't that something of the implication of your OP, where you said:

quote:
how are Anglicans supposed to know what is pleasing to God and what is not, if their churches can't be clear about it?

which suggests that Anglicans can only be clear about "what is is pleasing to God and what is not" if their churches make it clear?

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

The actual document is published online, and its substance is much less exciting than either the Guardian or Telegraph make out. In neither paper do the opening paragraphs give a fair summary of what the report is actually about.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I think it highly unlikely this will manage avoid the dead horse. However, FWIW, I think you are right - the message from the CofE is very confusing.

Actually, I think it would be a whole lot less confusing if they were prepared to bless civil partnerships.

The CofE's argument against SSM continually comes back to the lie that they desperately want gay people to have basic rights, even if they're terrible evil sinners, but they can't have marriage, because that means something else and ordinary decent straight folk might wake up one day and find that they weren't really married after all because some poofs went and got married and destroyed the whole thing. (Paraphrasing slightly)

The CofE claim to support civil partnerships despite the Lords Spiritual speaking and voting against them in the Lords, and despite having an official policy that they may not be blessed in any way. That's where the message gets confusing. They say civil partnerships are a good thing, but they don't live it. It's almost as if it's a figleaf to cover their bigotry, like a saloon bar racist mentioning his black friends.

That's not to say that allowing civil partnerships to be blessed would make their position coherent, but it would be a step in the right direction.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Mark,

Given the old tradition of the Orthodox to bless same-sex relationships, wouldn't they do the same? Why would they refuse to bless partnerships that are already officially recognized by the state and by society?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Perhaps it's because Anglicans don't regard their Church as 'God' (aka idolatry)...
Please!! Who has ever regarded their Church to be God?

You, apparently, or at least as God's mouthpiece on Earth, as you seem to think that it is impossible to separate what is pleasing to God from what you are ordered to beleive by your bishops and priests. Because you assume that those who are not recivieng clear commands from bishops cannot know what is pleasing to God.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

Given the old tradition of the Orthodox to bless same-sex relationships, wouldn't they do the same? Why would they refuse to bless partnerships that are already officially recognized by the state and by society?

Eh?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I think he is referencing this.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The Telegraph and the Guardian contradict each other on this.

I trust the Guardian - i.e. no change.

And why on earth, apart from ignorance, does the Torygraph describe the Bishop of Coventry as 'a leading traditionalist'?

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
how are Anglicans supposed to know what is pleasing to God and what is not, if their churches can't be clear about it?

Mark, you, (and many others -- not just you -- so this isn't really directed at you personally), want a church where you can have all your thinking done for you and you don't have to try to engage troublesome issues on your own, because "causa finita est". If that's what you feel you need, fine. There are church bodies like that for you, across the spectrum from catholic/orthodox to evangelical.

However, some church bodies/etc, in their ways of trying to to get closer to what God wants for his creatures, have alternate approaches to dealing with such issues. Continuing to ask, by raising various issues, "dead" horse or otherwise, is really asking, over and over, why churches that take the second approach don't take the first approach.

[ 10. April 2013, 16:26: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
posted by The Great Gumby
The CofE's argument against SSM continually comes back to the lie that they desperately want gay people to have basic rights, even if they're terrible evil sinners, but they can't have marriage, because that means something else and ordinary decent straight folk might wake up one day and find that they weren't really married after all because some poofs went and got married and destroyed the whole thing. (Paraphrasing slightly)

The CofE claim to support civil partnerships despite the Lords Spiritual speaking and voting against them in the Lords, and despite having an official policy that they may not be blessed in any way. That's where the message gets confusing. They say civil partnerships are a good thing, but they don't live it. It's almost as if it's a figleaf to cover their bigotry, like a saloon bar racist mentioning his black friends.

That's not to say that allowing civil partnerships to be blessed would make their position coherent, but it would be a step in the right direction.

Am I showing my age terribly when I say that I'm reminded of all those "blessings" that were carried out when one of a couple had a previous marriage dissolved but one of the party happened to be a regular member of the congregation. The message that went out then was in fact clear and unambiguous (if unflattering to the CofE) and was " I disapprove of divorce and I disapprove of remarriage and I don't really recognise your civil marriage - but I'll bless it anyway. ". [Roll Eyes]

This was (correctly, in my view) interpreted by Joe Public as " We're just lovable really and, yes, we're hypocrites so we're lovable ethical/holy hypocrites", and they'll respond just the same this time - before they fall about laughing at the surname of the Bishop.

There has only ever been one way out of this mess:
Civil Marriage which is taken by a registrar in a non-religious venue and can be between a man and woman, woman and woman, or man and man. The resulting union can be called either "marriage" or "partnership", choice is yours.
Religious Marriage which is a ceremony performed in a religious building licensed for weddings by a priest/minister/rabbi. The resulting union can be called either "marriage" or "partnership", again, your choice.

Yes, the +Coventry household must have had a real WTF moment to see him described as "traditionalist" - d'you think he'll sue?
[Killing me]

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Perhaps it's because Anglicans don't regard their Church as 'God' (aka idolatry), and therefore they do not need their Church to do their thinking for them.

In other words, the institution encompasses diverse opinions, because it champions freedom of conscience. [/QB]

Maybe it would be more accurate to say Anglicans don't regard their Church as a giant answer-generating machine. Otherwise, well said.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Church of England gives blessing to recognising civil partnerships

This will probably descend rapidly into DH territory, unless we just stick to the main issue, which is that the C of E seems to be giving out mixed messages when it comes to SSM and blessings. This being so, how are Anglicans supposed to know what is pleasing to God and what is not, if their churches can't be clear about it?

You're using know in that particular way that many Christians do - others say guess; because a) it's more accurate and b) it's less open to justified ridicule when those who "know" either disagree with each other or just get proven wrong.

This is the bit attributed to the bishop which caught my eye

The senior bishop who drafted the missive to priests insisted that it did not amount to a policy u-turn and that an official ban on formal "blessings" for civil partnerships remained in place.
But he said it was clear there was a need for committed same-sex couples to be given recognition and “compassionate attention” from the Church, including special prayers

I wonder how same-sex couples react to the idea of their being given “special” prayers. I would imagine that the last thing that they want is “special” prayers – just inclusion in the same old bog-standard prayers that apply to people made differently to them.

Sounds to me as though either the bishop is condescendingly unaware or that, consciously or otherwise, some of the CofE may be trying to lose a battle in the hope that everyone will go home and forget the war – if so – fat chance.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

I wonder how same-sex couples react to the idea of their being given “special” prayers. I would imagine that the last thing that they want is “special” prayers – just inclusion in the same old bog-standard prayers that apply to people made differently to them.

And there's the horsie [Smile]

The answer depends on what a gay couple is. If a gay couple is married in the same sense as a heterosexual couple, then naturally the same prayers (possibly apart from the bit about childbirth) would be appropriate.

If there is something different in nature between a gay couple and a straight one, then different prayers would be appropriate to express that different nature.

So it would depend, I suppose, on how the gay couple in question viewed their relationship, and discussion of that belongs in DH.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

Sounds to me as though either the bishop is condescendingly unaware or that, consciously or otherwise, some of the CofE may be trying to lose a battle in the hope that everyone will go home and forget the war – if so – fat chance.

War? That's a bit much. For gay people who particularly want the CofE to valorise their relationship, this is definitely a step in that direction. It may or may not be the last step. For people who particularly want a ceremony called a marriage there are soon to be plenty of other options.

Anyway, I thought the whole point of the CofE was that vagueness was deemed to be a virtue. If you want a firm position for or against something theological, you go to some other church.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

As:

a) A member of the C of E
b) An ordained bod within the aforementioned organisation

Can I just say that this report is one huge pile of dogcrap? When it isn't (deliberately?) vague and obscure, it is condescending and offensive. Above all, though, it is woefully out of contact with the real world. Just what hermetically sealed bubble do these people live in?

This is a disaster and I for one am deeply ashamed to be associated with the organisation that produced it. But not surprised. Not for one minute or even one second. This kind of garbage is so predictable from the upper echelons of the C of E at the moment (with the noble exceptions of people like Bishop Alan Wilson).

[ 11. April 2013, 06:39: Message edited by: Oscar the Grouch ]

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
War? That's a bit much. For gay people who particularly want the CofE to valorise their relationship, this is definitely a step in that direction. It may or may not be the last step. For people who particularly want a ceremony called a marriage there are soon to be plenty of other options.

How is it a step in the right direction? It reaffirms the church's refusal to countenance the blessing of the same civil partnerships they say they support. It's just another thing they'll have to backtrack on to achieve even that small measure of progress. And by the by, there are also some very disturbing and inaccurate ideas in there with regard to other LGBTQ (etc) members of the church. Even if this was a step forward on gay marriage (which it isn't), to celebrate it would be to throw all those people under the bus.

quote:
Anyway, I thought the whole point of the CofE was that vagueness was deemed to be a virtue. If you want a firm position for or against something theological, you go to some other church.

That would be a better argument if the CofE hadn't spoken loudly and unambiguously against same-sex marriage, claiming to speak on behalf of its members. If the church is meant to be vague, the very least it can do is to stop the political campaigning about civil issues with no bearing on the church.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE] Anyway, I thought the whole point of the CofE was that vagueness was deemed to be a virtue. If you want a firm position for or against something theological, you go to some other church.

Now which one would that be? I can only see New Frontiers and the Salvation Army as having firm policies

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Mark, most Anglicans do not consider what the church hierarchy thinks as being the sole source of information as to what God approves of or doesn't.

Drop kick me Jesus, don't get me started on country gospel music. Thank God we don't have official church approval for that! (Unfortunately we also don't have official church disapproval of it.)

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

There was an item on news at ten about this last night. I don't know if it can be seen again, perhaps some kind person can link if it can.

The Bishop of Liverpool spoke.

I think we are in a time of transition and so need patience. I also think in a church which gives a lot of freedom to believers the will be differing views than a on e and for Ll view. For myself I think that's a virtue.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

I wonder how same-sex couples react to the idea of their being given “special” prayers. I would imagine that the last thing that they want is “special” prayers – just inclusion in the same old bog-standard prayers that apply to people made differently to them.
And there's the horsie

The answer depends on what a gay couple is. If a gay couple is married in the same sense as a heterosexual couple, then naturally the same prayers (possibly apart from the bit about childbirth) would be appropriate.

If there is something different in nature between a gay couple and a straight one, then different prayers would be appropriate to express that different nature.

So it would depend, I suppose, on how the gay couple in question viewed their relationship, and discussion of that belongs in DH.

Well, maybe. I don't mean to nudge the thread in that direction. "Special prayers" can mean various things, and the evasiveness of the phrase makes one suspect the worst, e.g.: "Let us pray for Adam and Steve, that they may so see the error of their ways as never again to see each other..." But it can also mean a blessing. Dammit, no civil law is going to keep a church, or a member thereof, from blessing whatever they want to bless.

This brings us to how (pace the o.p.) it is perfectly possible and consistent for the church to advocate same-sex marriage in the civil realm (in the name of the good, i.e. justice) while advocating a different kind of blessing on her own part (in the name of the true and the beautiful and in keeping with her age-old wisdom). As long as same-sex couples have the full range of protections and benefits that a loving and committed relationship deserves, why would they want the same blessing in church as is given to opposite-sex couples? A blessing is a blessing, and it is a far cry from the cursing that we've gotten from church quarters in recent centuries. I, for one, would rather not participate in an institution represented as a one-size-fits-all thing wherein the gender of one's partner were interchangeable or a matter of indifference to ourselves. Whatever one's sexuality is, this is obviouly a lie. The church can do better than that. The Good Shepherd knows His sheep and calls them by name.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Following discussion with DH Hosts, you are being moved - hold on tight now.

Doublethink
Purgatory Host

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE] Anyway, I thought the whole point of the CofE was that vagueness was deemed to be a virtue. If you want a firm position for or against something theological, you go to some other church.
Now which one would that be? I can only see New Frontiers and the Salvation Army as having firm policies

Eh? I can think of lots of churches that would be firmly against gay marriage and gay blessings. There are some where gay marriage isn't on their agenda, but gay blessings might discreetly occur. There are others where laity and clergy of all different perspectives might be found. And there there would be a smaller number which are uniformly committed to gay marriage, and currently open to performing blessings.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

This brings us to how (pace the o.p.) it is perfectly possible and consistent for the church to advocate same-sex marriage in the civil realm (in the name of the good, i.e. justice) while advocating a different kind of blessing on her own part (in the name of the true and the beautiful and in keeping with her age-old wisdom). As long as same-sex couples have the full range of protections and benefits that a loving and committed relationship deserves, why would they want the same blessing in church as is given to opposite-sex couples? A blessing is a blessing, and it is a far cry from the cursing that we've gotten from church quarters in recent centuries. I, for one, would rather not participate in an institution represented as a one-size-fits-all thing wherein the gender of one's partner were interchangeable or a matter of indifference to ourselves. Whatever one's sexuality is, this is obviouly a lie. The church can do better than that. The Good Shepherd knows His sheep and calls them by name.

It's not obviously a lie to me. At least, it makes no sense. The gender of one's partner, the person with whom one has fallen in love, is not interchangeable in an abstract way, because we are dealing with the concrete of the person whom one loves, but I know bi people who could quite easily have fallen in love with a person of the opposite sex or the same. Say Jane falls in love with David and they marry and have a deep and lasting marriage, but then David dies. Jane then meets Frances and falls in love with her and they wish to express their commitment to faithfulness in a sacramental covenant such as Jane had known with David. And there have been relationships which have survived one partner transitioning. Jan Morris springs to mind. So in those cases the what you thought the gender of you partner was may have changed (though their sense of themselves as male or female has not, but their presentation has).

Carys

[Code error, when cutting the part I didn't want to quote]

[ 12. April 2013, 10:02: Message edited by: Carys ]

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

The implication in the News at Ten report was that a sizeable minority in the C of E are taking blessing of gay partnerships services in their churches. Fact.

The gay man interviewed pointed to the hypocrisy f the current situation.

The question is then about holding together a church with differing views. Not that difficult. Most churches are doing it all the time!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0