Ship of Fools: the Archbishop doesn't announce a new policy

Thread: the Archbishop doesn't announce a new policy 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=030691

Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :

So the ABC tells the General Synod:
1. There is a social revolution over gayness. No one much but the churches has a problem (top prize for stating the bleeding obvious)
2. Homophobic bullying in church schools is bad and wrong, and he's going to ask his chums at Stonewall to help deliver a big new shiny anti- homophobic bullying policy
And
3. That there is no new policy in the C of E regarding gay people.

See what he did there? 1 looks like he's noticed what is going on, 2 shows he trying to get down with the kids, and......yes! 3 says we'll carry on being an officially homophobic church.

He fools no one but himself.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I'm not so sure. Maybe we need to be more generous to the new ABC in the hope that he is trying to achieve something without waiting for Synod to approve a change of policy, given how long it takes that body to do that.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm not so sure. Maybe we need to be more generous to the new ABC in the hope that he is trying to achieve something without waiting for Synod to approve a change of policy, given how long it takes that body to do that.

Surely the way to do that would be to propose and support such a policy in Synod?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm not so sure. Maybe we need to be more generous to the new ABC in the hope that he is trying to achieve something without waiting for Synod to approve a change of policy, given how long it takes that body to do that.
Surely the way to do that would be to propose and support such a policy in Synod?

That would be best, but I give you the example that Synod is meeting today to debate women as bishops, which it has been doing for some years.

I'd rather have progress made, step by step, than have the opponents delay any progress whatsoever through Synod, which has a decision making process designed to maintain the status quo.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
...[Snip]... I'd rather have progress made, step by step, than have the opponents delay any progress whatsoever ...[snip]...

Whilst I would prefer to see further and faster action, this may be the most fraternity minded means to go about things, shame it is not a policy normally considered - slow evolution of policy rather than trying an automatic imposition which just gets backs up and ensures to an extent that any measure fails.

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

I continue to remain flabbergasted by the fact that the bishops turned up en masse in the House of Lords to vote against marriage equality, but not against some of the recent social injustice issues, and didn't think that they would be derided and the church further seen as irrelevant to modern society.

He seems to recognise that now, but it's a little late.

Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :

Wiki says that there are 24 Lords Spiritual.

Do we know how they voted?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Yes - it's in the Hansard account.

Meanwhile, Welby seems utterly clueless.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

++Justin's approach to all this seems very much like that of a man taken by surprise, who can't understand why people take objection to the views he expresses; almost like someone who has never before knowingly met a gay person, and who is now being forced for the firstime, to analyze his position. As he is someone who has moved freely in the realms of both commerce and the church, this seems totally incredible, but bishops are strange folk, and often seem to have a predilection for ivory towers.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm not so sure. Maybe we need to be more generous to the new ABC in the hope that he is trying to achieve something without waiting for Synod to approve a change of policy, given how long it takes that body to do that.

I think that once someone has campaigned in public for a particular group not to have equal rights in law, the presumption of good will may justly be suspended.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
++Justin's approach to all this seems very much like that of a man taken by surprise, who can't understand why people take objection to the views he expresses; almost like someone who has never before knowingly met a gay person, and who is now being forced for the firstime, to analyze his position. As he is someone who has moved freely in the realms of both commerce and the church, this seems totally incredible, but bishops are strange folk, and often seem to have a predilection for ivory towers.

I think he is representative of a generational shift within conservative opposition to gay rights.

The older generation sees homosexuality as self-evidently sinful. They are aware that arguments can be constructed in favour of homosexuality but would probably ignore them as sophistry.

The younger generation see the issue in terms of authority. They would probably support gay rights if they weren't Christians but they think God has forbidden homosexual practice and they don't have the right to challenge Him. They are equally aware that the older generation just sounds irrational to the secular world.

Welby is basically a member of the younger generation telling the older generation that they need to change their game if they're to have any chance of persuading the world that they're not totally irrational.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

All of which leaves out the inconvenient fact that the actual "younger generation" think that Welby represents something antique and irrelevant, rather than "young".

Why would any follower of Christ condone bullying in the first place?

Oh, yeah, about that....

What a Good Way to build the church: beat up on the possible candidates.

Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :

Opinion thus far seems to divide between those who think that we should give him credit for not being a vile homophobe, and who may eventually move the C of E's position a bit (but of course we don't know how much because he is NOT announcing a new policy), and those who think that this is all piss and wind until we see something different.

I am sure he is not a nasty man - on the contrary, I expect he is trying to do something good in a very difficult job. But I still don't think he really understands that equality and dignity really are non-negotiable. The Church has to stop being a discriminatory and controlling super-Nanny, handing out sweets and smacks in equal measure (though usually more smacks as she is VERY hard to please).

He is right - there is a revolution going on. It is not a bad revolution but a good one. And as for not knowing where it will end up, well, we don't know that about anything in life do we. I thought that was the point of walking by faith and not by sight.

More important simply to do the right thing by people - welcome, include, bless, support and encourage. Isn't that what churches are supposed to do? When they do that then people find their own way, make their own choices, and forge their own paths within this community of love and care. My own experience is that the Holy Spirit is just as much involved as in those places where everyone thought they knew the answers - in fact, often discernably more so!

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Opinion thus far seems to divide between those who think that we should give him credit for not being a vile homophobe, and who may eventually move the C of E's position a bit (but of course we don't know how much because he is NOT announcing a new policy), and those who think that this is all piss and wind until we see something different.

It seems to me that someone who thinks gay sex is sinful, but acknowledges homophobic bullying in schools as a problem, is a considerable improvement on someone who thinks gay sex is sinful and that homophobic bullying is an invention of the PC thought police brigade mafia - the latter having been the de facto position of the Church of England until now.

Granted, we are talking about bad to less bad rather than bad to good, but it's still an improvement.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
All of which leaves out the inconvenient fact that the actual "younger generation" think that Welby represents something antique and irrelevant, rather than "young".

Which is why I specifically talked about generations "within conservative opposition to gay rights".

I was born in 1986, so I'm perfectly familiar with what young people think ...

[ 07. July 2013, 12:04: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Opinion thus far seems to divide between those who think that we should give him credit for not being a vile homophobe, and who may eventually move the C of E's position a bit (but of course we don't know how much because he is NOT announcing a new policy), and those who think that this is all piss and wind until we see something different.
It seems to me that someone who thinks gay sex is sinful, but acknowledges homophobic bullying in schools as a problem, is a considerable improvement on someone who thinks gay sex is sinful and that homophobic bullying is an invention of the PC thought police brigade mafia - the latter having been the de facto position of the Church of England until now.

Granted, we are talking about bad to less bad rather than bad to good, but it's still an improvement.

Agreed. I have more faith in Welby than in Synod right now.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
All of which leaves out the inconvenient fact that the actual "younger generation" think that Welby represents something antique and irrelevant, rather than "young".
Which is why I specifically talked about generations "within conservative opposition to gay rights".

I was born in 1986, so I'm perfectly familiar with what young people think ...

I'm a bit different. I was born in 1957 but my children were born between 1983 and 1996, so I've learnt quite a bit from them and their friends.

eta: my attitude to Welby is much the same as Jade Constable's, although I wouldn't say I have "faith" in him.

[ 07. July 2013, 14:49: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

My daughters were born in the early '80s, plus I'm still involved in high school activities, so I am also aware of the general trend in "young" thinking - which leaves me pretty much opposed to the attitude of my synod, and of too many of the local clergy of all denoms.

The UK isn't only place with self-inflicted problems, but as Andrew Brown , that notorious atheistic Grauniadista, points out, the General Synod has the power to effectively kill the CofE in one swell foop.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

As someone not involved with gay-bullying in CofE schools, I can't comment on how positive I think the new approach will be.

However as an Anglican from outside the CofE, it would be nice to think that Justin would get as worked up and angry about gay-bullying in other parts of the Anglican communion as he apparently has about gay-bullying in CofE schools.

If relations with the church in Uganda, Nigeria and so on, continue in their usual way, all his fine words about what's happening in CofE schools and his angst about the impact of bullying on gay youth -- yea, even unto death -- will be nothing but a sounding gong and a clanging cymbel.

It's not possible for a church to be virtuous at home and ignore gross evil in other parts of the world.

John

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
...[Snip]... I'd rather have progress made, step by step, than have the opponents delay any progress whatsoever ...[snip]...
Whilst I would prefer to see further and faster action, this may be the most fraternity minded means to go about things, shame it is not a policy normally considered - slow evolution of policy rather than trying an automatic imposition which just gets backs up and ensures to an extent that any measure fails.

"I'd rather have progress made but wouldn't be jollier to go slower and slower in hopes of making the opposition happy" is your usual tactical proposal that nothing should be done.

Why not go backwards and defrock women priests? That's bound to be a fraternity crowd pleaser for the people who matter to you. [Mad]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

I do wonder how many youth being lectured on anti-gay bullying are going to ask why the church forbids same sex marriage?

Should be a fun time for all.

:-)

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Welby is basically a member of the younger generation...

As far as anybody who is anywhere near having any kind of power in the CofE is concerned, he most certainly is in the younger generation.

He's 57.

No wonder the church is seen as irrelevant by the real younger generation.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Welby is basically a member of the younger generation...
As far as anybody who is anywhere near having any kind of power in the CofE is concerned, he most certainly is in the younger generation.

He's 57.

No wonder the church is seen as irrelevant by the real younger generation.

What I was thinking. But I'm afraid the average CofE church is indeed a place where anyone under 60 is young.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:

What I was thinking. But I'm afraid the average CofE church is indeed a place where anyone under 60 is young.

That's why I go - someone tells me I'm young nearly every week [Big Grin]

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:

quote:

What I was thinking. But I'm afraid the average CofE church is indeed a place where anyone under 60 is young.
That's why I go - someone tells me I'm young nearly every week

[Tangent]

The youngest person in our congregation yesterday is 2 weeks young. And very cute. [Big Grin]

Truly, IME, church congregations in London look very different from the rest of the country.

[/Tangent]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Opinion thus far seems to divide between those who think that we should give him credit for not being a vile homophobe, and who may eventually move the C of E's position a bit (but of course we don't know how much because he is NOT announcing a new policy), and those who think that this is all piss and wind until we see something different.

My initial reaction to his statement was "I've really not been aware that homophobic bullying is a problem in C of E school."

I'm not sure what this new initiative is meant to achieve - other than to give an appearance that the C of E isn't as homophobic as the vast majority of the population think it is.

If homophobic bullying is such a serious problem, I kinda think we would have heard about it before now. And anyway - ANY bullying (homophobic or not) should be completely out in C of E schools (as in all other schools). Surely every C of E school has an anti-bullying policy? If not - then there is a much bigger problem to be solved than homophobic bullying.

Perhaps he really is trying to shift the ground a little. But surely anyone with an ounce of common sense is going to realize that if the "C of E policy" isn't changing, no amount of work in the schools will change matters much. What are they going to say to the kids? "Actually, being gay is a bad thing and if someone is gay, they are probably going to hell - but try to be nice to them anyway."

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
If homophobic bullying is such a serious problem, I kinda think we would have heard about it before now.

I have heard that it's a problem. There was a Ship thread a few years ago where someone posted some fairly heavyweight links on the subject, but I'm not going to attempt to track them down now.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
My initial reaction to his statement was "I've really not been aware that homophobic bullying is a problem in C of E school."

Homophobic bullying is a problem in every school, I would be astonished if that wasn't also true in CofE schools, and there seems to be evidence to suggest that when people have the impression that their homophobic views are condoned the bullying gets worse. The widespread use of "gay" and "faggot" as insults is the tip of a very large iceberg, and any teacher (in secondary at least) will tell you that use of such is common, and some teachers don't challenge it.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Homophobic bullying is a problem in every school, I would be astonished if that wasn't also true in CofE schools, and there seems to be evidence to suggest that when people have the impression that their homophobic views are condoned the bullying gets worse .

This is the truest thing said on this thread and requires a sea change in schools and teachers, who tend to bring their own prejudices with them, even if teachers don't go in for the physical and outright homophobia many tend to be implicit by lack of dealing with the problem - something which is even worse when such attitudes are those of SMT's where the kids then get the impression that it is ok to then abuse LGBT teachers because nothing comes of it...

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Oscar:

quote:
If homophobic bullying is such a serious problem, I kinda think we would have heard about it before now.

My daughter was subjected to homophobic insults from two of her classmates a couple of years ago.

She was 7 at the time.

I'm assuming things will be a lot worse at secondary school.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
"I'd rather have progress made but wouldn't be jollier to go slower and slower in hopes of making the opposition happy" is your usual tactical proposal that nothing should be done.

Why not go backwards and defrock women priests? That's bound to be a fraternity crowd pleaser for the people who matter to you.

You see I'm not entirely sure that you read my comments, nor understand the basic principles of Christian Community... If Christians are meant to be 'one body' then we should aim for a fraternity minded community and surely when we reach an issue that divides us we should actually discuss these things properly as a family, aiming to maintain our oneness, and take time to deal with them rather than taking the illiberal and fascists approach and imposing one will on the rest of the body without discussion or proper care and thought to our brothers and sisters who sit on the opposite side of the fence to ourselves.

Why you raise women priests I'm not sure, since I am on record as being forcefully in support of women at all levels of the threefold ministry, and because I have a proper Christian care and attention for all my brothers and sisters in Christ I should be ridiculed, no wonder the Church is failing...

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
If Christians are meant to be 'one body' then we should aim for a fraternity minded community and surely when we reach an issue that divides us we should actually discuss these things properly as a family, aiming to maintain our oneness, and take time to deal with them rather than taking the illiberal and fascists approach and imposing one will on the rest of the body without discussion or proper care and thought to our brothers and sisters who sit on the opposite side of the fence to ourselves.

Oh please. The status quo is already "imposing one will on the rest of the body without discussion or proper care and thought to our brothers and sisters who sit on the opposite side of the fence". All that's changing is which side of the fence feels like they're being imposed on.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Oh please. The status quo is already "imposing one will on the rest of the body without discussion or proper care and thought to our brothers and sisters who sit on the opposite side of the fence". All that's changing is which side of the fence feels like they're being imposed on.

Yes, there is a current overarching view which has held sway for centuries, hence the need for proper discussion, and the slow and steady movements rather than the automatic lurch to the opposite view which just alienates people that I'm supposed to be in community with.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Yes, there is a current overarching view which has held sway for centuries, hence the need for proper discussion, and the slow and steady movements rather than the automatic lurch to the opposite view which just alienates people that I'm supposed to be in community with.

I'm sure people said the same to those pushing for racial integration in the US. Injustice is injustice, and people shouldn't have to wait for justice because that justice makes the perpetrators of injustice uncomfortable.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Yes, there is a current overarching view which has held sway for centuries, hence the need for proper discussion, and the slow and steady movements rather than the automatic lurch to the opposite view which just alienates people that I'm supposed to be in community with.

And meanwhile, other people you're supposed to be in community with are being alienated on a daily basis. But that's fine because it's been that way for centuries, right?

If it's truly the case that some people are going to be alienated whatever we do - and I think it is - then I say we choose to alienate those who advocate hatred and persecution rather than those who happen to have been born with the wrong gender/sexuality. Any objections?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

So now all those who thought JW would be a tremendous ABC are having second thoughts; perhaps they should have looked beyond the much (and over) emphasised "city" experience and Alpha link.

It is up to the people in the pews to show some clergy how reciprocal behaviour might work: next time you meet a bishop - especially if he's with his wife - ask them about their sexuality. And when they take offence remind them that this is what they pronounce about in others... [Big Grin]

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Don't just ask about their sexuality either. If you meet a Bishop and his wife, 'quiz them on their sex lives.' Important points to cover: birth control? Onanism? Positions or acts condemned/not overtly endorsed by Holy Scripture?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
If homophobic bullying is such a serious problem, I kinda think we would have heard about it before now.

quote:
A 1998 GALOP survey found that 72% of LGB adults reported a regular history of absenteeism at school. More than 50% of LGB men and women who had been bullied at school reported having contemplated self-harm or suicide; 40% had made at least one attempt to self-harm, and three-quarters of those made subsequent attempts. Thirteen per cent of men and 5% of women reported that the homophobic bullying they had experienced at school included sexual assault. 83% had experienced verbal abuse; 47% had experienced physical abuse.

comment by me at launch of EACH Report August 2009

quote:
Michael Gove, Conservative Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Young People and Families committed his party to helping the government beat bullying……"There should be zero tolerance of bullying in schools. "Homophobic and racial bullying is particularly despicable as it is the combination of prejudice and victimisation which is toxic.

Pink News 21.ix.07

quote:
An estimated 2,725 young people call ChildLine each year to talk about sexual orientation, homophobia or *homophobic* *bullying*. This set of issues appears to be of particular concern for boys. Males account for 55% of the calls about these issues. .....homophobic* *bullying* can easily become the defining aspect of a young person’s school
life. Because being gay is seen by many as ‘wrong’ or ‘not normal’, callers indicate that friends are more likely to be unsupportive, to join in with the *bullying*, or even to initiate it after a young person has come out to them. Young people report that many teachers do nothing to stop *homophobic* *bullying*, even when it is at its most overt. ‘It feels like
everyone at school is picking on me,’ said 15-year-old Jason. ‘They shove me in the corridor and call me “gay boy”. It happens in almost every lesson, too. My so-called friends don’t stand up for me, and the teachers don’t do anything to help, even when half the class is calling me names.

ChildLine Report February, 2009

quote:
“Staff in secondary and primary faith schools are only half as likely to say that homophobic bullying is a serious problem in their schools compared to staff in non-faith schools. Two in five staff in faith schools say that homophobic bullying never occurs in their schools. However, gay pupils in faith schools are more likely to experience homophobic bullying than their peers in non-faith schools. Three quarters of young gay people who attend faith schools have experienced homophobic bullying (The School Report).
"Some teachers did explain that the religious ethos of their school or the beliefs of their pupils can be a barrier to tackling homophobia or addressing lesbian and gay issues in classrooms.”

Stonewall 2009

quote:
“Lesbian and gay pupils who attend faith schools are significantly less likely (23 per cent) to tell someone than lesbian and gay pupils who attend non-faith schools. Only four per cent of gay pupils felt able to tell their local religious leaders about bullying.”

Stonewall 2007

The School Report 2007

Plus: Fear of telling parents, lack of support from teachers and parents/carers, religious leaders:
Under-reporting of incidents, lack of concern by faith schools because ‘it’s a sin’:

[scroll lock-breaking broken link removed by host - see below]

Seventy five per cent of young gay people attending faith schools have experienced homophobic bullying.

Peer-reviewed research:

- especially Catholic schools
Homophobic bullying in secondary schools in England and Wales - teachers' experiences Authors: Douglas N.; Warwick I.; Whitty G.; Aggleton P.; Kemp S. Source: Health Education, Volume 99, Number 2, 1999 , pp. 53-60(8) Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Rivers, I. (2001) ‘The bullying of sexual minorities at school: Its nature and long-term correlates’, Educational and Child Psychology, Vol. 18 (1): 33-46.

Phoenix A., Frosh S., and Pattman R. (2003) ‘Producing contradictory masculine subject positions:
Narratives of threat, homophobia and bullying in 11–14-year-old boys’, Journal of Social Issues,Vol. 59, No. 1, 2003, pp. 179-195.

Baker, Jean (2002) How homophobia hurts children: Nurturing diversity at home, at school, and in the
community. New York: Harrington Park Press.

Mental Health and the Quality of Life of Gay Men and Lesbians, (British Journal of Psychiatry,2003

See also:

DfES, Homophobia: research and facts Online resource accompanying Stand up for us:
Challenging homophobia in schools. Available online:

[not here it isn't - broken link removed]

Trenchard, L. and Warren, H. (1984) ‘”Something To Tell You” - The Experiences of Young Lesbians and
Young Gay Men in London’, London: London Gay Teenage Group

The Bullying of Sexual Minorities: Its Nature and Long Term Correlates (Rivers 2001) Educational and Child Psychology, 18 (1): 33-46.

Social Exclusion, Absenteeism and Sexual Minority Youth (Rivers, 2000) Support for Learning 15 (1): 13-17.
.
Rivers, I. (2003) Getting in early: reducing homophobic bullying in schools, presented at the NACRO/Pavilion Conference ‘Enough is enough: issues and solutions in tackling homophobic violence’, ORT House Conference Centre, London, 9 May. This surveyed the views of 2,727 pupils in Years 7 and 8.

Norman, J. (2005) A Survey of Teachers on Homophobic Bullying in Second-
Level Schools (Dublin: Dublin City University).

Well-being among same-sex and opposite-sex attracted youth at school Authors: Rivers, I Noret, N 2008 Publisher: National Association of School Psychologists – faith schools less likely to have a policy or deal with homophobic bullying

Guardian re- faith schools as worse:
here

[broken link removed]

And

75 per cent of gay pupils attending faith schools experiencing. homophobic bullying. Pupils at faith schools are also less likely to report it. ...
here
[downloads PDF] [working link]

[scroll lock-breaking broken links removed by host. URLs of broken links kept in case requested - LY]

[ 09. July 2013, 19:18: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :

Leo - only one of your links actually went anywhere useful - the WestSussex one.

Could you please check the links - which I couldn't get to work even if I copied and pasted the URLs from your input!

Could I respectfully suggest using a service like this to remove any potential complications in the handling of long URLs by our software.

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The No Outsiders’ Report seems to be no longer available – though I have a paper copy somewhere.

Stonewall report now here

The dcu document seems to be no longer available

The Guardian article is still here

As is the West Sussex one

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

hosting

One dead horse per thread, please! Please take the discussion about Women Bishops to the open thread or if feeling too heated for that, a hell call is your option.

thanks!
Louise
Dead horses host

hosting off

[ 09. July 2013, 19:35: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
"I'd rather have progress made but wouldn't be jollier to go slower and slower in hopes of making the opposition happy" is your usual tactical proposal that nothing should be done.

Why not go backwards and defrock women priests? That's bound to be a fraternity crowd pleaser for the people who matter to you.
You see I'm not entirely sure that you read my comments, nor understand the basic principles of Christian Community... If Christians are meant to be 'one body' then we should aim for a fraternity minded community and surely when we reach an issue that divides us we should actually discuss these things properly as a family, aiming to maintain our oneness, and take time to deal with them rather than taking the illiberal and fascists approach and imposing one will on the rest of the body without discussion or proper care and thought to our brothers and sisters who sit on the opposite side of the fence to ourselves.

Why you raise women priests I'm not sure, since I am on record as being forcefully in support of women at all levels of the threefold ministry, and because I have a proper Christian care and attention for all my brothers and sisters in Christ I should be ridiculed, no wonder the Church is failing...

I raise the issue of women priests because those who are opposed to them make the same argument about priests as you make about bishops. And yet you run rough shod over their poor little fraternal feelings that things shouldn't change from what they were centuries ago by supporting women priests.
Your proposal to delay because of your proper Christian care seems to apply only to some issues and not others.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
hosting

One dead horse per thread, please! Please take the discussion about Women Bishops to the open thread or if feeling too heated for that, a hell call is your option.

thanks!
Louise
Dead horses host

hosting off

hosting
Palimpsest - that goes for arguments about women priests too. I thought you were making your remarks in the context of the current debate about women bishops in the Church of England. There is a huge thread about ordination of women here. Please stop derailing this one.

Would others please not reply to the derail on this thread?

thanks!
Louise
Dead horses host
hosting off

[ 09. July 2013, 22:36: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

It always amazes me that with all the moral issues in the world, and in Britain especially now, the Church has decided that "This is the hill I will die on." And why anyone would choose to die on the wrong side of non-personal moral issues simply confuses me.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It seems to me that someone who thinks gay sex is sinful, but acknowledges homophobic bullying in schools as a problem, is a considerable improvement on someone who thinks gay sex is sinful and that homophobic bullying is an invention of the PC thought police brigade mafia - the latter having been the de facto position of the Church of England until now.

Do you really think that ny of the previous three ABCs thought that "homophobic bullying is an invention of the PC thought police brigade mafia"?

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It always amazes me that with all the moral issues in the world, and in Britain especially now, the Church has decided that "This is the hill I will die on."

Maybe Fred Phelps has decided that, but if by "the Church" in this context you mean the Church of England, what makes you think it has decided that?

[ 12. July 2013, 17:43: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Do you really think that any of the previous three ABCs thought that "homophobic bullying is an invention of the PC thought police brigade mafia"?

Carey? Wouldn't surprise me for a second.

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Do you really think that any of the previous three ABCs thought that "homophobic bullying is an invention of the PC thought police brigade mafia"?
Carey? Wouldn't surprise me for a second.

Carey still thinks that the real bullies are those who insist that Real Christians can't be nasty to gay people.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It always amazes me that with all the moral issues in the world, and in Britain especially now, the Church has decided that "This is the hill I will die on."
Maybe Fred Phelps has decided that, but if by "the Church" in this context you mean the Church of England, what makes you think it has decided that?

Are you reading this thread? The Church of England as represented by its leaders is actively openly homophobic. The Archbishop of Canterbury is claiming that allowing consenting adults to marry whatever their genitalia would see marriage abolished, redefined and recreated".

What makes me think that the CofE has chosen that hill to die on? The statements and actions of those chosen and empowered to speak for it.

And in response to your other recent question, as others have said, former archbishop Carey is a raging bigot who thinks that it's Christians being oppressed because we no longer grant them automatic moral standing and license to pass any teachings they care to make off as moral.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

Also when it comes to voting on marriage, of the 14 Lords Spiritual, 9 voted to try and prevent people marrying those they love and care for - and not one single bishop was brave enough to vote against the pack. When it came to actually curing the sick with the recent horrible NHS Social Care Bill, only four bishops bothered to vote, with one being in favour of cutting up the NHS.

What makes me think that they care more about preventing people from getting married than curing the sick? On which one did they make a stand?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Homophobic and transphobic bullying in schools is an enormous problem (thanks for those links, Leo - although Stonewall's transphobia is a problem). The main problem as experienced by myself and other LGBTQ+ individuals is that teachers seem to encourage LGBTQ+ students to 'tone down' their 'difference', or if they have actually come out, that they shouldn't have done it and should have expected bullying as a result of it. When I came out (I told friends, but someone overheard, and I refused to deny it) and was seriously bullied, I was told 'what did you expect?' and when I was physically attacked on the way to school I was simply told to walk a different route.

Another problem is the invisibility of transphobia and trans issues.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
When it came to actually curing the sick with the recent horrible NHS Social Care Bill, only four bishops bothered to vote, with one being in favour of cutting up the NHS.

Three bishops, actually. Bath and Wells is one bishop, not two as implied in the report.

John

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Homophobic and transphobic bullying in schools is an enormous problem (thanks for those links, Leo - although Stonewall's transphobia is a problem). The main problem as experienced by myself and other LGBTQ+ individuals is that teachers seem to encourage LGBTQ+ students to 'tone down' their 'difference', or if they have actually come out, that they shouldn't have done it and should have expected bullying as a result of it. W

This is so true. I will never forgive myself for my reaction to a Year 12 trans person in one of my classes who was so 'in your face' that the lads were always wont to attach him/her and i was always standing in the middle to stop a fight and was always telling him/her that s/he could be him/herself AFTER leaving school.

Have since been for a drink with the person concerned who said i did OK and was the best teacher as far as 'the issue concerned' but that doesn't make it OK IMO

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
When it came to actually curing the sick with the recent horrible NHS Social Care Bill, only four bishops bothered to vote, with one being in favour of cutting up the NHS.

Three bishops, actually. Bath and Wells is one bishop, not two as implied in the report.

John

One +Price is quite enough!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

At least he voted the right way! What have you got against him BTW?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
At least he voted the right way! What have you got against him BTW?

Can't repeat what I hear some of his clergy say.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

So, the equal marriage bill has passed its third House of Lords reading. What will this mean for LGBTQ CoE clergy who choose to take advantage of the new marriage equality law?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Hooray - and God bless the clergy who act according to their consciences - as they did when remarrying divorcees.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Hooray - and God bless the clergy who act according to their consciences - as they did when remarrying divorcees.

But unless the law as passed is different from that proposed, even if these clergy (of whom I would be one) follow their consciences and welcome gay marriages, the marriages would not be valid in the eyes of the state. Unlike the remarriage of divorcees, which has always been recognised by the state even when it was forbidden by church law.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I was actually thinking of clergy who wanted to enter into a same-gender marriage. Would any legal action be able to happen to prevent their defrocking? Or does equality legislation not apply to clergy because of them being office holders and not employees?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I was actually thinking of clergy who wanted to enter into a same-gender marriage. Would any legal action be able to happen to prevent their defrocking? Or does equality legislation not apply to clergy because of them being office holders and not employees?

Under the Canadian canons, they could be in a difficult situation. The marriage canon has male-female language and it is now accepted that a change in the canons would be required to authorize same-sex marriage. Accordingly, a SSM before then would not be licit-- they would be open to charges of conduct unbecoming a cleric, potentially leading to disciplinary measures up to defrocking. I quietly advised one bishop that he should provide a dispensation to give a couple canonical cover against any possible charge and he made it clear that he did not hear what I said.

AFAIK there is no real remedy in civil law against ecclesiastical discipline although their solicitor might try a Charter challenge. The Ferry case was after the Charter's introduction, but IIRC did not proceed to civil jurisdiction.

Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :

Though hopefully one of the points of the same-sex blessings that are now authorized for various parishes to perform is that the Church shouldn't be able to fire you for being in a relationship that has been blessed by the Church itself.

If the ACC were sufficiently brave or foolish to try to fire someone in these circumstances, there wouldn't be legal redress under the Charter (the Anglican church hasn't been a state actor in Canada for a long time...) but the appearance before the Human Rights Tribunal might be an uphill battle. Not because the HRT wants to interfere with churches' freedom of religion, but once you've blessed a same-sex union it seems to me the freedom of religion argument for firing a priest in such a union would be a hard slog...

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Agreed, Marsupial, but the argument has long been that SSB is not the same as SSM (I never saw the difference, but I am not a member of the House of Bishops). So while SSBs are permitted for pastoral reasons, SSMs are still uncanonical. In the case in question, the cleric and his spouse are married as well as blessed. The potential case would be against their married state, which is contrary to canons.

It would be very unlikely that any action will be taken against them, but a change in bishop could potentially leave them in a bind. I had thought that a dispensation from the diocesan would give them a fairly strong case against any disciplinary action.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Speaking as a non-heterosexual, I don't see SSB as the same as SSM. A blessing is not the same as marriage, and it's marriage I want.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I was actually thinking of clergy who wanted to enter into a same-gender marriage. Would any legal action be able to happen to prevent their defrocking? Or does equality legislation not apply to clergy because of them being office holders and not employees?

It might be better for the CofE simply to split rather than going through the undignified and unedifying process of priests in the national church taking each other to a secular court.

Or, looking on the bright side, maybe this sort of legal action would lead to this very outcome.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I was actually thinking of clergy who wanted to enter into a same-gender marriage. Would any legal action be able to happen to prevent their defrocking? Or does equality legislation not apply to clergy because of them being office holders and not employees?
It might be better for the CofE simply to split rather than going through the undignified and unedifying process of priests in the national church taking each other to a secular court.

Or, looking on the bright side, maybe this sort of legal action would lead to this very outcome.

Or, maybe the national church should have decent employment policies that are in line with national equality and employment legislation? The lack of a union for clergy is bad enough. The church's employees deserve to have proper employment rights.

Yes, priests taking each other to court is undignified but it wouldn't happen if the church gave priests the dignity they deserve in the first place.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

To clarify, perhaps, what Austine is talking about, the priest to whom I think he is referring, and another priest of my acquaintance (female this time) are both married in the eyes of the law to their respective same-sex partners.

Our bishop now permits (with some safeguards) the blessing of civil marriages in church between same-sex couples -- I attended one last week, between two men who had been married civilly for 10 years.

But our canons do not permit the marriage (ie, ordained person acting as agent of the province) of same-sex couple in church.

In moral terms, there is no real difference between SSB and SSM, as Augustine says (I think, and agree). In legal and canonical terms there is a difference, because canonical marriage of same-sex couple is currently impossible, and SSB does not confer the status of being "married" in the eyes of the law.

In moral terms, though, our bishops will soon (if they haven't already -- Diocese of Toronto comes to mind) have to deal with the cases of clergy who seek blessings of their civil marriages. Probably not a big deal as at least some have already been permitting the blessing of civil marriages between mixed-sex partners. But it will blow the status of the canons out of the water, as most people will see that SSB and SSM are morally the ame.

John

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Or, maybe the national church should have decent employment policies that are in line with national equality and employment legislation? The lack of a union for clergy is bad enough. The church's employees deserve to have proper employment rights.

Yes, priests taking each other to court is undignified but it wouldn't happen if the church gave priests the dignity they deserve in the first place.

Whilst you are quite right, Priests etc. deserve dignity in their work I have a problem with the way in which you talk about the role which Priests have.

Before I go on, just to say, Priests can join a Union if they so desire, nothing in Church law prevents them, and whilst I can't tell you where it is written for the CofE, the CinW has a statement in its clergy terms and conditions stating that Priests may be Unionised.

But anyway, back to the language you use, I must ask are Priests to be viewed as employees in the sense that you use that word, such that you equate a Priests role as that with the career path of a retail worker, or industrial worker etc., etc.

Is the work of a Priest really just another career, or should there be some flexibility in what Priests are required to do and therefore would strict employment laws not only prevent Priests fulfilling all that we expect of them, but would also profane a sacred calling, making it a secular means to 'pay the bills' rather than a desire to fulfil ones complete abandonment to God?

Is it really possible to fit the sacred into a secular framework for which it may not be suited...?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Or, maybe the national church should have decent employment policies that are in line with national equality and employment legislation? The lack of a union for clergy is bad enough. The church's employees deserve to have proper employment rights.

Yes, priests taking each other to court is undignified but it wouldn't happen if the church gave priests the dignity they deserve in the first place.
Whilst you are quite right, Priests etc. deserve dignity in their work I have a problem with the way in which you talk about the role which Priests have.

Before I go on, just to say, Priests can join a Union if they so desire, nothing in Church law prevents them, and whilst I can't tell you where it is written for the CofE, the CinW has a statement in its clergy terms and conditions stating that Priests may be Unionised.

But anyway, back to the language you use, I must ask are Priests to be viewed as employees in the sense that you use that word, such that you equate a Priests role as that with the career path of a retail worker, or industrial worker etc., etc.

Is the work of a Priest really just another career, or should there be some flexibility in what Priests are required to do and therefore would strict employment laws not only prevent Priests fulfilling all that we expect of them, but would also profane a sacred calling, making it a secular means to 'pay the bills' rather than a desire to fulfil ones complete abandonment to God?

Is it really possible to fit the sacred into a secular framework for which it may not be suited...?

I certainly wouldn't want to take away the sense of calling that being a priest is, but there's nothing about being an employee that means that can't be there. Many people who are employees and have proper employment rights have a sacred calling - those in the military, or medical field, for instance. Priests are not the only people with a sacred calling, but everyone who does God's work in their field is. Being a priest shouldn't be from a desire to fulfil one's complete abandonment to God! One can do that in any job. It's not in the guidance notes for those going for ordination either...

The problem is that as things stand, many priests are in abusive working conditions and burn out because of things that could be prevented if they were employees and not just office holders. Priests are employees in all but name, after all, but are treated much worse than many employees in the secular world. Surely the church should lead by example? Justice in employment law is still justice, and still something that God cares about.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

SSM is a theological issue as well as a justice issue, and I don't see how court cases would help with the theology.

Maybe SSM could become one of those theologically broad church issues on which the clergy can disagree, even in their own lives. Some congregations will be in theological agreement and some won't.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

But where does it end? Sometimes justice trumps theological concerns, eg slavery. Some people may be able to cope with the existence of slavery from a theological perspective, that does not mean that one's theological perspective gets to override justice.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But where does it end? Sometimes justice trumps theological concerns, eg slavery. Some people may be able to cope with the existence of slavery from a theological perspective, that does not mean that one's theological perspective gets to override justice.

Isn't this just saying that sometimes the secular trumps the sacred? Or do you have a idiosyncratic definition of "theology"?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But where does it end? Sometimes justice trumps theological concerns, eg slavery. Some people may be able to cope with the existence of slavery from a theological perspective, that does not mean that one's theological perspective gets to override justice.
Isn't this just saying that sometimes the secular trumps the sacred? Or do you have a idiosyncratic definition of "theology"?

I think it's more likely you have a bizarre definition of sacred, if it does not include justice as a major feature, given that we believe in a God who is "without injustice".

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But where does it end? Sometimes justice trumps theological concerns, eg slavery. Some people may be able to cope with the existence of slavery from a theological perspective, that does not mean that one's theological perspective gets to override justice.
Isn't this just saying that sometimes the secular trumps the sacred? Or do you have a idiosyncratic definition of "theology"?

Not at all, justice is an inherent part of the sacred. God is the source of justice.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Sometimes justice trumps theological concerns, eg slavery. Some people may be able to cope with the existence of slavery from a theological perspective, that does not mean that one's theological perspective gets to override justice.

The obvious question is, whose idea of justice should predominate? In a secular state, secular ideas should predominate. But if the interior life of the church has to be ordered by the laws of a secular state then it's unsurprising that the church is seen as an appendage of the state, fairly unimportant in its own right, and its theology fairly unimportant except to a small number of specialists.

There would need to be a change of mindset for the CofE to see itself as the spiritual representative of the secular values of the state. I don't get the impression that the CofE is quite in that place. The growing percentage of evangelical Anglicans might make it harder not easier for the CofE to take on this role. That's why I think it would be better for the CofE to orchestrate a split of some kind.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But where does it end? Sometimes justice trumps theological concerns, eg slavery. Some people may be able to cope with the existence of slavery from a theological perspective, that does not mean that one's theological perspective gets to override justice.
Isn't this just saying that sometimes the secular trumps the sacred? Or do you have a idiosyncratic definition of "theology"?
Not at all, justice is an inherent part of the sacred. God is the source of justice.

But then what you're saying is that the theology which is opposed to justice is wrong, not that justice trumps theology in the sense of disregarding it or being preferred to it.

The word 'justice' too often means human justice: of God's justice or His equity we can know so very little. I agree that God's justice is inherently a part of the sacred: how can we speak of the study of God - theology - without it? This was the dilemma which your dichotomy seemed to me to induce.

[ETA: Grammar...]

[ 19. July 2013, 20:37: Message edited by: Vade Mecum ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
++Justin's approach to all this seems very much like that of a man taken by surprise, who can't understand why people take objection to the views he expresses; almost like someone who has never before knowingly met a gay person, and who is now being forced for the firstime, to analyze his position. As he is someone who has moved freely in the realms of both commerce and the church, this seems totally incredible, but bishops are strange folk, and often seem to have a predilection for ivory towers.

It appears that he wasn't the only one taken by surprise.

I was horrified to read that

quote:
Question 66 Robin Hall

How many incidents of homophobic bullying were recorded in Church of England schools in the last school year (or the most recent school year for which statistics are available)?

Answer

No national or even diocesan figures are collected....The Bishop of Oxford (Rt Revd John Pritchard), in reply: The Board of Education is quite clear that no form of bullying, for whatever reason, is acceptable in Church of England schools ...It is depressing that the Bishop of Oxford cannot in his answer even bring himself to use the word 'homophobia', or acknowledge that there might be a particular and specific problem of homophobic bullying . For it is clear that there is a problem not only in the treatment of LGBT pupils in church schools but also in the treatment of parents who happen to be in same-sex relationships.

On which subject, in questions to the Second Church Estates Commissioner last week, Ben Bradshaw, the MP for Exeter, made reference to a case where parents of children at a church school had been told that they would not be welcome to worship at the Conservative Evangelical parish to which the school was attached. Mr. Baldry, sadly, gave an answer as bland and full of denial as that of the Bishop of Oxford at General Synod....."Why, on the face of it, would we imagine that such an institution would be concerned in the least with bullying within its schools, particularly when it is eager to protect those same schools from the reach of equality legislation, and discourses endorsing marriage equality?"

according to Thinking Anglicans

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Do LEAs compile statistics on homophobic bullying in state schools?

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Do LEAs compile statistics on homophobic bullying in state schools?

Welsh ones do not. Some schools may, but the LEA has no interest in them.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Sometimes justice trumps theological concerns, eg slavery. Some people may be able to cope with the existence of slavery from a theological perspective, that does not mean that one's theological perspective gets to override justice.
The obvious question is, whose idea of justice should predominate? In a secular state, secular ideas should predominate. But if the interior life of the church has to be ordered by the laws of a secular state then it's unsurprising that the church is seen as an appendage of the state, fairly unimportant in its own right, and its theology fairly unimportant except to a small number of specialists.

There would need to be a change of mindset for the CofE to see itself as the spiritual representative of the secular values of the state. I don't get the impression that the CofE is quite in that place. The growing percentage of evangelical Anglicans might make it harder not easier for the CofE to take on this role. That's why I think it would be better for the CofE to orchestrate a split of some kind.

I'm not interested in the CoE taking on the secular values of the state, particularly this current government - marriage equality excepted. I would be very happy with disestablishment if it would prevent shameful incidents like St Paul's evicting Occupy protestors and serving the state instead of the people.

Marriage equality is not inherently a secular value but a full and proper value of the Church too. Sometimes, such as with marriage equality, secular values and Kingdom values overlap, but the Church does not need to serve the state in order to stand for justice.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Do LEAs compile statistics on homophobic bullying in state schools?

Bristol launched such a policy about 6 years ago but i think it was challenged by the tories as being 'a waste of time' and as 'political correctness gone mad.'

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0