Thread: Are LGBT people routinely denied Communion in the Church of England? 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=030704
Posted by Try (# 4951) on
:
On the Inclusive Church Sunday thread in Ecclesiantics shipmates posted the following:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Call me jaded and cynical, but I fail to see how such an event could be anything but a Big Lie (because the Church as an institution is far from what I'd call "inclusive"); or smug ("Hey, look at us! We don't beat you with sticks any more! Aren;t we good girls and boys?")
Other minorities' mileages may vary.
The national church, sure.
But we can celebrate those parish churches which refuse to follow the national church's line. To assure people that we won't refuse the Holy Communion.
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Also, in re this:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The national church, sure.
But we can celebrate those parish churches which refuse to follow the national church's line. To assure people that we won't refuse the Holy Communion.
It is most emphatically NOT the policy of the Church of England, or of the Roman Catholic Church for that matter, to refuse Communion to any of those people with whom Inclusive Church is primarily concerned. I am almost entirely certain that the Pope himself would not refuse communion to a lay Roman Catholic who happened to be gay, or who disagreed with the Church's teachings on the ordination of women (and that was as true in Benedict's time as it is under Francis, despite the attempt of the media to draw larger contrasts between their respective pontificates than can yet be conclusively demonstrated). And I know that either of the current English Archbishops would. In fact, I can't recall the last time I heard of anyone being denied communion in an Anglican church.*
*Okay, that's not true, I did once see a priest who blessed a man rather than give him the host; the man proceeded to make a big fuss about this and claimed it was because he was homeless, but I suspect that the real reasons were that he had walked in halfway through the Eucharistic prayer and was very visibly drunk. I don't know if the priest (who was old enough and of such a tradition that he probably believed strongly in fasting and careful preparation for all communicants) did the right thing or not.
quote:
leo responded by saying:
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
It is most emphatically NOT the policy of the Church of England, or of the Roman Catholic Church for that matter, to refuse Communion to any of those people with whom Inclusive Church is primarily concerned.
But it happens, especially in some conservative evangelical and charismatic churches. (Some use the Prayer Book line in the Exhortation about 'notorious sinners')
LGCM now has a policy of celebrating Communion at all its national and regional events because that is the only chance some people have of receiving the sacrament.
There followed a lively thread about wheather or not this was possible, until the whole topic was cut off by the Hosts, who reminded everyone that the subject was inappropriate for Ecclesiantics.
I admit that I was surprised by the notion that there are parts of England where LGBT people cannot find an Anglican church where they are welcome at the Lord's Table. For one thing, I think that if it had happened often, someone would have complained to the media and there would have been a big stink. Certainly there has been a strong negative reaction in the news whenever a LGBT person here in the US is denied Communion in a RC church.
Secondly, while I am aware of the fact that many Anglican churches in the more rural parts of the UK are formed into teams whereby all of the churches in a region served by the same priest(s), my impression was that the priests chosen for such service were fairly middle of the road in their theology. Are there really team ministries with an extreme con evo or charismatic theology? My impression, from the ship, was that extreme theologies on either end of the spectrum were pretty much an urban and suburban phenomenon.
Finally, would any of the bishops in the Church of England today approve of such a practice? +Grahm Dow and +Nazir Ali might have, but they're both retired.
Mind, I can see denying communion to gay people happening in some Anglican churches- but I am very surprised to hear that they can't find a more welcoming Anglican church within a reasonable distance.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
For one thing, I think that if it had happened often, someone would have complained to the media and there would have been a big stink.
If we've learned nothing else from the various clergy sex abuse scandals, it should be the idea that "surely someone would have said something if this were going on" is not a reliable indicator of anything. That doesn't mean this sort of thing is going on, just that we can't take "I've never heard anyone talking about this" as evidence one way or the other.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Sure, except that if soemone is actually refused at the altar rail it is in public view- though of course if a gay person were not to present themself for communion because they'd been warned off, no-one else would necessairly know about it. AIUI if a proiest refuses communion to someone at the altar s/he has to inform the Bishop about it: perhaps this deters some clergy from refusing communion who might otherwise do so- I don't know.
Posted by VDMA (# 17846) on
:
O.P., do you mean:
"denying communion to those who openly practice LGBT lifestyle and push the Gay Agenda",
or,
"denying communion to those who identify as LGBT and struggle with it"?
I can imagine conservative evangelical places like All Souls Langham pl. practicing the former, but not the latter... though I guess John Stott's days at All Souls are long gone.
[ 28. September 2013, 21:52: Message edited by: VDMA ]
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
VDMA, do you mean "LGBT and struggle with it" as in "I listen to homophobes who deny my inherent right to exist and it's destroyed my soul" or as in "OMG look at all these attractive people I really enjoy my God-given sexuality in healthy ways"?
Because I approve of the latter but the former need all the help we can give them as Christ's Body in the world.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
No and I have never heard of it even being discussed.
What a strange question.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
O.P., do you mean:
"denying communion to those who openly practice LGBT lifestyle and push the Gay Agenda",
or,
"denying communion to those who identify as LGBT and struggle with it"?
I don't practice a lifestyle; I live my life. I wish it involved an awful lot more passionate loving sex with another man. I'll only ever push the gay agenda to the extent that I am utterly certain, as certain as I am of my own existence, that this is no barrier whatsover to God's love for me. My manifold perversity is; my alleged perversion is not. If you don't like that, tough.
Posted by VDMA (# 17846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
VDMA, do you mean "LGBT and struggle with it" as in "I listen to homophobes who deny my inherent right to exist and it's destroyed my soul" or as in "OMG look at all these attractive people I really enjoy my God-given sexuality in healthy ways"?
Because I approve of the latter but the former need all the help we can give them as Christ's Body in the world.
I can't really reply to that post. You've worded my question in such a way that it's impossible for me to answer it without looking like a completely heartless bastard.
Christ preached repentance as much as He preached love and mercy. Read the Gospel of Matthew again with a view to how rude the Lord actually is to people who live in sin. He doesn't say one nice thing to anyone for about the first 10 chapters or so, and in the last few chapters it's almost constant teaching about judgment, Hell, sin, and evil.
I personally abstain from the sex which I desperately crave because I believe the Lord would condemn me for engaging in it, and I also believe the Lord will be more merciful and tender toward me because of my abstinence.
Anyway, how do you interpret the middle of the first chapter of Romans? Paul clearly says that a result of paganism among the Greeks was that men lusted after men. He lists this as a bad thing. Even if we question his idea of psychological causality or whatever, the fact is that he didn't exactly have a rosy view of it. The Biblical testimony against engaging in our lusty passions can only be circumvented by simply denying the divine inspiration of the Scriptures.
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
O.P., do you mean:
"denying communion to those who openly practice LGBT lifestyle and push the Gay Agenda",
or,
"denying communion to those who identify as LGBT and struggle with it"?
I don't practice a lifestyle; I live my life. I wish it involved an awful lot more passionate loving sex with another man. I'll only ever push the gay agenda to the extent that I am utterly certain, as certain as I am of my own existence, that this is no barrier whatsover to God's love for me. My manifold perversity is; my alleged perversion is not. If you don't like that, tough.
"Tough"? You sure are defensive about this. There's no reason get thorny the moment the subject comes up.
I, too, would like to "find love" with a man. I have fallen in love, in a very genuine way, before. There is one who I love now but cannot ever have, because of the choice I make to follow the Bible rather than my lusts. Even the straight man must follow the teaching of the Lord. Why should I be exempt because I'm a minority?
"I live my life" is the rallying cry of the individualist, the sentimentalist, and the man of pleasure. "Who are you to condemn me for living as I was born to live?", you might ask. Well, no one is born gay, but everyone is born into sin. God calls us precisely to live in ways that are [i]not[/] in accordance with our birth into sinfulness, selfishness, and worldliness. Engaging in gay sex is just another sin - nothing special, nothing to get prickly over.
There are no barriers to God's love, of course; that's the important thing. God has compassion on those who don't realize the mire they're stuck in, and on those who do realize but repent. Thank God for that, because none of us really understand the severity of sin. It doesn't mean there's no such thing as sin.
If a church is going to refuse holy communion to a man, it is because he is fornicating with other people against the commandment of God, not because the other people happen to be men. I should hope that vicars do the same for straight men who are having sex outside marriage. It's exactly the same sin.
Anyway, Anglicans are far too nice to to all this, so it's a moot point. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
This is all a question of interpretation. Which is why it's a dead horse of course.
I think we'll also find a wide difference of opinion on what we understand by the "LGBT lifestyle" or "gay agenda" if they even exist at all. I think they do not.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
I, too, would like to "find love" with a man. I have fallen in love, in a very genuine way, before. There is one who I love now but cannot ever have, because of the choice I make to follow the Bible rather than my lusts. Even the straight man must follow the teaching of the Lord. Why should I be exempt because I'm a minority?
All I can say is that I believe you will live to deeply regret this decision.
My SIL's father made the same decision as you for the same reasons. He ignored his sexuality, thought the Bible was telling him to do so, married and had six children. It was only when he was sixty that he realised how hard he'd made life for himself and his family. He had five years with his new partner, then died of a heart attack.
Three of his children are gay and three straight - all in committed relationships. I felt for him, his wife and his family. I know that, if her were a young man now he'd make very different choices - and of course I would not have my lovely SIL. But life as a Yorkshire farmer in those days did not allow for faithful gay Christians, sadly.
It does now. Don't waste such hard won freedom.
Sorry, rather off topic ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
but close to my heart.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Good post, Boogie. It's very sad to read these 'ex-gay' posters. I know a little bit about 'gay conversion' professionally, and it fills me with horror.
I thought your point about 'how hard he'd made life' is exact. If you deny your sexuality, you don't just swan through life - the toll on you and those around you can be very severe.
I remember working with married couples who were both gay, and fortunately, realized they were messing themselves up, and came out, got divorced, and became authentic, thank God.
[ 29. September 2013, 10:12: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
This may be marginally relevant, so bear with me.
Back in 1992 (I think), at the height of the controversy over Synod's decision to allow women's ordination, the vicar at our church decided to preach a sermon about Why Synod Were Wrong.
Now, I disagreed with him. I might have sat fuming all the way through the sermon, but the beginning of it included a number of factual errors about church history which *really* irritated me. Along with some other people, I walked out. It was either that or stand up and shout back at him.
A quick headcount in the church porch revealed that I was the only woman who had actually got up and walked out; all the rest were men. After a short debate we decided we were not annoyed enough with this priest to refuse to be in communion with him, and went back in for the rest of the service.
Judging by the pregnant pause before we got our communion wafers that day, he *considered* refusing us communion, but he didn't actually do it; perhaps because if we had complained to the bishop he would have had to explain the content of his sermon.
Going by this experience, I doubt there are many LGBT people who would be denied communion if they presented themselves at the altar. There are other ways of excluding people, though. Making them so unwelcome that they only ever come once, for example.
[ 29. September 2013, 10:20: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Anecdotally there are a number of local churches that are not welcoming to LGBTs (or paedo-baptism or a number of other things). I'm not sure that communion is refused, but neither am I sure that the area bishop would support the want-to-be communicant if it was.
A number of Reform voters that voted down the Women Bishops proposal in November last year come from this area, from a number of churches with a strong Reform tradition and this was one of the Dioceses that voted against.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Yes; if my vicar had refused me communion in those circumstances I could have complained to the bishop and the bishop would probably have done something about it (even if it was just wagging his finger at the vicar and saying 'Tut, tut.') LGBT people cannot expect the same level of support; if they are refused communion the bishop is likely to back the priest's decision.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
The CofE always strikes me as a church that keeps an eye on PR. Surely refusing someone Communion could potentially lead to bad PR if the media got hold of the story?
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Yes; if my vicar had refused me communion in those circumstances I could have complained to the bishop and the bishop would probably have done something about it (even if it was just wagging his finger at the vicar and saying 'Tut, tut.') LGBT people cannot expect the same level of support; if they are refused communion the bishop is likely to back the priest's decision.
I really don't think this would be the case.
And I would like to see some chapter and verse: some actual churches named where people have actually been refused communion. It is vanishingly rare for anyone to be refused communion for any reason these days. I know of one person who left St Andrew the Great in Cambridge because the church made clear their disapproval of this person being divorced, but even in this case the Lord's Supper was not refused. I'm with Pyx_e here.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
<tangent to Svitlana>
At what level are you seeing the Church of England controlling publicity?
- The Archbishops - both York and Canterbury have their own websites and Twitter feeds? Most of which is not picked up by the media and what is picked up is usually partial and garbled.
- The Church of England website and Twitter feed? Ditto to media coverage.
- The local Dioceses?
- The local Deanery?
- The local parishes?
Because all of these publicise their events, sermons, etc and have to deal with the fall out of publicity or newspaper comment. </tangent>
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatal:
quote:
Good post, Boogie. It's very sad to read these 'ex-gay' posters. I know a little bit about 'gay conversion' professionally, and it fills me with horror.
I thought your point about 'how hard he'd made life' is exact. If you deny your sexuality, you don't just swan through life - the toll on you and those around you can be very severe.
I wholeheartedly agree.
In fact if we deny anything that is fundamental to our identity, I fear we are in big trouble.
As to VDMA and being "ex-gay", I don't read his post as saying he is ex-gay but rather trying to abstain from sexual activity because of his commitment to the Bible and how he interprets it. And whether or not I agree with him, he deserves my respect for attempting to live by his beliefs regardless of how I or others view it. If he were being aggressive and telling other people how they should be behaving then I would feel very differently.
So much of this debate and indeed very many other topics revolves around the different approaches to interpreting and using the Bible (which is a topic in its own right and for another thread)
As to denying communion to people who identify as LGBT or anything else for that matter, quite honestly my heart breaks. Why, oh why would we wan to deny anyone a source of grace and intimacy with our Lord? I fear this is down to how we view the role of the church in our lives and matters of power and control and "church discipline" all of which come back to how we view the role of the Bible.....
God have mercy on us all!!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
At what level are you seeing the Church of England controlling publicity?
I don't know how all 'levels' interact in the CofE. I just get the impression that 'Gay Person Refused Communion' is a story that anyone in church leadership would rather not hear at the moment. The media would be interested in such a story because the media seems fascinated by anything that involves homosexuality and the CofE.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
I've never come across it any denomination.
I have though been in a church where an individual was denied communion for reasons of sexual immorality and another where individuals were removed for gossip and division.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Well, my point was that the Church of England nationally may not want to see "Gay Person refused Communion" headlines in the press, but that action would happen at a local level, with a local parish. Any other levels - deanery, diocesan, national - would have to pick up the pieces later.
See this story which broke in local press first and national later.
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on
:
Skirting around the nastiness.
I've never known ANYONE to be refused Communion in most Anglican churches, including people whom the celebrant in question must have known were not Christians. The two exceptions I've known to this were both in conservative Anglo-Catholic places with an SSC priest celebrating: one who refused the sacrament to drunk man (he blessed him instead) and another who refused the sacrament to a woman on the grounds of schism (it's a complicated story, which can't be told without revealing personal details). I also know of a case where a man was dismissed from all positions of authority in a church when it was revealed that he'd been impersonating a priest (dressing in clericals, and telling everyone that he was 'Fr so and so', and even conning his way into a concelebration), but I don't think he was excommunicated.
So, I would say that LGBT people being excommunicated because of their sexual orientation or gender expression is something rarer than the teeth of the proverbial hen.
By the way, I also know that there are openly gay (and non-celibate) people in numerous Roman Catholic congregations, including to my certain knowledge such bastions of traditionalism as the London Oratory.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
VDMA, do you mean "LGBT and struggle with it" as in "I listen to homophobes who deny my inherent right to exist and it's destroyed my soul" or as in "OMG look at all these attractive people I really enjoy my God-given sexuality in healthy ways"?
Because I approve of the latter but the former need all the help we can give them as Christ's Body in the world.
I can't really reply to that post. You've worded my question in such a way that it's impossible for me to answer it without looking like a completely heartless bastard.
Christ preached repentance as much as He preached love and mercy. Read the Gospel of Matthew again with a view to how rude the Lord actually is to people who live in sin. He doesn't say one nice thing to anyone for about the first 10 chapters or so, and in the last few chapters it's almost constant teaching about judgment, Hell, sin, and evil.
What? Not even quote:
8:10-12 - When Jesus heard this, he was astonished. "Believe me," he said to those who were following him, "I have never found faith like this, even in Israel! I tell you that many people will come from east and west and sit at my table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven. But those who should have belonged to the kingdom will be banished to the darkness outside, where there will be tears and bitter regret."
8:13 - Then he said to the centurion, "Go home now, and everything will happen as you have believed it will." And his servant was healed at that actual moment.
or quote:
9:1-2 - So Jesus re-embarked on the boat, crossed the lake, and came to his own town. Immediately some people arrived bringing him a paralytic lying flat on his bed. When Jesus saw the faith of those who brought him he said to the paralytic, "Cheer up, my son! Your sins are forgiven."
or quote:
9:29 - Then he touched their eyes, saying, "You have believed and you will not be disappointed."
or quote:
0:40 - "Whoever welcomes you, welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me is welcoming the one who sent me.
10:41-42 - "Whoever welcomes a prophet just because he is a prophet will get a prophet's reward. And whoever welcomes a good man just because he is a good man will get a good man's reward. Believe me, anyone who gives even a drink of water to one of these little ones, just because he is my disciple, will by no means lose his reward."
?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I won't repeat what I wrote in the thread referred to in the OP but will add that people have been told not to present themselves a the rail until they repented of their 'lifestyle.'
In one case, a gay couple still presented at the rail of their charismatic evangelical anglican church and the vicar performed an 'exorcism' without their request.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Leo
Yes - I suspected that if there's a problem, individuals will either be asked not to present themselves for Communion, or will simply choose not to do so. The issue won't reach the Communion rail, where 'refusal often offends'.
One wonders why anyone in modern Britain would want to attend Communion at an church where they have a fundamental theological disagreement with the minister on this supposedly key issue. The whole point of diversity in the CofE - and of a diversity of alternative denominations to choose from - is surely that you don't need to find yourself in such an embarrassing situation!
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I won't repeat what I wrote in the thread referred to in the OP but will add that people have been told not to present themselves a the rail until they repented of their 'lifestyle.'
In one case, a gay couple still presented at the rail of their charismatic evangelical anglican church and the vicar performed an 'exorcism' without their request.
You've been asked before: please provide the evidence to support your claims.
The operative word in the OP is "routinely" ie as a matter of course or regularly. One example is one too many but you just don't back up your wild claims.
[ 29. September 2013, 15:59: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by VDMA (# 17846) on
:
There is a difference between "LGBT people" and "practicing" LGBT people. A bishop or priest refusing communion to a person who is gay and celibate would be a horrible evil deserving of scandal. This is all about fornication, adultery, and the commandment of God to love our neighbour, I think. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
leo, These are all fairly neutral statements. Note that the Lord is responding to people who repent of their sins. There is no forgiveness of sins without repentance. He doesn't just go around willy-nilly touching everyone.
With regards to the actual Biblical standard: "sexual immorality" is often listed along with adultery as a sin to be repented of, so there must be something to it. Is it simply paedophilia? Bestiality? Homosexuality? (All verbs, actions) If it doesn't cover fornication, I'd be pretty surprised, given the sacredness of marriage. We know marriage is held as sacred in the Bible because it is the highest metaphor that the writers can use to describe both God's relationship with Israel, and Christ's relationship to His Church (His Bride, not His Groom, incidentally). They wouldn't use something "meh" to describe such cosmic connections. Since God constantly condemns Israel's faithlessness and whorish behaviour (i.e. Hosea), it stands to reason that sex outside marriage is condemned. Since marriage is between a man and a woman in the Bible, there can be no "healthy" sexual action outside marriage.
Sorry, lads. We all like to stand firm on what we think is right. I will do so, for the sake of my sinner's soul, and hopefully that others can be a little bit inspired.
MrsBeaky , thanks for the understanding and respect, sister in Christ. This is what I was talking about.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
I, too, would like to "find love" with a man. I have fallen in love, in a very genuine way, before. There is one who I love now but cannot ever have, because of the choice I make to follow the Bible rather than my lusts. Even the straight man must follow the teaching of the Lord. Why should I be exempt because I'm a minority?
All I can say is that I believe you will live to deeply regret this decision.
My SIL's father made the same decision as you for the same reasons. He ignored his sexuality, thought the Bible was telling him to do so, married and had six children. It was only when he was sixty that he realised how hard he'd made life for himself and his family. He had five years with his new partner, then died of a heart attack.
Three of his children are gay and three straight - all in committed relationships. I felt for him, his wife and his family. I know that, if her were a young man now he'd make very different choices - and of course I would not have my lovely SIL. But life as a Yorkshire farmer in those days did not allow for faithful gay Christians, sadly.
It does now. Don't waste such hard won freedom.
Sorry, rather off topic but close to my heart.
Dear Boogie,
I know this is off-topic, but it's important to address it because it's part of the reason why pastors may refuse Holy Communion to us.
I do not plan to deny my sexuality and get married. Women are icky. What I mean is that I wish to follow the Biblical pattern of the person who is not married: celibacy. I have my Christian friends; in the end, there is more joy and fellowship in close friends than in the passions of the flesh. That's what all this is about, after all.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
"Paedophilia, bestiality, homosexuality?"
Ah, the sight of that old triumvirate sends a bracing thrill through my old joints, and I think I hear the wind outside moan a little, in sympathy. It's fresh (not), it's brash, it's bollocks.
"Women are icky". Eh? No, they're wonderful, smart, grown-up, beautiful, adorable, sometimes dull, sometimes horny, but alive.
[ 29. September 2013, 17:01: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by VDMA (# 17846) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
"Paedophilia, bestiality, homosexuality?"
Ah, the sight of that old triumvirate sends a bracing thrill through my old joints, and I think I hear the wind outside moan a little, in sympathy. It's fresh (not), it's brash, it's bollocks.
"Women are icky". Eh? No, they're wonderful, smart, grown-up, beautiful, adorable, sometimes dull, sometimes horny, but alive.
Note that I did not make a list connecting the three, with commas. I said "Paedophilia? Bestiality? Homosexuality?" as separate entities. It was a set of questions: "which of these is meant by 'sexual immorality'?" Please do not twist my meaning.
I'm perfectly aware that almost every active gay person campaigns vigorously against paedophilia. Bestiality is just not even in our purview. The point is that the Scriptures meant something by "sexual immorality", and we must be honest in finding the answer.
I was joking about female ickiness. Just showing that I have no intention of being some self-denying "ex-gay". That's silliness. We are what we are.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
"We are what we are"
And who made this so?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
I do not plan to deny my sexuality and get married. Women are icky. What I mean is that I wish to follow the Biblical pattern of the person who is not married: celibacy. I have my Christian friends; in the end, there is more joy and fellowship in close friends than in the passions of the flesh. That's what all this is about, after all.
Good, at least other people won't be affected by your choices.
I am sure it all sounds very interesting and holy now. But I stand by what I said, if you continue this route I believe you will live to bitterly regret it. Homosexuality is natural and normal, and pretty much accepted as such these days PTL. A couple of verses in the Bible possibly condemning it don't make such 'sacrifice' worthwhile imo. You can serve God and be sexually fulfilled.
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
I do not plan to deny my sexuality and get married. Women are icky. What I mean is that I wish to follow the Biblical pattern of the person who is not married: celibacy. I have my Christian friends; in the end, there is more joy and fellowship in close friends than in the passions of the flesh. That's what all this is about, after all.
Good, at least other people won't be affected by your choices.
I am sure it all sounds very interesting and holy now. But I stand by what I said, if you continue this route I believe you will live to bitterly regret it. Homosexuality is natural and normal, and pretty much accepted as such these days PTL. A couple of verses in the Bible possibly condemning it don't make such 'sacrifice' worthwhile imo. You can serve God and be sexually fulfilled.
I'm very much gay and very much believe in committed gay relationships but it shouldn't ever be about our "sexual fulfillment". That is certainly not the be all and end all
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Leo
Yes - I suspected that if there's a problem, individuals will either be asked not to present themselves for Communion, or will simply choose not to do so. The issue won't reach the Communion rail, where 'refusal often offends'.
One wonders why anyone in modern Britain would want to attend Communion at an church where they have a fundamental theological disagreement with the minister on this supposedly key issue. The whole point of diversity in the CofE - and of a diversity of alternative denominations to choose from - is surely that you don't need to find yourself in such an embarrassing situation!
When I lived in Sussex, in my town it would have been difficult to find a church that wasn't conservative evangelical, Anglican or not. While I don't know if they'd refuse the Eucharist to LGBT people (I was not out at that time) there was a lot of hostility towards LGBT issues. If one wanted to go to church, there wasn't a lot of choice - there were the Quakers, but that meant no Eucharist and no anything else that meant 'church' to me. As I've said before, the diversity of the CoE really varies by location.
And speaking as a queer person - the importance of the 'key issue' really varies. At the time, my church family were more important to me than my church's view on sexuality. LGBT people of faith are very used to compromising in this way.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
VDMA - not everyone here views the Bible as the literal word of God. Even if people do, there are multiple valid interpretations of the 'texts of terror' regarding homosexuality (and also those texts regarding sexuality in general - I mean the Bible never outright condemns sex outside of marriage anyway!). So 'this is what the Bible says' is not a position that a lot of people on here will support, since it's just far too simplistic. The Bible is nuanced and complex and deserves a nuanced and complex approach to interpretation.
Regarding the OP, I have never heard of any LGBT people being refused Communion in the CoE. I've never heard of *anyone* being refused Communion in the CoE, not even very conservative churches.
Just out of interest, I'm curious as to how many here go to CoE churches that have out LGBT people in the congregation, and/or churches where sexuality issues come up. I'm out in life in general but given that sexuality issues just never come up in my church, and I don't have a significant other to talk about/introduce people to, most people in my church are not aware of my sexuality.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Jade
Yes, you have talked about your Sussex town. It sounds as though someone ought to have planted a more liberal church there.
I think a lot of us end up having to compromise when it comes to church life. Ironically, the current attention being given to the difficulties of gay people in the church should highlight the need for a greater diversity of church communities. If it has that outcome many people, both gay and straight, might benefit.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
leo, These are all fairly neutral statements.
"I have not found such faith, even in Israel!" is a neutral statement? Toss out your one-volume commentary because it's leading you astray.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Jade
Yes, you have talked about your Sussex town. It sounds as though someone ought to have planted a more liberal church there.
I think a lot of us end up having to compromise when it comes to church life. Ironically, the current attention being given to the difficulties of gay people in the church should highlight the need for a greater diversity of church communities. If it has that outcome many people, both gay and straight, might benefit.
A liberal Anglican church is unlikely to have blossomed given +Benn being our suffragan at the time There are lots of other places in the CoE where churchmanship is linked to geographic location though - some places are FiF hotspots, some places are strongly evangelical, etc etc. The CoE is diverse, yes, but not homogenised. Sometimes, you just have to make do with what's there. That's why the 'why don't you just find another church' thing is annoying, because it's very much an outsider's perspective on the CoE and not how it actually works in practice. How things 'should' be is not how they actually are.
Also yes, most people have to compromise at some level in church circles, but for straight people it's usually regarding how often Communion is or the music style, not whether or not they can openly be out as LGBT.
Speaking more generally, as a queer person I am deeply deeply uncomfortable by being told by straight people how I should experience church or having my lived experiences ignored.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
"sexual immorality" is often listed along with adultery as a sin to be repented of <snip> If it doesn't cover fornication, I'd be pretty surprised, given the sacredness of marriage.
I'm not entirely sure that's how to do exegesis.
quote:
Since God constantly condemns Israel's faithlessness and whorish behaviour (i.e. Hosea), it stands to reason that sex outside marriage is condemned.
I don't see how that logically follows. The sin of adultery you mentioned in your post would seem to be closer to what Israel had been up to - they are already in a relationship with God and go off after other gods. Noone would suggest that two (unmarried) people of the same sex in a loving sexual relationship with one another were committing adultery.
quote:
Since marriage is between a man and a woman in the Bible
Not if by "a" you mean singular in both cases.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The 'why don't you just find another church' thing is annoying, because it's very much an outsider's perspective on the CoE and not how it actually works in practice.
[...]
Speaking more generally, as a queer person I am deeply deeply uncomfortable by being told by straight people how I should experience church or having my lived experiences ignored.
Goodness me! I'm a totally inadequate representative of 'straight people'!! My point is simply that we should strive to experience church in a way that's best for us. That's why I think we need more diversity than we have at present. If that's not how the CofE sees things, then some other denomination will have to step up to the plate.
FWIW I do attend Anglican services relatively often these days, though perhaps I'm just too much of an outsider to understand the CofE. My wanderings will no doubt continue.
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Just out of interest, I'm curious as to how many here go to CoE churches that have out LGBT people in the congregation, and/or churches where sexuality issues come up. I'm out in life in general but given that sexuality issues just never come up in my church, and I don't have a significant other to talk about/introduce people to, most people in my church are not aware of my sexuality.
You're a self-described Anglo-Catholic. Out of curiosity, is the church where you worship in that tradition and, if so, are you a relative newcomer?
Because Anglo-Catholicism and homosexuality go together like two things that go together (if you'll forgive the Baldrickism). In urban Anglo-Catholic churches (Inner London, Brighton, Oxford), gay men are often the majority. In suburban and village Anglo-Catholicism, they're likely to be a relatively visible minority.
How much sexuality is discussed seems to vary by generation. Even so, it's not been uncommon in MY 'lived experience' as a queer person and an Anglican to hear even relatively elderly Anglo-Catholic priests refer to 'parishes, like ours, with many gay men in the congregation'.
My impression is that AIDS went a long way toward bringing Anglo-Catholicism out of the closet (I know that I will be criticized for talking about things I didn't experience personally, which is true, but I've heard this from several people).
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Just out of interest, I'm curious as to how many here go to CoE churches that have out LGBT people in the congregation, and/or churches where sexuality issues come up. I'm out in life in general but given that sexuality issues just never come up in my church, and I don't have a significant other to talk about/introduce people to, most people in my church are not aware of my sexuality.
You're a self-described Anglo-Catholic. Out of curiosity, is the church where you worship in that tradition and, if so, are you a relative newcomer?
Because Anglo-Catholicism and homosexuality go together like two things that go together (if you'll forgive the Baldrickism). In urban Anglo-Catholic churches (Inner London, Brighton, Oxford), gay men are often the majority. In suburban and village Anglo-Catholicism, they're likely to be a relatively visible minority.
How much sexuality is discussed seems to vary by generation. Even so, it's not been uncommon in MY 'lived experience' as a queer person and an Anglican to hear even relatively elderly Anglo-Catholic priests refer to 'parishes, like ours, with many gay men in the congregation'.
My impression is that AIDS went a long way toward bringing Anglo-Catholicism out of the closet (I know that I will be criticized for talking about things I didn't experience personally, which is true, but I've heard this from several people).
I do go to an A-C church, and I wouldn't describe myself as a newcomer to the tradition. I am well-aware of the link between A-C churches and homosexuality, but it's not the case in my own church - it's mostly made up of women and heterosexual couples, with some widowed or married men (and yes, I know these men are widowed or married, not just assuming). I think the FiF churches in the area fit your experience more, although I haven't spent a lot of time around their congregations.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
I apologise in advance for what follows:
Can I just get rid of all the shits who tell me that to be a faithful Christian I must deny my entire sense of being? That I must, by virtue of being who I was created as, be subjected to a life that only, scripturally speaking, some are called to (ie celibacy)?
As I say, I apologise for including language unbecoming, but despite the intercessions of Michael, I've had a rather crappy day, and I can't be arsed with homophobes today, feeling no fraternity towards anyone of any persuasion on any dead horse issue...
Anyhow, I know for a fact that my Bishop and all of the senior clergy in the Diocese, as well as my Parish clergy would be horrified if I returned with a claim that a Priest in the Diocese had refused me Communion based on my sexuality or relationship status, and would fight my corner beyond a mere slap on the wrists... Based on the knowledge that a member of the congregation I worship with has had a more than a mere slap on the wrist over raising this issue in the past from other congregation members, clergy and Diocesan big-wigs, when I was starting out on the Discernment process and was with Mr S-M.
I sometimes wonder whether minority groups develop a persecution mentality and seek to see persecution where it really isn't... but anyway I've downed too many bottles to night and am not making any sense in my mind or on the keyboard... I'm shutting up and going to bed.
Sorry for subjecting you to my rambling but I had to express it somehow.
god bless you all, and may the Blessed Virgin Mary, St Michael and St David pray for you an for all you hold dear this day and always.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
Sorry, lads. We all like to stand firm on what we think is right. I will do so, for the sake of my sinner's soul, and hopefully that others can be a little bit inspired.
I spent about 17 years standing firm on that same thing, because I thought it was right. It took me that long to admit that it was the line of thinking that was wrong and making my life hell.
The only thing I'm a little bit inspired to do is tell you that I really hope, for your sake, it takes you less than 17 years to change your mind.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
A liberal Anglican church is unlikely to have blossomed given +Benn being our suffragan at the time
Didn't seem to have that effect in Brighton.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
A liberal Anglican church is unlikely to have blossomed given +Benn being our suffragan at the time
Didn't seem to have that effect in Brighton.
True, although I always got the impression that Certain People in the CoE in Sussex would have loved to see Brighton disappear off the map forever for many reasons, not just being an AffCath haven. In Brighton it's just a numbers thing - there are so many gay men that there are the numbers to keep churches going even in the face of hostility. Outside of that concentration of gay men, things are rather different.
Also, it is worth pointing out that Anglo-Catholicism is extremely friendly to gay men - but gay men aren't the entirety of LGBTQ+ people. A trans person, for instance, probably has a rather different experience, as would a lesbian of colour (heck, a gay man of colour).
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I know this isn't in England, but i was interested in this: quote:
at General Synod 2005, Dean Michael Burrows (now a bishop) stated that he regularly gives Holy Communion to parishioners in long-standing homosexual relationships
Irish Angle, 31 March 2006
It looks as if they are reporting this as something unusual.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
The practice or the statement? Could be either. And whichever it is, it being reported only means that the person reporting it thinks it's unusual.
[ 30. September 2013, 15:52: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on
:
Re the OP, I would be very surprised to find a con evo CofE church 'refusing communion' to LGBT people, simply because, usually, communion isn't so important (indeed, as I've said elsewhere, I attended St Helens Bishopsgate weekly for 2 years without seeing a single communion), and there isn't the same idea of 'being in communion', or as using communion as an indicator of fellowship. Because who would care?
Rather, the way of indicating breach of fellowship would be in the form of quiet words after the service, or, in extreme forms, being asked to leave cell groups etc.
In the con evo CofE churches that I have had communion at (eg St Aldates Oxford), there are no checks before one is given communion, as to sexuality, whether one is confirmed, whatever. The only question would be if an LGBT couple were being openly couply. That might be an issue, but I am not sure (though I do not know) if they would be refused or just 'quiet-word'ed after, and it would probably be a similar stance if the couple were straight but unmarried.
So I think Leo's famous 'examples' must be on the FiF end - I think it would sound too quaint to a Reform-ist.
Finally, since we all seem to be doing tiresome 'speaking as' arguments here, I would probably class myself as a bi man, and am perfectly happy to have entirely straight people telling me what they think. My straight Bible teacher will openly criticise same-sex behaviour, as he would a great many other traits in me, all of which are 'part of me' but I do not wish to encourage. I often disagree with him but I can understand why he says it. Having said this, I get that it is a lot lot easier to be a bi man (who on balance prefers women) than entirely gay, which I appreciate must be exceptionally difficult, so I make no comment on that.
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
So I think Leo's famous 'examples' must be on the FiF end - I think it would sound too quaint to a Reform-ist.
I find it extremely implausible that churches on the FinF end of things would excommunicate openly gay people. FinF gatherings are trés gay. Even if that weren't the case, the Catholic tradition is to deal with matters of personal morality in the confessional.
Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on
:
No disagreement from me! Mirrors my own FiF experiences also. If I wasn't being hit on by one or two at the Oratory (I know not FiF but feels similar in aspects) they were v friendly ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
[ 30. September 2013, 18:53: Message edited by: ButchCassidy ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Re the OP, I would be very surprised to find a con evo CofE church 'refusing communion' to LGBT people, simply because, usually, communion isn't so important (indeed, as I've said elsewhere, I attended St Helens Bishopsgate weekly for 2 years without seeing a single communion), and there isn't the same idea of 'being in communion', or as using communion as an indicator of fellowship. Because who would care?
Rather, the way of indicating breach of fellowship would be in the form of quiet words after the service, or, in extreme forms, being asked to leave cell groups etc.
In the con evo CofE churches that I have had communion at (eg St Aldates Oxford), there are no checks before one is given communion, as to sexuality, whether one is confirmed, whatever. The only question would be if an LGBT couple were being openly couply. That might be an issue, but I am not sure (though I do not know) if they would be refused or just 'quiet-word'ed after, and it would probably be a similar stance if the couple were straight but unmarried.
So I think Leo's famous 'examples' must be on the FiF end - I think it would sound too quaint to a Reform-ist.
Finally, since we all seem to be doing tiresome 'speaking as' arguments here, I would probably class myself as a bi man, and am perfectly happy to have entirely straight people telling me what they think. My straight Bible teacher will openly criticise same-sex behaviour, as he would a great many other traits in me, all of which are 'part of me' but I do not wish to encourage. I often disagree with him but I can understand why he says it. Having said this, I get that it is a lot lot easier to be a bi man (who on balance prefers women) than entirely gay, which I appreciate must be exceptionally difficult, so I make no comment on that.
I only use the 'speaking as' argument because a straight person will never experience church (or anything else) as an LGBTQ+ person. Straight people are welcome to have opinions but they're opinions rather than lived experiences. It's like how I as a white person am not going to experience church as a non-white person, so it'd be a bit strange and pointless for my experience to be counted regarding that.
Re FiF churches, they're usually fine for gay men at least.
Prayer Book evangelicals might be more strict about refusing Communion, but they're also rather rare in the first place.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
I attended St Helens Bishopsgate weekly for 2 years without seeing a single communion
You may well have elaborated on this on another thread, but does St Helens not celebrate Communion *at all*?!
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
I attended St Helens Bishopsgate weekly for 2 years without seeing a single communion
You may well have elaborated on this on another thread, but does St Helens not celebrate Communion *at all*?!
Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on
:
iamchristianhearmeroar: I couldn't say as to "ever ever ever" - I only ever attended the 6pm congregation and they might do them in the morning (though the two are definitely separate, full services with different congregations, rather than a MoTR main service + evensong combo). It does seem a bit surprising now, looking back. I think its so little on the radar of many evos (certainly me) that it didn't really occur to me at the time.
Posted by Coffee Cup (# 13506) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
iamchristianhearmeroar: I couldn't say as to "ever ever ever" - I only ever attended the 6pm congregation and they might do them in the morning (though the two are definitely separate, full services with different congregations, rather than a MoTR main service + evensong combo). It does seem a bit surprising now, looking back. I think its so little on the radar of many evos (certainly me) that it didn't really occur to me at the time.
The autumn termcard (pdf warning) suggests that at the '6pm talk' does not have a communion service at all. The morning and mid-afternoon services have a once-a-month timetable. I'm a little surprised, but not stunned.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
I wonder what the Bishop of London has to say about there not being Communion at least every Sunday.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
The trouble with only giving opinions on our own 'lived experience' is that it might not give us much to say at all, and probably even less that'll be of interest to anyone else! My own experience of church doesn't seem to fit neatly into any of the categories that are routinely recognised, and that's certainly the case on the Ship.
Anyway, the answer to the OP seems to be no, which most people here will presumably consider to be a good thing, even if it leaves many other challenges and disagreements still to be faced regarding churches and sexuality.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The trouble with only giving opinions on our own 'lived experience' is that it might not give us much to say at all, and probably even less that'll be of interest to anyone else! My own experience of church doesn't seem to fit neatly into any of the categories that are routinely recognised, and that's certainly the case on the Ship.
Anyway, the answer to the OP seems to be no, which most people here will presumably consider to be a good thing, even if it leaves many other challenges and disagreements still to be faced regarding churches and sexuality.
Sooo...only straight white men have views interesting to others? I'm not talking about lived experiences regarding everything, just when it's regarding groups facing oppression (eg LGBTQ people, people of colour, disabled people etc).
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Jade Constable
Okay, so what do YOU think? My point was that we need more diversity, which I think would actually benefit a whole lot of people, including myself, as well as LGBTQ folk. And if the CofE, in all its grand complexity, can't supply such diversity then it needs to come from elsewhere. But you seem not to approve of that idea. I'm not sure why.
(As it happens I wouldn't say I was 100% straight, but it doesn't really make much difference in the grand scheme of things. I am a person of colour.)
[ 01. October 2013, 12:52: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Sooo...only straight white men have views interesting to others?
Straight white men are as entitled to views as anyone else.
I don't buy the whole black-and-white divide-and-rule world view that is implicit in that question, whereby the world is divided on any given issue or point of difference into two camps; one is identified with "privilege", is worthy only of abuse, and cannot possibly say anything interesting to others, except maybe to be twisted into condemning themselves; meanwhile the other camp cannot possibly do anything wrong, and the less that's known about them the better, as their reality will then present fewer challenges to the theories underlying this world view. It seems to lead all too quickly to nasty bigotry and hate-filled speech that would send the speaker into a fluster of outrage, were it only inverted in direction.
The most anomalous bit is the passion that underlies the divide-and-rule world view. It doesn't seem to occur to them that people are fundamentally kind, and as a default position don't give a damn about race or sex or sexual orientation: these are a total irrelevance. Yes, you will get people who haven't really thought about something saying stupid ill-thought-out things, but that is not the same as malice at all. But to those who feel passionately about these issues, the world is full of witches.
And one can't help but feel that some people have a deep-seated need to find something to protest against.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Jade
I think that in your first sentence you've misinterpreted what Svitlana is saying. I think you're also in danger of excluding the experience of people who are not directly affected by a behaviour but who witness it, are challenged by it, or find themsleves in a situation affected by it. Surely these people have something valid to say as well - after all, equality is everybody's business, isn't it?
[ 01. October 2013, 12:53: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on
:
VDMA, I tip my hat to your for your faithfulness and courage.
Our Lord tells us we must put him front and centre in our lives, which is a tough call if we take it seriously. All that gets in the way, whether it is our wealth, our ties to family or indeed our sexual impulses or any other idol must be set aside.
Everything must be subordinate to our faith - every aspect of our identity must be of a lower priority than our faith, and be open to transformation by God.
This is not only an issue for those of our brothers and sisters with a homosexual orientation, but also heterosexuals. Us heterosexuals also need to lift our game.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
" We heterosexuals..."
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I wonder what the Bishop of London has to say about there not being Communion at least every Sunday.
In view of the depths of SHB's collective pocket, probably not very much at all!
[ 01. October 2013, 15:01: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
The practice or the statement? Could be either. And whichever it is, it being reported only means that the person reporting it thinks it's unusual.
Well, how about this? quote:
I am an evangelical Anglican. I moved to a large town in Northern Ireland, and after a time began going to my local Church of Ireland church in 2000. .... it was not long before I was in a healing service and she was praying the dark things out of the church, “anything that is not of You” and whilst praying in agreement with this I did consider that I might be one of those dark things. That night she asked me to come down to the church on Monday evening as “some of us would like to talk to you”. “Some of us” I thought would be three or four of her closest parishioners but in fact turned out to be eight plus her and two more would have been there except they had prior engagements (one was a 17 year old boy!). Lamb to the slaughter……… And I guess that was what Jesus did when he went to Jerusalem, which is I guess why I went there that night. The folk were in tears. I was very upset too. I did love them and they did love me, after all.
She told me how wrong it was that I had gone for communion with my partner not long before that: “You put me in a terrible position”. People told me Satan had veiled my eyes, that Scripture was black and white, that the Bible says….., that it was an affront to see me worship God. And it was made clear that I would not be welcome at the Lord’s table again.....When I was told that I wasn’t welcome to receive communion anymore I called a halt and said I would leave.
source
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
A very disturbing story, and one of behaviour which I would say is both unChristian and unAnglican. But I'm not sure how it relates to my earlier comment.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Ew. It makes my skin crawl to think of that crazy bitch rector reaming that poor woman and then having the gall to give her a big hug and a blessing.
That is a real "ick factor" for me. :shudder:
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
A very disturbing story, and one of behaviour which I would say is both unChristian and unAnglican. But I'm not sure how it relates to my earlier comment.
You suggested that the report about the Irish dean was 'unusual' so I have another example which might suggest it isn't.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
leo
That's a really dreadful experience. I'm surprised that the minister was so sure of herself in barring someone from Communion. Is it as easy as that? Maybe it was in Northern Ireland in those days.
The other thing that surprises me is that the evangelical newcomer had travelled so far up the lay leadership hierarchy without having picked up any awareness of evangelical taboos, or at least an awareness that not all evangelicals are alike. If Anglicanism can befuddle its own people this way it's hardly surprising that 'outsiders' get confused!
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
A very disturbing story, and one of behaviour which I would say is both unChristian and unAnglican. But I'm not sure how it relates to my earlier comment.
You suggested that the report about the Irish dean was 'unusual' so I have another example which might suggest it isn't.
No I didn't. I said that the fact that it was being reported suggested that the person reporting it thought it was unusual.
Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
" We heterosexuals..."
And?
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
iamchristianhearmeroar: I couldn't say as to "ever ever ever" - I only ever attended the 6pm congregation and they might do them in the morning (though the two are definitely separate, full services with different congregations, rather than a MoTR main service + evensong combo). It does seem a bit surprising now, looking back. I think its so little on the radar of many evos (certainly me) that it didn't really occur to me at the time.
I'm surprised by that. I also attend an evo parish in London - although I found St Helens to be far too right wing for me - and every service including the 6 PM has communion once a month, except the 9 AM which has it each week.
Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on
:
Once a week! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
It might be a Conservative evo vs Charismatic evo thing? I think that All Souls Langham Place (the other Central London evo student church) do once a month.
Similarly, in Oxford, I never had communion at the evening congo at the conservative St Ebbe's (though to be fair I didn't attend that often so can't guarantee that) but did see it occasionally at the charismatic St Aldate's. The preacher would always give an apology for the formality of the (CW) words before the eucharistic prayer :-) Good days!
iamchristianhearmeroar: as said by Jolly Jape, I dare say SHB could live with the disfavour of the Bishop of London. They've cut off their parish share before, doubtless they could do it again..
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
A very disturbing story, and one of behaviour which I would say is both unChristian and unAnglican. But I'm not sure how it relates to my earlier comment.
You suggested that the report about the Irish dean was 'unusual' so I have another example which might suggest it isn't.
No I didn't. I said that the fact that it was being reported suggested that the person reporting it thought it was unusual.
Sorry to have misinterpreted.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Perhaps I wasn't being very clear. Head is a bit muzzy at the moment.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Jade Constable
Okay, so what do YOU think? My point was that we need more diversity, which I think would actually benefit a whole lot of people, including myself, as well as LGBTQ folk. And if the CofE, in all its grand complexity, can't supply such diversity then it needs to come from elsewhere. But you seem not to approve of that idea. I'm not sure why.
(As it happens I wouldn't say I was 100% straight, but it doesn't really make much difference in the grand scheme of things. I am a person of colour.)
I know you're a person of colour, I was responding to the idea that those with lived experiences might not be as interesting to others. That's not really the point. I agree with your point about diversity, but to get there we have to actually listen to the people being excluded, rather than paternalism. THAT is why lived experiences are important. There is a Lady Bountiful approach to diversity from some quarters, and it's a really dangerous approach to equality - since it doesn't provide real equality at all.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Sooo...only straight white men have views interesting to others?
Straight white men are as entitled to views as anyone else.
I don't buy the whole black-and-white divide-and-rule world view that is implicit in that question, whereby the world is divided on any given issue or point of difference into two camps; one is identified with "privilege", is worthy only of abuse, and cannot possibly say anything interesting to others, except maybe to be twisted into condemning themselves; meanwhile the other camp cannot possibly do anything wrong, and the less that's known about them the better, as their reality will then present fewer challenges to the theories underlying this world view. It seems to lead all too quickly to nasty bigotry and hate-filled speech that would send the speaker into a fluster of outrage, were it only inverted in direction.
The most anomalous bit is the passion that underlies the divide-and-rule world view. It doesn't seem to occur to them that people are fundamentally kind, and as a default position don't give a damn about race or sex or sexual orientation: these are a total irrelevance. Yes, you will get people who haven't really thought about something saying stupid ill-thought-out things, but that is not the same as malice at all. But to those who feel passionately about these issues, the world is full of witches.
And one can't help but feel that some people have a deep-seated need to find something to protest against.
I don't think that people with privilege are only deserving of abuse. Most people have privilege of some kind - it's about being aware of said privilege and how it gives you a 'leg up' in life, and that there are people without that benefit. That's all. The character assassination you just provided of people who are aware of privilege's existence is rather more abusive than that.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Jade
I think that in your first sentence you've misinterpreted what Svitlana is saying. I think you're also in danger of excluding the experience of people who are not directly affected by a behaviour but who witness it, are challenged by it, or find themsleves in a situation affected by it. Surely these people have something valid to say as well - after all, equality is everybody's business, isn't it?
People who aren't directly affected have a duty to listen to those who are, before anything else. THEN have an opinion, otherwise any opinion is just guesswork. And before you say that this is obvious, given how often those who are directly affected aren't listened to but are 'helped' by people who have no idea of the reality of their situation, it's not obvious to everyone.
I'm not saying those not directly affected shouldn't have any opinion at all, but their opinions should be based on what those who are affected actually go through. Listen first.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Listen, sure; and observe, and think about the effect that it's having on you. Don't presume to speak for other people but don't be afraid to speak for yourself.
[ 02. October 2013, 15:03: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Listen, sure; and observe, and think about the effect that it's having on you. Don't presume to speak for other people but don't be afraid to speak for yourself.
Agreed with all of that.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Jade
I'm not sure where I've failed to listen, but if you think I'm speaking without listening, then I'm sorry.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Yes; if my vicar had refused me communion in those circumstances I could have complained to the bishop and the bishop would probably have done something about it (even if it was just wagging his finger at the vicar and saying 'Tut, tut.') LGBT people cannot expect the same level of support; if they are refused communion the bishop is likely to back the priest's decision.
I would disagree entirely-- I cannot think of a place in Canada where this would be the case. I knew of one instance where a communicant was discouraged on this account and the bishop came down like a ton of bricks on the foolish cleric.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Well, you're in Canada, Augustine; I'm in England. There are quite a few bishops over here who disapprove of LGBT people expressing their sexuality, to judge by the 'official' C of E response to the government consultation on same-sex marriage. I don't actually know of my own experience whether these bishops would support a priest who refuses communion to gay parishioners, and if I have overstated my case then I apologise.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
No need to apologize to me, as we are simply comparing different perspectives. CoE has some very strict procedures for refusing communion, as there are precedents for canon law proceedings on this issue, but others will have more on-the-ground knowledge than I.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
There are a small (and diminishing number) of parishes that might do this in the U.S.
Despite the TEC's liberal reputation, and the exodus of many conservative churches during "the troubles" following VGR's consecration, there are still a contingent of churches where openly gay people are unwelcome and might be denied communion if their sexual orientation were known to the priest. I can think of a few in Dallas, TX, where I lived briefly, where this is the case. It's likely in such cases that the priest may have the support of the bishop should someone complain.
Posted by hugorune (# 17793) on
:
Is there any solid Biblical case for denying communion on the basis of a person's sin? I'm really not sure there is one. I've come across the argument that homosexuals sin 'deliberately' and thus should not participate in the sacraments (or, by implication, receive God's grace) but I don't believe that the church is right to make this judgement, and then restrict communion on this basis. It comes down to an intent to exclude.
Declared vested interest, I'm gay (although celibate by circumstance), but I really don't know if my opinion would be different otherwise.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hugorune:
Is there any solid Biblical case for denying communion on the basis of a person's sin? I'm really not sure there is one. I've come across the argument that homosexuals sin 'deliberately' and thus should not participate in the sacraments (or, by implication, receive God's grace) but I don't believe that the church is right to make this judgement, and then restrict communion on this basis. It comes down to an intent to exclude.
Declared vested interest, I'm gay (although celibate by circumstance), but I really don't know if my opinion would be different otherwise.
Yes in the sense of sin causing a division within a group of believers.
As for the intent to exclude - if the church doesn't have the right then who does? Perhaps it's better that the church has the responsibility to exclude.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by hugorune:
Is there any solid Biblical case for denying communion on the basis of a person's sin? I'm really not sure there is one. I've come across the argument that homosexuals sin 'deliberately' and thus should not participate in the sacraments (or, by implication, receive God's grace) but I don't believe that the church is right to make this judgement, and then restrict communion on this basis. It comes down to an intent to exclude.
Declared vested interest, I'm gay (although celibate by circumstance), but I really don't know if my opinion would be different otherwise.
Yes in the sense of sin causing a division within a group of believers.
As for the intent to exclude - if the church doesn't have the right then who does? Perhaps it's better that the church has the responsibility to exclude.
To my mind, it is those with the intention to exclude who create the division. It is that act which attempts to divide the house of God against itself.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Not so long ago, there were regular attempts by a group of gay men and their mothers to attend Mass at the RC cathedral here. All in the group would wear a rainbow sash. The Cardinal ordered that they be excluded.
I think he was correct - their attendance was to make a political statement, rather than properly to participate in the service. Any thoughts?
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on
:
I might deny communion to any group that expected me to deny communion to another group they didn't like.
(I am aware of the potential logical challenges of this position)
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Once a week!
It might be a Conservative evo vs Charismatic evo thing? I think that All Souls Langham Place (the other Central London evo student church) do once a month.
Weekly at 8am, once a month at main morning services (9.30 and 11.30), once a month at evening service.
I am gay and Anglo-Catholic but quite a peripatetic worshipper and have never heard of communion being denied, though most of my experience is London-based, or in country towns.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
quote:
...their attendance was to make a political statement, rather than properly to participate in the service. Any thoughts?
ISTM that the Cardinal's decision to exclude them was also a political statement, unless he requires people sporting the emblems of political groups he agrees with to leave too.
[ 09. November 2013, 23:36: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
ISTM that the Cardinal's decision to exclude them was also a political statement, unless he requires people sporting the emblems of political groups he agrees with to leave too.
Not sure what other political groups you could be referring to.
These people were there to be turned away, not to attend worship. They wanted the publicity.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
These people were there to be turned away, not to attend worship. They wanted the publicity.
News flash: LGBT people do not "want" to be discriminated against. Your suggestion that discrimination against them was justified because they "wanted" it makes me feel sick. I've heard that type of justification before - from rapists.
I am not surprised they wanted publicity regarding the fact that they were being discriminated against. People who are mistreated often want it to be made public, in order to have it stop. This is not because they are troublemakers who simply crave publicity for its own ends, but because they hope that by drawing attention to the evil, malice, and injustice that this will help stop it.
The cardinal was one hundred percent wrong to deny them communion. To my mind it's just the same as if he'd denied communion to black people, or to left handers. It's arbitrary exclusion and evil.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
They were not there to worship - none was known at the cathedral or a local parish. They were there as they were to be excluded and to get publicity.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Possibly, but it sounds as if it was badly mishandled.
If it was solely a publicity stunt, how did they end up as confirmed members of the church in the first place ? If they weren't confirmed RCs they wouldn't have been able to participate in communion anyway.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Exactly, Doublethink. They may have been confirmed at some stage, but none was known as a practising member of a church.
Perhaps the Cardinal could have handled things better, but it's a bit hard when 50 or so show up on the Cathedral steps with a friendly TV crew in tow.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
So if they were confirmed they had at some point been a member of the church, no?
And the fact that they weren't recognised suggests that they at some point have stopped attending church? So we could posit that they may well feel as if they've been turned away, and we could guess that that could have been because of the preaching of the RC Church against homosexuality from the fact that they were wearing rainbow scarves.
So the RC Church publicly turning them away was enacting the pain they'd already felt. And that's being dismissed as a publicity stunt and those hurting* are being dismissed by the attitudes around? And that demonstrates the love of Christ as exhibited by this church?
Does that sound a reasonable way of describing this action?
* anger can be an outward sign of inward pain, anger is one of the great disguiser emotions
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Gee D: quote:
Not sure what other political groups you could be referring to.
Well, I don't know much about Australian politics but I would hazard a guess that the Cardinal approves of the Family First Party. Certainly their policies on sexuality and same-sex parenting seem to agree with current RC teaching.
If I am wrong, I'm sure an Australian will be along to correct me in a minute.
They may have dug a hole for the Cardinal to fall into, but he didn't just fall; he jumped in with both feet and began digging. Enthusiastically.
Posted by chive (# 208) on
:
I was disciplined by a con-evo (non CoE) church for being a dyke (and therefore being sexually immoral) and removed from membership many years ago. It bothered me a lot at the time and to some extent bothers me still.
When I first started attending a theologically conservative AC church I was open with the priest and he had no issue with me becoming a regular (several times a week) communicant.
It became an issue when I decided I wished to swim the Tiber. I spent a lot of time and prayer thinking about it. The RC church teaches that being in a gay relationship is sinful. After much thought and not a little heartbreak I decided that I couldn't join a church whose beliefs I couldn't follow. I therefore made a decision that I would be celibate for the rest of my life. Big decision when you're in your mid thirties. As it has turned out it hasn't been a massive issue for me up til now. Yes, I miss the potential companionship of having a partner but that is weighed up against the cognitive dissonance of either lying to God by being in a relationship and receiving the Eucharist or not receiving it.
Please believe me when I say that this is a personal decision I've made in the circumstances where I'm at. I have no right or desire to dictate to anyone else what decisions they make in their relationship with God, the church and everyone else.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
So if they were confirmed they had at some point been a member of the church, no?
And the fact that they weren't recognised suggests that they at some point have stopped attending church? So we could posit that they may well feel as if they've been turned away, and we could guess that that could have been because of the preaching of the RC Church against homosexuality from the fact that they were wearing rainbow scarves.
So the RC Church publicly turning them away was enacting the pain they'd already felt. And that's being dismissed as a publicity stunt and those hurting* are being dismissed by the attitudes around? And that demonstrates the love of Christ as exhibited by this church?
Does that sound a reasonable way of describing this action?
* anger can be an outward sign of inward pain, anger is one of the great disguiser emotions
Do you normally turn up at church with a TV crew in tow?
And Jane R, the Cardinal almost certainly approves of Family First. AFAIK, Family First does not wear a uniform. I can't imagine what it is.
Let's be honest. You don't support discrimination against gays, and nor do I. But to show up at Mass as this group did says to me that they were not there to participate reverently in the church's most holy sacrament, but to be turned away and get their 15 minutes of fame.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
That's the first mention you've made of a TV crew in tow.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
See my post yesterday at 21.00. As I recall the news clip, there was not a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth by those turned away.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
What film clip? I see no film clip linked here. Not that I will necessarily be able to access news stories on an Australian news site in a different continent.
Time stamps are useless as indicating post times for anyone outside your time zone. Spending more time than I want to on this, the post I suspect you're referring to is at 10:00 in my time zone, which is what the time stamp shows for me.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Actually, it's the SECOND time he's mentioned the TV crew. I checked. And the point isn't the film clip. The point is the desire to get one.
I don't have the clip to hand either, but being an Australian and recalling the story, I'm going to back Gee D up here. I can remember having a sense that, at least at SOME point in these events, the goal looked to be media attention rather than actually going to church in the usual sense.
And I remember being not at all comfortable with the tactic.
Nor am I comfortable, of course, with the notion that LGBT people have to hide who they are in order to be admitted to church and to receive communion. But I'm far from convinced that making your LGBT status as visible as possible in the way that occurred is intended to do anything other than provoke as visible as possible a reaction, with the intent of then going "Look! Look! See how persecuted I am!".
It's perfectly possible for LGBT to be interviewed by the media and discuss their exclusion, or sense of exclusion. But of course, television loves a visual illustration far more than a talking head. So they went and made a point of getting a visual illustration.
[ 11. November 2013, 07:10: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I've been reflecting on this further, and I think it's worth saying that I wouldn't have had anything like the same problem with people turning up, in rainbow sashes, to protest on the front steps of the church.
Because it's honest. It's an accurate reflection of intent. My objection is to claiming an intent to 'just come to church and receive communion' when the rest of one's actions are geared to ensuring that this result is unlikely.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
What Orfeo said, in spades.
I made no pretence about providing a link. Given that the event - or events? - were a decade or so ago, the likelihood of finding a link without hours of searching are close to zero.
The position in both the Catholic and Anglican Churches in Sydney is simple. Had the people in the demonstration wanted to worship, they could have joined any of a half-dozen Anglican or Catholic churches around here, walked in and been welcome. They could have gone to 4 or 5 within short walking distance of the St Mary's Cathedral and got the same response. And this is not the same as "don't ask, don't tell". It is a genuine welcoming of anyone seeking to join in worship. And also of course, it is not a welcome that is diocesan-wide in either church either, and it should be. But it is a way of being part of a worshipping community.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Not so long ago, there were regular attempts by a group of gay men and their mothers to attend Mass at the RC cathedral here. All in the group would wear a rainbow sash. The Cardinal ordered that they be excluded.
.....
They may have been confirmed at some stage, but none was known as a practising member of a church.
Perhaps the Cardinal could have handled things better, but it's a bit hard when 50 or so show up on the Cathedral steps with a friendly TV crew in tow.
I think you need to get your story straight here.
If a group of people that nobody recognises turn up one day unannounced, with TV cameras, wearing uniforms of some kind, and demand communion for what seems apparently a political stunt, then it seems understandable for the Cardinal to bar them from communion until he had a better understanding of what was happening.
However, if it is as you first claimed that these men and their mothers "regularly" attempt to attend the same church, then they are not unknown at all. If the Cardinal refuses them communion because he knows them and knows they are gay, then it is discrimination, pure and simple. If these wronged men later get TV cameras along to publicly call attention to the wrongs being done to them, and to shame the Cardinal for his evil deeds, then good on them.
If you are trying to insinuate that the church never discriminates against LGBT people and that no wrongs are done to them, and that their publicly stunt was not because they felt discriminated against but solely because they loved publicity, then... ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I did not say that they were unknown at all, but not known as being a practising member of any church. There's a difference.
And read what both Orfeo and I have said above.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
If the Cardinal refuses them communion because he knows them and knows they are gay, then it is discrimination, pure and simple.
Of course it's discrimination, no-one is suggesting that it isn't.
And the main reason he knew that they were gay was because they all turned up wearing lovely rainbow sashes to emphasise the fact.
And yes this did happen more than once.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Why does he care if they're gay - surely he is only meant to care if they're fucking ? And is that not established in the confessional rather than by their clothing or asking on the church steps ?
[ 11. November 2013, 19:38: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
If the church had welcomed these guys in there wouldn't have been a news story either. That seems to be rather the point of the protesters.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
If the church had welcomed these guys in there wouldn't have been a news story either. That seems to be rather the point of the protesters.
But they were asking him to go against church rules. I think those church rules are wrong, but did anyone actually expect a Cardinal to go against church rules?
And I'm pretty sure a Cardinal going against church rules would have been a story!
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Gee D: quote:
And Jane R, the Cardinal almost certainly approves of Family First. AFAIK, Family First does not wear a uniform. I can't imagine what it is.
Let's be honest. You don't support discrimination against gays, and nor do I. But to show up at Mass as this group did says to me that they were not there to participate reverently in the church's most holy sacrament, but to be turned away and get their 15 minutes of fame.
Well, I was envisaging the Family First people turning up wearing rosettes* at election time and being told 'You can't bring politics inside the church'.
I see what you and Orfeo are getting at now. I still think it could have been handled better, though.
*if they're anything like UK political parties' rosettes, these will be loud and tacky and nobody in their right mind would consider wearing them at any other time...
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Rosettes are not a feature of the political scene here. The occasional blackened eye, yes, badges/t-shirts at the polling station, but not rosettes.
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on
:
As a fellow Australian who also has watched the news regarding this, I can confirm both the description and support the concerns that Gee D and orfeo have regarding the matter.
Now my memory also recalls that those wearing the rainbow sash were not just GLBT Catholics but also their parents, and that the Cardinal refused the sacrament to them as well - did he make an assumption or a proscription? Whatever he did, I believe it went against Christian charity and acceptance. After all, didn't Christ say:
"Come unto me all who labour and are heavily burdened, and I will give you rest"? No mention of finding rest in him unless you happen to be wearing a rainbow sash.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I won't repeat what I wrote in the thread referred to in the OP but will add that people have been told not to present themselves a the rail until they repented of their 'lifestyle.'
In one case, a gay couple still presented at the rail of their charismatic evangelical anglican church and the vicar performed an 'exorcism' without their request.
You've been asked before: please provide the evidence to support your claims.
Vulpior on this page.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
There was a case, reported in the local paper, of two elderly ladies who were refused communion at the altar rail by a newly installed vicar/rector. This was either in extremely East Sussex or the bit of Kent abutting it. The ladies were much upset, the previous vicar/rector having found no fault in them, but did not reveal what the cause was. The priest would not reveal either, citing the necessity of preserving confidentiality over such things. There was a suggestion that his bishop supported him (Hmm, wonder which bishop it was), but the story was never brought to a conclusion. The ladies did not, as far as I know, move to another church, or even migrate over the diocesan border of a Sunday, and one of them died while still excommunicate (Probably the other one by now.)
Whether this was a case of notorious lesbians or not, I have no idea, but that was certainly the impression left in people's minds (we weren't close enough to actually know them or their friends or be on their grapevine). It's hard to see what else they could have been doing. Can't have been denuding the donations from the box by the door for visitors, that's a police job. Running the flower rota with two pairs of iron hands and not letting the new priest's wife in? Covered by the rubric, I suppose, but hardly cutting people off at the rail stuff.
I think this would add to leo's example, even if not to do with being lesbians, because that is what people would think, and the priest must have known that that was what people would think. There was a nasty taste about the whole thing.
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I won't repeat what I wrote in the thread referred to in the OP but will add that people have been told not to present themselves a the rail until they repented of their 'lifestyle.'
In one case, a gay couple still presented at the rail of their charismatic evangelical anglican church and the vicar performed an 'exorcism' without their request.
You've been asked before: please provide the evidence to support your claims.
Vulpior on this page.
I had thought about posting my experiences on this thread but it was some time ago, so doesn't necessarily provide evidence that people are (rather than were) routinely denied Communion. Because it was some time ago, I don't have all the documentation with dates and specifics electronically to be able to access it when I am reading the Ship away from home. The post-incident management was very badly handled by the then Bishop of Birmingham, Mark Santer.
Sometime I will precis it and post.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I won't repeat what I wrote in the thread referred to in the OP but will add that people have been told not to present themselves a the rail until they repented of their 'lifestyle.'
In one case, a gay couple still presented at the rail of their charismatic evangelical anglican church and the vicar performed an 'exorcism' without their request.
You've been asked before: please provide the evidence to support your claims.
Vulpior on this page.
The real facts are rather different - see below.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
'Below' what.
How 'recent' is 'recent'?
Orr-Ewing is still vicar and was on TV last Whitsun.
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
'Below' what.
How 'recent' is 'recent'?
Orr-Ewing is still vicar and was on TV last Whitsun.
Leo, please be careful about making assumptions based on the limited amount that I have posted. Amy Orr-Ewing is married to the Revd Frog Orr-Ewing; her father has a different surname and is now retired.
I have a hunch that denial of Communion still goes on, but I don't have any evidence to posit.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
...the Revd Frog Orr-Ewing...
Bless his heart, but what an unfortunate name.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
One example doesn't make it routine ... and we don't seem to know from this example, that it involved considerations wholly related to LGBT
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
...the Revd Frog Orr-Ewing...
Bless his heart, but what an unfortunate name.
It's an unfortunate habit of some people in the UK to give their offspring (and indeed adult chums) nicknames which seem hilarious only to them.
I believe Francis became Frog to his family. Such a laugh!
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
...the Revd Frog Orr-Ewing...
Bless his heart, but what an unfortunate name.
It's an unfortunate habit of some people in the UK to give their offspring (and indeed adult chums) nicknames which seem hilarious only to them.
Oh, it's a nickname. I assumed it was his birth name. Never mind...
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
...the Revd Frog Orr-Ewing...
Bless his heart, but what an unfortunate name.
It's an unfortunate habit of some people in the UK to give their offspring (and indeed adult chums) nicknames which seem hilarious only to them.
I believe Francis became Frog to his family. Such a laugh!
I may be very slightly more tolerant of posh people than you are, EM, but I'm with you on this. I find this kind of red-trousered tweeness absolutely unbearable.
[ 20. August 2014, 11:01: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
'Below' what.
How 'recent' is 'recent'?
Orr-Ewing is still vicar and was on TV last Whitsun.
Leo, please be careful about making assumptions based on the limited amount that I have posted. Amy Orr-Ewing is married to the Revd Frog Orr-Ewing; her father has a different surname and is now retired.
Though if my googling has led me in the right direction, leo, I think he may now be in your neck of the woods.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
[QUOTE] ... I find this kind of red-trousered tweeness absolutely unbearable.
Yeah it does make me wince a bit, it's so sort of "in joke" type of thing for poshies. My tolerance obviously stops well short of yours in these matters - I applaud you - self control in this kind of power games issue, I'm still working on.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Tangent: Getting less tolerant of them as I get older- largely because they're back buggering up the country - and BTW the Revd Frog, of whom to be fair I know nothing to his credit or discredit except his sillily affected name, does look alarmingly like David Cameron...
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Tangent: Getting less tolerant of them as I get older- largely because they're back buggering up the country - and BTW the Revd Frog, of whom to be fair I know nothing to his credit or discredit except his sillily affected name, does look alarmingly like David Cameron...
Yep it's the fully monty posh boy isn't it? The swept over haircut, the pink shirt, Oxford (I'm told there's a reputable university there). So what if he's the youngest incumbent in the whole of recorded history?
Haven't come across him but have heard Amy speak at a Baptist event at the annual assembly. On rather a different plane from most of us I have to say .... deprived estate as a next incumbency?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
back buggering up the country
They've never been away. Not since 1945 have we had a Government that's not like that - and even then they botched it before they got rid of the House of Lords, hereditary titles and the Royal Family.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Oxford (I'm told there's a reputable university there).
I believe that there is Another One towards the east of England ... and I don't mean Anglia Ruskin! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Seriously: I don't know the guy - he may be a Very Good Thing. But are we back in the realms of the "Bash Camps" of the 1930s , which had the deliberate intention of infusing Evangelical beliefs into the higher echelons of the CofE? And, if we are, is this in any way an appropriate model for today? (Discuss).
[ 20. August 2014, 14:20: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
'Below' what.
How 'recent' is 'recent'?
Orr-Ewing is still vicar and was on TV last Whitsun.
Leo, please be careful about making assumptions based on the limited amount that I have posted. Amy Orr-Ewing is married to the Revd Frog Orr-Ewing; her father has a different surname and is now retired.
Though if my googling has led me in the right direction, leo, I think he may now be in your neck of the woods.
No - Frog left Peckham to go to Wycliffe Hall - a college not known for its breadth of vision and inclusive.
However, the church you link to shows you are getting warm in other aspects.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Oh no, I meant his father-in-law- Amy O-E's father.
[ 20. August 2014, 15:32: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Having done some hunting on the Internet, I've discovered that "Frog" is one of the grand-children of the MP in the Constituency where I lived as a child (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing, Hendon North). It's an unusual name, there had to be a connection!
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh no, I meant his father-in-law- Amy O-E's father.
Just follow Albertus' link ... although I wonder if he may have now retired (again).
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE]
I believe that there is Another One towards the east of England ... and I don't mean Anglia Ruskin!
Seriously: I don't know the guy - he may be a Very Good Thing. But are we back in the realms of the "Bash Camps" of the 1930s , which had the deliberate intention of infusing Evangelical beliefs into the higher echelons of the CofE? And, if we are, is this in any way an appropriate model for today? (Discuss).
Oh you must mean Northampton Poly.
It can't be Anglia Ruskin as it was known as CCAT when I was a pimply schoolboy and you went there to be a plumber or secretary. It was located in a particularly seedy part of Cambridge - East Road, home to dodgy pubs and even dodgier ladies. I think the Only Real University had a major influence on planning as the station was nearer my old school that the university.
As regards the "Bash" camps - more stuff that sets my teeth on edge. Top 30 public schools, attendance by invitation; leaders referred to by military titles - sounds rather like an attempt to keep the world and the church in the hands of the ruling classes.
Is it a good thing? In part: any attempt to share Jesus with others is laudable but I'd question the motives of some of the "selective" camps. But, I suppose the chaps enjoy learning with others of the same kind .... it would rather suggest that they join and maintain churches of that ilk too.
[By the way another nickname for a "chap" - so presumably Frog fitted in well].
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh no, I meant his father-in-law- Amy O-E's father.
Just follow Albertus' link ... although I wonder if he may have now retired (again).
Oh some seem to do the rounds for ever. You can't seem to miss them in certain circles.
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh no, I meant his father-in-law- Amy O-E's father.
That's him.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh no, I meant his father-in-law- Amy O-E's father.
I taught two Orr-Ewings in Bristol and have often wondered if there is a connection - since I watched a Pentecost service on TV from Frog's (also an unusual name!)church in Peckham. Although the churchpersonship and style is definitely not to my liking I was mightily impressed by its reverence and also by the amount of community work that they were doing in a very difficult and challenging area.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Back to the OP. That would be a "no" then?
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Back to the OP. That would be a "no" then?
I think it's not proven. My feeling is that anyone who might experience this wouldn't necessarily be in a position to engage with organisations like Stonewall or LGCM to get support in pursuing or publicising the matter and that, even if they did have those contacts/connections, publicising it is the last thing they would want.
We're not talking about fronting up wearing badges or rainbow sashes here. We're talking about your normal, regular, loving, local church finding out that you are gay and affirming of that sexuality, and deciding as a result to exclude you from communion.
I'm sure there are places that see such an exclusion consistent with their theology, and someone who is still engaged with such a church to that extent would be rather reeling from the experience of exclusion.
So I'm not sure that denial is "routine", and I don't think that there will often be current evidence of it going on, but I'm sure there will be recent history surfacing for some time to come.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Back to the OP. That would be a "no" then?
I think it's not proven. My feeling is that anyone who might experience this wouldn't necessarily be in a position to engage with organisations like Stonewall or LGCM to get support in pursuing or publicising the matter and that, even if they did have those contacts/connections, publicising it is the last thing they would want.
We're not talking about fronting up wearing badges or rainbow sashes here. We're talking about your normal, regular, loving, local church finding out that you are gay and affirming of that sexuality, and deciding as a result to exclude you from communion.
I'm sure there are places that see such an exclusion consistent with their theology, and someone who is still engaged with such a church to that extent would be rather reeling from the experience of exclusion.
So I'm not sure that denial is "routine", and I don't think that there will often be current evidence of it going on, but I'm sure there will be recent history surfacing for some time to come.
Thank you - I don't disagree with any of that as it makes clear sense even to someone who hasn't experienced or seen it at first hand.
That's all rather different from leo's assertions that it is common - and put to proof, he can't.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Exclamation Mark - I suspect it happens within some CofE churches. I know that LGBT people I have met can name churches where they have been excluded. But I wouldn't want to name names, particularly as I am pretty sure the priest has now moved on.
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
Ironic that on a thread opposing discrimination we are getting stuck into a couple we don't know on the basis of their names, their social class of birth and appearance.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
That's all rather different from leo's assertions that it is common - and put to proof, he can't.
Not can't. Won't - for reasons such as given by Curiosity killed.
You seem to want to pursue this endlessly and I am wondering if you are in denial of the considerable harm that some evangelicals routinely inflict on LGBTs.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
That's all rather different from leo's assertions that it is common - and put to proof, he can't.
Not can't. Won't - for reasons such as given by Curiosity killed.
You seem to want to pursue this endlessly and I am wondering if you are in denial of the considerable harm that some evangelicals routinely inflict on LGBTs.
Leo - please don't try to second guess my beliefs, position or motives. You don't - and can't - know where I stand on such things.
I may deny many things but not the hurt you mention which I happen to have witnessed at first hand.
My point is a much broader one that your OP - although it is relevant to it. I don't find off the cuff claims (as you've made them) at all helpful in this debate. In fact, such claims can harden opposition amongst those so minded, rather than garner support.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0