Ship of Fools: Justin Webley's reasoning for rejecting gay marriage

Thread: Justin Webley's reasoning for rejecting gay marriage 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=030741

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

I think we can avoid the Dead Horse here.

Apparently if the CofE accepted gay marriage it would lead to massacres in Africa.

Now to me this smacks of two things:
1: A flat out racist fabrication.
2: People looking for an excuse.
3: Even if you believe it it's giving in to terrorists.

On the other hand it does explain quite a lot. Including why Webley is openly willing to sacrifice the future of the Church in the UK. He thinks by doing so he is saving lives. Which ... is a take I can sympathise with (assuming he is telling the truth) and in his shoes might make the same decision. If he believes what he is saying then it's not himself he risks getting martyred but bystanders.

Interesting issue here.

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I think we can avoid the Dead Horse here.

Apparently if the CofE accepted gay marriage it would lead to massacres in Africa.

Now to me this smacks of two things:
1: A flat out racist fabrication.
2: People looking for an excuse.
3: Even if you believe it it's giving in to terrorists.

On the other hand it does explain quite a lot. Including why Webley is openly willing to sacrifice the future of the Church in the UK. He thinks by doing so he is saving lives. Which ... is a take I can sympathise with (assuming he is telling the truth) and in his shoes might make the same decision. If he believes what he is saying then it's not himself he risks getting martyred but bystanders.

Interesting issue here.

What I'd like to say is really only appropriate for Hell.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

That was three things.

And it is Welby.

I think this is an interesting and probably valid reason for his actions. I am sure that he is acting in good faith, in an attempt to keep a degree of peace in Africa. That is laudable, because saving lives is a good thing to do.

However, a) I do not think that failing to accept gay marriage in the CofE will actually make a fig of difference to some of the more passionately unhinged sorts of people who would kill all of the Christians because the Christians are going to make them all gay. This is on the crazy edge of WBC ideas.

b) trying to secure some peace in Africa at the expense of the church at home is wrong. The Anglican Communion is not more important than the church at home. If the CofE dies, what is the value of the communion then?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

So because a bunch of people on a different continent are such utterly bigoted fuckwits that they'll kill their neighbours based on what the Church in Britain does, the Church in Britain has to continue to perpetuate bigoted fuckwit policies?

Fuck that.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

...um, what Marvin and Schroediger's Cat said, except for the bit about it being a valid reason for his actions.

[ 04. April 2014, 16:13: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Arm the Christians?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I was prepared to give +Justin the benefit of the doubt ... no longer.

This "reasoning" is horseshit: moslem fundamentalists who are wiping out people in northern Nigeria will continue to try to wipe them out regardless of what the CofE does or pronounces.

If you think I'm wrong, try this:

There are fundamentalists in Pakistan and Afghanistan who massacre medical staff from the WHO and similar because they state that vaccination teams are, in fact, a cover for sterilising moslems: according to +Justin's argument the CofE should actively and vocally pronounce against vaccination programmes. So, why haven't we heard any condemnation of attempts to eradicate polio, etc?

The man is trying to find a fig-leaf and, it would seem, is happy to drag into the equation the victims of sectarian attack to bolster his actions at home.

Disgraceful.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

I think they are armed, at least in some countries. In some places it's already more or less a civil war between Christian and Islamic factions. There was a book I read on the subject a while ago... The Tenth Parallel: Where Christianity adn Islam Meet.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

The problem with Welby's argument is that it can apply to any change in the social or gender mores of western society. I don't see how gay marriage on this score is any different from the changes generated from the feminist revolution. The ABC is certainly not stopping the ordination of female bishops because some African countries are patriarchal and do not recognize female leadership.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

FWIW the whole interview is available on YouTube, and the specific section where he addresses this issue is here.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The problem with Welby's argument is that it can apply to any change in the social or gender mores of western society. I don't see how gay marriage on this score is any different from the changes generated from the feminist revolution. The ABC is certainly not stopping the ordination of female bishops because some African countries are patriarchal and do not recognize female leadership.

Though what he says is not about whether it (equal marriage) is recognised or not in African countries, but that people get killed because of it.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I think they are armed, at least in some countries. In some places it's already more or less a civil war between Christian and Islamic factions. There was a book I read on the subject a while ago... The Tenth Parallel: Where Christianity adn Islam Meet.

Yes, I read that too. Very alarming.

Posted by dv (# 15714) on :

He apparently thinks that those slaughtering people in ditches are no less enlightened than folk who wish to bless gay marriages. The man is a moral cripple.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Welby has a simplistic understanding of how religious persecution works.

If we are talking about the persecution of Christians in Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, it is because those countries are explicit theocracies where a single religion is legislated as the official one by law.

If we are talking about the persecution of Christians in African countries, much of it is due to intertribal and ethnic conflict, created in many cases, btw, by western imperialism. The ABC would score more points for me if he apologized for Britain screwing things up in Africa during the 19th century.

The notion that a CofE decision to celebrate SSM would affect conflicts in Africa demonstrates that the ABC exaggerates the importance of the Church on the world stage. As much as some Brits would like to think, the world does not revolve around the UK.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

Other people's actions can never make your actions morally wrong. If your actions are morally wrong to begin with - e.g. burning other people's holy books - then you share some culpability for their reactions. But if you're doing something that's morally permissible e.g. getting married - then you aren't at fault for anybody else's reactions.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I think we can avoid the Dead Horse here.

Apparently if the CofE accepted gay marriage it would lead to massacres in Africa.

Now to me this smacks of two things:
1: A flat out racist fabrication.
2: People looking for an excuse.
3: Even if you believe it it's giving in to terrorists.

It reminds me of If you give a mouse a cookie.

Maybe it will inspire a new book for the series-- If you give a gay a ring...

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Hosts agree. It is a Dead Horse topic. Transferring.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Now to me this smacks of two things:
1: A flat out racist fabrication.
2: People looking for an excuse.
3: Even if you believe it it's giving in to terrorists.

Among our many weapons are fear, surprise and a fanatical devotion to the Pope.

I must say that I am not sold on an account of Muslim fundamentalism that says that the likes of Boko Haram are content to dwell in peace and amity with Christians unless an English Clergyperson presides over a same sex wedding, at which point it becomes "kill them all, God will know his own". And, pushing the boat out here, I am not sure that I want to give the likes of Boko Haram a veto on the Church of England's position on human sexuality. It pains me to raise the issue of Bad Faith at this point but my Sartredar has rather kicked in and won't go away.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The ABC is certainly not stopping the ordination of female bishops because some African countries are patriarchal and do not recognize female leadership.

Some African Anglican provinces ordained women long before England did. They have the lead on us there.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

If he wants to avoid the slaughter of Christians, shouldn't he be stopping missionary and church support in Africa. Otherwise, by his logic, he's responsible for the murder of Christians by converting people to Christianity.

What a pathetic loser.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

I've been trying to think of historical parallels to this and failing. The closest I get to it is the Satanic verses/Prophet cartoons/Innocence of the muslims controversies where it's argued by some that free speech (ranging from stuff with literary merit through ephemera to the genuinely awful) which doesn't accept the taboos of another religious group must be stifled lest fundamentalists of the outraged religious group commit crimes here and in other countries. So, for example, an innocent foreign embassy staff member gets killed (allegedly) or people get killed in a confrontation with police because someone is outraged that 'blasphemous' free speech wasn't stopped in another country.

It seems to rely on the outraged having an anti-Enlightenment view of blasphemy ie. being willing to kill to uphold outraged religious beliefs.

It's almost as if the Church of England has re-introduced the blasphemy acts unilaterally but that it is basing them not on Christian standards but on fundamentalist Islamic ones - the Church of England may not do anything that African Islamists would find blasphemous and which might tend to outrage them, but the problem is that the standards of Jihadis, many of whom are Salafis who wish a return to the days of the 7th century caliphate cannot be the basis of a modern democracy or a post-Enlightenment church.

The solution to puritanical Jihad is better security for the people threatened by it. If openly giving aid from a non fascist western source which doesn't persecute women and gays endangers people then the aid needs to be given via non-religious professional bodies, but of course they get targeted too - someone above was mentioning the attacks on medical workers, and of course the Taliban attacks on girls' schools. If people don't want to be associated with a western church with post-enlightenment views, then links could be cut to save face for them so they can anathematise the horrors of western equality.

But it surely can't be a solution to regulate Christian expressions of belief via the standards of fundamentalist Islamic militias. Welby should be campaigning for greater security for these people and paying for it, if need be, before he should be telling people that Salafis and Jihadis must determine whether our neighbours can marry. The Anglican communion ought to be broken up, rather than be used to make this kind of excuse.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I should point out that what I meant by a "valid" reason, I meant that if his analysis was correct, it would explain and justify his actions.

I then argued that his analysis was mistaken, which is is.

I quite like Justin, but on this, he has made a mistake. Sadly, it is the mistakes that most leaders are remembered for, not their successes.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If he wants to avoid the slaughter of Christians, shouldn't he be stopping missionary and church support in Africa. Otherwise, by his logic, he's responsible for the murder of Christians by converting people to Christianity.

What a pathetic loser.

Go and learn some history. The part of Africa he was directly talking about - Nigeria - was not "converted" by white missionaries from Europe or North America, they mostly failed desperately. The start mostly came from black missionaries from Sierra Leone and the Caribbean, but the big mass conversions (and they were huge) were led by local people.

The Anglican church in Nigeria was set up by the British Church Missionary Society (and its first bishop was an African, Samuel Ajayi) in the early 19th century and remained rather small outside a few coastal colonies, and most of its ministers were African. In the late 19th century British government doctrine changed and they tried to remove black ministers from positions of influence, so a large part of the Anglicans broke away to form a locally-run, locally-led connexion of churches (with some informal support from CMS which has always promoted local leadership in missionary churches, and arranged for bishops from outside Nigeria to ordain Nigerian clergy who the government-appointed Anglican bishops would not ordain - what goes around comes around).

The now very large, and still growing, Anglican prescence in Nigeria is descended from these African-led churches as much as if not more than from the white-led ones. And they export missionaries these days.

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The ABC would score more points for me if he apologized for Britain screwing things up in Africa during the 19th century.

What makes you think he hasn't?

[ 04. April 2014, 19:12: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
...

The now very large, and still growing, Anglican prescence in Nigeria is descended from these African-led churches as much as if not more than from the white-led ones. And they export missionaries these days.

But by his dazzling logic the murders are caused by the presence of the white led churches from countries where gays are tolerated. If they pull out, leaving only the local black run churches, then the problem should go away.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Has the ABC ever considered the fact that by allowing SSM, it could send the message around the world that LGBT people are in fact, people like everyone else and that this could go someway in ending homophobic violence?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Putin did not need Western influence to persecute gays, why do people in Africa?
This is about power, ultimately.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Sounds roughly equivalent to the ideas that led evangelicals to cancel their support of impoverished children in Africa through World Vision because "the gays made them do it".

That didn't lead to the slaughter of innocents...well, only by implying that starvation was the fault of the existence of gays...but it has led to a diminution of the evangelical church (or so one would hope)

Maybe it is time to wrap up the C of E and replace it with some truly English societal focus - the United Force of Morris Dancing and Self-Help or something, which no person outside England would bother to notice.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

This is a pathetic comment from Welby on many levels.

For a start, Muslims don't need an excuse to kill Christians in Nigeria. Nor vice versa. SSM in the UK isn't going to make one iota of difference.

You can't make a judgement on what is right to do on the basis that someone somewhere in the world might take it the wrong way. That's not morality - just cowardice.

If Welby were definitely "pro" SSM, then his argument might carry more weight. "OK - I am really in favour, but the consequences could be catastrophic." But Welby ISN'T in favour (unless he has completely changed his opinion in the last few months). This statement is simply his way of trying to pin the blame on other people for his own opposition to SSM. And that's not just cowardice, but hypocrisy.

And if Welby is so concerned about what is happening in Nigeria and Uganda, where are his statements of opposition to the homophobic laws in those countries and the homophobic oppression that leaves gays and lesbians in fear of their lives? When did he last speak out against that?

The man is a complete tosser.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

And if Welby is so concerned about what is happening in Nigeria and Uganda, where are his statements of opposition to the homophobic laws in those countries and the homophobic oppression that leaves gays and lesbians in fear of their lives? When did he last speak out

Dunno when he last did, but you could try looking at some of the news reports of his visit to African countries in January and February is year. Or the letter sent to bishops n the Communion just before that.

What is it with Archbishops of Canterbury that turns liberal Christians into biased deaf credulous whingers?

And why the astonishing and ugly level of ignorance of African Christianity?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It seems oddly reminiscent of the claims around here that we can't do anything about climate change until other countries do. Apparently we can't do too much about discrimination against homosexuals until other countries do.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

There are several quoted speeches and interviews on the ABC's website from his African visit:

The ones that could be relevant are:
Archbishop prays at a site of murdered church workers - in South Sudan
Nigerian Anglican Church a Powerhouse
World Service interview on Nigeria
There's nothing on homophobic laws in those public statements.

The letter to the Primates of the Anglican Communion and Presidents of Uganda and Nigeria is dated 29 January 2014 and is here. It quotes the Dromantine Communiqué of 2005.:

quote:
‘….we wish to make it quite clear that in our discussion and assessment of moral appropriateness of specific human behaviours, we continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people.

The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us. We assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by Him and deserving the best we can give - pastoral care and friendship.’

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

What is it with Archbishops of Canterbury that turns liberal Christians into biased deaf credulous whingers?

I guess it's the simple fact that any post-modern ABC who puts his or her head above the parapet on same-sex relationships/marriage straight away gets fired at from both directions.
Hardly a place where liberalism survives, well not for very long anyway.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:

What is it with Archbishops of Canterbury that turns liberal Christians into biased deaf credulous whingers?

I think it is b/c the ABC seems to be asserting a false Via Media between affirming and opposing homosexuality.

On the one hand, the Church tells people in Africa to not kill or jail LGBT persons. On the other hand, the Church does not marry LGBT couples and LGBT clergy are worried for their jobs if they get civilly married in England.

It's as if the CofE wants to be the happy and sensible middle man between the TEC and the African churches.

I call it "polite homophobia."

[ 05. April 2014, 12:30: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Yes, but time was when the possible penalties were far higher and yet ABCs stuck to their guns if they felt they were right.

No one would suggest that +Justin (or Rowan, in his day) face the fate the Cranmer or Becket: but is it too much to ask that if a thing if wrong in the Anglican Communion (of which they are supposed to be head) then they condemn it?

If homophobia and persecution is wrong for a UK Christian, what makes it OK for an African.

The decision to take the coward's way out is bad enough: the attempts to justify leave one feeling nauseous.

Posted by fluff (# 12871) on :

Welby's reasoning is a classic example of kettle logic.

I don't agree with equal marriage.

I can't implement equal marriage because of homophobia in Africa.

An article demonstrating a similar phenomenon can be accessed here.

[ 05. April 2014, 16:46: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

My thoughts on the matter are indeed in Hell, to which the ABC is duly consigned by laser.

Posted by fluff (# 12871) on :

Are the URL problems in my above post? Apologies if so. Not sure what to do about this...

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

The responses to Justin have focussed on the African impact of things. But of course the African question was not the first issue he was addressing. He started by expressing the theological and canonical reasons why the Church of England does not support gay marriage. I know a lot (the majority?) of Shipmates don't accept Canon B30 and the position as it currently is defined by the CofE, but that was his starting point. The consequences in relation to Africa followed from that.

The African issue is more difficult for those on both sides of the argument. The criminalisation of/persecution of/violence against LGBT people in Africa is absolutely reprehensible, and to be campaigned against and condemned. Uganda in particular is problematic. But similarly it is impossible to ignore the point Justin is making about one of the pretexts being used by Muslims against Christians in (eg) Nigeria. Neither side in the debate can ignore the knock-on effects of our actions and actions (and with many Africans in the Church in London, we are only too conscious of their concerns). Once we admit that we have a care for the Church in Africa (and we do), we have to listen to what they have to say. Being prepared to condemn Ugandan homophobia necessitates engagement with Ugandan church people who don't get where we are coming from. Being prepared to support persecuted Nigerians also necessitates listening to their concerns.

Some may that the argument on "equal marriage" is over in the Church of England. It isn't. And Justin and the HoB still have the right to express a contrary view. We know that Thinking Anglicans and others will just pile in whenever that contrary view is expressed. But the two years of facilitated conversations to which we have committed ourselves are to be a two-way, not a one-way listening process.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fluff:
Are the URL problems in my above post? Apologies if so. Not sure what to do about this...

There seems to be an extra "http" which some nice Host might be able to remove for you.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
But the two years of facilitated conversations to which we have committed ourselves are to be a two-way, not a one-way listening process.

Well, listening was supposed to have started after Lambeth 1988. But didn't. Espcially as the Nigerian and Ugandan bishops refused to listen (as has the current Bishop of Birkenhead) in the basis that scripture has spoken so there is no more to say.

The Pilling Report people claim to have listened but nowhere do they summarise what they heard.

It seems that 'listening', even to people's personal testimonies, is an exercise in being polite while continuing to do nothing.

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Some may that the argument on "equal marriage" is over in the Church of England. It isn't. And Justin and the HoB still have the right to express a contrary view. We know that Thinking Anglicans and others will just pile in whenever that contrary view is expressed. But the two years of facilitated conversations to which we have committed ourselves are to be a two-way, not a one-way listening process.

Honestly, Bishop, how can those who support equal marriage in the Church continue to believe that they're part of a real two-way listening process when the Archbishop of Canterbury tells them that they're responsible for murdered Africans?

It's an outrageous and reprehensible slander. If there were no equal marriage anywhere in the West, Muslim thugs would still be murdering Christians (and Christian thugs, let's add, would be murdering Muslims); they would simply use a different pretext.

As a member of the Episcopal Church of the United States, I am feeling ever more confident that we need to cut our links with the C of E. Let's end this sham "communion" in which the person who is supposed to be our titular leader can speak such slanders!

Archbishop Welby should be ashamed of himself ... and so should anyone who defends him.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Dubious Thomas:

quote:
If there were no equal marriage anywhere in the West, Muslim thugs would still be murdering Christians (and Christian thugs, let's add, would be murdering Muslims); they would simply use a different pretext.

This.

However as an American Episcopalian, I'd prefer to remain in relationship with his church while telling him that he is being outragreous on this issue on all our behalfs. I've had it with schism.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

As a member of the Episcopal Church of the United States, I am feeling ever more confident that we need to cut our links with the C of E. Let's end this sham "communion" in which the person who is supposed to be our titular leader can speak such slanders!

Archbishop Welby should be ashamed of himself ... and so should anyone who defends him.

If TEC ever create plants in this country, I would be towards the front of the queue.

[ 05. April 2014, 17:05: Message edited by: FooloftheShip ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Well, listening was supposed to have started after Lambeth 1988. But didn't.

My mistake - I meant 1988.

And re- posts above about severing links with the C of E, I too would be in the queue for links with TEC.

I am ashamed of our C of E bishops and have been ever since 'Some Issues in Human Sexuality' misquoted the most up to date Hebrew Leviticus commentary, written by a friend of mine, simultaneously proof-texting other writers in order to come to the conclusion it had already wanted.

Ditto the Pilling Report and its misuse of statistics e.g. it quotes a doorstep survey in which only 1% said they were gay - well do you tell any doorstep canvasser the truth? It then suggested that such a percentage was statistically irrelevant.

Meanwhile, it went on to quote stats. that said that 1% could change their orientation and took this figure as relevant - the same figure that was previously IRrelevant. (Meanwhile ignoring the fact that 70% of that 1% was 'straights' who converted to gay, not the other way round.)

If that is the material which helps our bishops to come to one mind, then our bishops are either incredibly stupid of incredibly mislead.

No amount of 'facilitated listening' is likely to hel[p them if they are so incredibly naive.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Pete173, I expect you know the saying, 'Everything before the "but" is bullshit.'

[ 05. April 2014, 17:29: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Ah, here we go. From the Bishop's fellow Londoner and slaphead, now under the shadow of the Elephant and Castle:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/20/gayrights.religion2

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Being prepared to support persecuted Nigerians also necessitates listening to their concerns.

There is a whole lot of difference between "listening to their concerns" and "using scare stories as a pretext". Welby seems to be doing the latter.

Of course it is right to listen to concerns from people who are facing attacks. No-one is suggesting otherwise (and the implication in Welby's comments that "liberals" don't care about what happens to fellow Christians in Nigeria is quite frankly insulting). But it is what you do about those concerns that matters. Sadly, the truth is that no matter what decision is made by the C of E about SSM, Christians will still find themselves under attack from Islamists. So NOT embracing SSM will make no difference - and it is misleading to suggest otherwise.

I am not too sure what anyone CAN do about the interfaith tensions in places like Nigeria and Sudan. But using them as a pathetic figleaf to cover your own anti-SSM tendencies is not helpful to anyone.

Posted by fluff (# 12871) on :

quote:
There seems to be an extra "http" which some nice Host might be able to remove for you. - Pigwidgeon

Thanks! Rather better...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Ah, here we go. From the Bishop's fellow Londoner and slaphead, now under the shadow of the Elephant and Castle:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/20/gayrights.religion2

Another 'slaphead' here - clearly we have too much testosterone.

He mentions the 1991 document Issues in Human Sexuality - this was never voted on, was 'guidance' only yet has become a sort of doctrine - you cannot apply for ordination unless you sign a form saying that you will 'abide by' it. I'd have thought it would be good if ordinands were asked to 'abide by' the Creed. At least that was agreed and voted on by the Universal Church.

Having read through Giles' article, i now see that it was written in 2003 - how far backward we have travelled since then.

The C of e has become an irrelevant laughing stock, led by our bishops.

If i wasn't an anglo-catholic, I would abolish bishops.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

So, are Scott Lively and his merry band going to have invitations to the next Lambeth Conference?

I see that the Justin is visiting the US next. How is he going to reply to those who have rightly taken offence at his saying that 'something that happened in America' (probably meaning the consecration of openly gay bishops) was responsible for the murder of innocent (ie heterosexual) African Christians?

[ 05. April 2014, 18:43: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

As is often the case, the major contribution to reducing interfaith tensions would be for a certain Mr Welby to get his church disestablished here in the UK and make clear to the African branches of the communion that such an approach to Christianity's relationship to the state was always a massive mistake.

A disestablished CofE would also be a great deal less important to the SSM issue in the UK. But while the CofE remains established there is inevitably the problem pointed out on another thread that I can't readily find, that in a plural democracy it cannot be acceptable for what is legally an arm of the state to discriminate in such a way.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

As a member of the Episcopal Church of the United States, I am feeling ever more confident that we need to cut our links with the C of E. Let's end this sham "communion" in which the person who is supposed to be our titular leader can speak such slanders!

Archbishop Welby should be ashamed of himself ... and so should anyone who defends him.
If TEC ever create plants in this country, I would be towards the front of the queue.

I don't belong to either denomination, but this suggestion is very interesting. Maybe TEC will consider making moves to 'gather up' homeless liberal Anglicans in England if the CofE is eventually disestablished and the impetus to hold together evaporates.

[ 05. April 2014, 21:06: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

It's surprising to me that Anglicans can't play well together considering that interfaith and ecumenical relationships seem to be going well.

No one is talking about breaking off interfaith dialogue with Muslims and Jews over LGBT issues.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Ah well, it's often harder to get on with members of your own family than with outsiders. And some people can have a more civilised relationship with someone after they've divorced them!

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

I'm glad to see that my bending over backwards to give -Welby the benefit of the doubt in the OP is not the general consensus. And listening to Welby speaking and watching his body language doesn't help his case at all.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I think a bad move by the previous ABC was to avoid the issue of sexuality all together at the last Lambeth Conference.

The most telling critique of the faith is that Christians can't handle conflict well. It either ends up being a shouting match or it ends up being everyone tip toeing about the topic.

At Lambeth, what should have happened was a careful and thoughtful airing out of all points expressed. TEC can assure conservatives that its moves for LGBT equality was not intended to overthrow the primacy of Scripture or to dethrone Jesus Christ as the center of the faith whereas those from the Third World can articulate their concerns of being persecuted for their faith. Lambeth then should have reaffirmed the right of each Province to set their own policy around these matters while at the same time, voicing a firm consensus that violence against anyone, is unacceptable and contrary to the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Instead what resulted was wasted time spent on a Covenant that will not be agreed upon by everyone, TEC feeling isolated and disillusioned with the Communion and Canterbury looking like it does not know what it's doing.

[ 05. April 2014, 23:16: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

We now have a situation where the CofE and TEC are expected to meekly accept being bullied into submission by churches in Africa, sometimes with a little help from bishops in the former dominions...

We are lectured about how sinful we are, how lacking, etc, etc. Try striking back with surprise at how much animist belief seems to have infiltrated some African churches and you get a diatribe about colonialism, etc.

The whole idea of the Anglican Communion being able to speak with one voice on issues to do with sexual ethics and morality is dead, and that has been clear for some years.

We now need to know why +Justin decides it has suddenly become relevant for him to base decisions on what happens in the UK on actions perpetrated by people of another faith in another continent. Yes, there are some in the CofE who support the African bishops' position but it is only some - and I'd guess they don't make up a majority.

Otherwise, if +Justin is going to be like this we might as well get rid of him and have Mrs Minchiello-Williams as ABC instead...

(edited to change 'fate' to 'faith' - oops!

[ 06. April 2014, 13:36: Message edited by: L'organist ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
It's surprising to me that Anglicans can't play well together considering that interfaith and ecumenical relationships seem to be going well.

No one is talking about breaking off interfaith dialogue with Muslims and Jews over LGBT issues.

That's probably because most interfaith stuff is done between liberals. Liberal Jews largely and liberal muslims sometimes support LGBT rights.

It is often said that we have more in common with each other than our fellow religionists.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
We are lectured about how sinful we are, how lacking, etc, etc. Try striking back with surprise at how much animist belief seems to have infiltrated some African churches and you get a diatribe about colonialism, etc.

The irony is that homophobia was an import of the missionaries to Africa.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

Every day here on the African continent people of all faiths and none are massacred and I too have seen some of their graves and I weep. These dear people are killed by other human beings who believe they are right. For such people, any and every excuse will do. Equal marriage will no doubt continue to be used as one such excuse.

Back in Blighty, I think of all my gay friends many of whom are Christians and who have suffered deeply at the hands of the church and I weep. Things do need to change.

Those of us who follow Christ must stand for justice in each and every situation. We need to keep on having this conversation but it has to be a conversation marked by love if the church is to have any credibility. I am reminded of the recently departed Tony Benn who was commended for his courtesy and decency in even the fiercest of debates.

As the leader of the Anglican Communion, Archbishop Justin is in the unenviable position of working within these levels of polarisation. I know I am influenced by my upbringing but I still believe in the idea of “respect for the office”. So perhaps we need to find a way to work with him whilst seeking to speak whatever we believe is right?

He also needs our prayers if we’re that way inclined!

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I agree,

People no matter who they are, no matter who they love, no matter what they believe, no matter the color of their skin, should live lives of dignity, free from violence and marginalization.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The most telling critique of the faith is that Christians can't handle conflict well. It either ends up being a shouting match or it ends up being everyone tip toeing about the topic.

Arguably, the Quakers have handled LGBTQ issues fairly well. Get us on to public (i.e. private) schools however...

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The idea of keeping a conversation going is, on the face of it, attractive.

But we've been in the situation of having these supposed conversations for the past 25+ years: the only thing that has changed is that the fundamentalist stance has become more vociferous and even more intransigent: they are as anti-gay now as ever they were, but more prepared to mouth off; and in addition you now find people under umbrellas with monikers like 'mainstream', 'care' and 'reform' promulgating nonsense about 'complimentarity'.

When you have people prepared to go to Jamaica to lend support to a campaign to keep their odious anti-gay laws there is precious little 'conversing' that can happen. More so since they are also in the van in promoting 'cures' for gays.

LGBT people have been trying to have honest conversations with these people for years: it used to be that they were at least listened to in silence - now it is as if one section of the CofE is putting its fingers in its ears and chanting la la la.

I am still of the belief (I hope not unfounded) that Christian Concern and others of that ilk are a long way from being a majority: but for the ABC (or anyone else, for that matter) to suggest it is possible for an honest conversation to be had with these people is disingenuous - more so since some, at least, of their views apparently chime with the ABC himself.

In this issue respect is a word that is bandied about with great frequency, yet one party to these much-vaunted conversations has no respect whatever to a whole section of society; it has no respect for scientific evidence that doesn't suit their viewpoint; and no respect for the largely silent majority in the pews who find many of their pronouncements offensive and embarrassing.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The most telling critique of the faith is that Christians can't handle conflict well. It either ends up being a shouting match or it ends up being everyone tip toeing about the topic.

Nah, that's a critique of the human race. I don't know ANY large group of people that handles conflict well.

Admittedly, it'd be nice if the Christians managed to transcend crappy human conflict styles on a regular basis, but I don't see that happening before the Second Coming.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

As a member of the Episcopal Church of the United States, I am feeling ever more confident that we need to cut our links with the C of E. Let's end this sham "communion" in which the person who is supposed to be our titular leader can speak such slanders!

[/QB]

Go ahead, and cut ties with worldwide christianity too. After all, no one actually believes your liberal "bishops" are actually christians. Theyt´re just secular people who still hold on to the structures of a previously christian institution so that they can receive a nice sallary and preach whatever novelty is in the feminist/gay agenda. You should join a communion with unitarian universalists and secular humanists and leave christianity alone.

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Go ahead, and cut ties with worldwide christianity too. After all, no one actually believes your liberal "bishops" are actually christians. Theyt´re just secular people who still hold on to the structures of a previously christian institution so that they can receive a nice sallary and preach whatever novelty is in the feminist/gay agenda. You should join a communion with unitarian universalists and secular humanists and leave christianity alone.

Such godlike omniscience! It must be great for you, knowing what everyone in "worldwide christianity" believes!

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
The idea of keeping a conversation going is, on the face of it, attractive.

When I was in Palestine, I talked with several people about the Kerry initiative. They were understandably skeptical, "they keep talking and talking, and nothing ever changes, Israel is still brutalizing us, and we don't have any prospects for liberation."

I might get charred for comparing this issue to Israel/Palestine, but I believe most conflicts work this way. People don't magically become nice to each other simply because their leaders are talking.

But I believe that keeping conversation open is better than no conversation at all. That applies to Israel/Palestine and it also applies to this.

I might be an optimistic young gay liberal catholic who on the one hand, desires equality and justice for LGBT persons, but at the same time, is convicted by Christ's prayer that they all might be one. So, I can't argue for dumping the conversation, because another cut in the visible church, however justified, is still a wounding of the Body of Christ, and testifies to how far the Church is from the example of her Lord.

So rather than cutting relationships to the CofE or the African Churches, I pray that the Holy Spirit, the only one who changes hearts, continue to change the hearts of people who desire violence against me. At this point, the only one who can change a homophobe is God herself.

[ 07. April 2014, 01:27: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
The idea of keeping a conversation going is, on the face of it, attractive.
When I was in Palestine, I talked with several people about the Kerry initiative. They were understandably skeptical, "they keep talking and talking, and nothing ever changes, Israel is still brutalizing us, and we don't have any prospects for liberation."

For what it's worth, and this might have some relevance here....

When I talk to Israelis, they often say things to this effect: "they keep talking and talking, and nothing ever changes, the Palestinians are still attacking us, and we don't have any prospects for peace with security."

What happens when each side in a conflict defines itself as the victim of the other side's aggression?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
What happens when each side in a conflict defines itself as the victim of the other side's aggression?

I think that's normal. Without such a perception it is difficult to maintain mainstream support for the conflict on either side. Very few populations are happy with viewing themselves as unprovoked aggressors.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
It pains me to raise the issue of Bad Faith at this point but my Sartredar has rather kicked in and won't go away.

Mine too. It's an uncomfortable thought. Particularly since Justin Welby's personal conscience may very much be on the rack here. Both ways.

The "big tent" view of the World Wide Episcopalian movement has much going for it, but it exacts a big personal toll on all ABCs these days. Sometimes the tangle in the mind must be excruciating, the urge to break free from the necessary engagement with the complexity of that must be overwhelming.

Based on his personal history, Justin Welby is a negotiator and a reconciler. I don't think he is into "grand gestures". I suspect the struggle with Bad Faith (existentialist understanding) is with him every day. The risks of becoming trapped, compromised, by the role strike me as unusually high for anyone of faith and conscience.

I'm really not sure what to make of these remarks; I doubt whether they are representative of the full range of his thoughts.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
We are lectured about how sinful we are, how lacking, etc, etc. Try striking back with surprise at how much animist belief seems to have infiltrated some African churches and you get a diatribe about colonialism, etc.
The irony is that homophobia was an import of the missionaries to Africa.

Europe is not the only source of anti-gay sentiment in Africa. See: Islam (which in much of Africa arrived first).

[ 07. April 2014, 09:05: Message edited by: seekingsister ]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

The Bishop of California has responded:

quote:
The Archbishop of Canterbury has made public statements that reveal at best a lamentable naiveté and at worst both homophobia and colonial thinking. Archbishop Justin Welby has claimed that the Church of England, if it marries gay and lesbian people there is responsible for the deaths of homosexuals in Africa.

(more at link)

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Thank you Pidwigeon. It is heartening to see there are some sane and compassionate Bishops in the Communion, after all.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
It pains me to raise the issue of Bad Faith at this point but my Sartredar has rather kicked in and won't go away.
Mine too. It's an uncomfortable thought. Particularly since Justin Welby's personal conscience may very much be on the rack here. Both ways.

The "big tent" view of the World Wide Episcopalian movement has much going for it, but it exacts a big personal toll on all ABCs these days. Sometimes the tangle in the mind must be excruciating, the urge to break free from the necessary engagement with the complexity of that must be overwhelming.

Based on his personal history, Justin Welby is a negotiator and a reconciler. I don't think he is into "grand gestures". I suspect the struggle with Bad Faith (existentialist understanding) is with him every day. The risks of becoming trapped, compromised, by the role strike me as unusually high for anyone of faith and conscience.

I'm really not sure what to make of these remarks; I doubt whether they are representative of the full range of his thoughts.

The thing is, Justin was not speaking on behalf of the world-wide Anglican communion, he was speaking on behalf of the Church of England. Any moral authority he (or any ABC) had to speak on behalf of the communion disappeared years, decades ago, probably when Robert Runcie sat in the seat of Augustine. At the moment, there is no way of assessing the mind of the communion, and no agreed leadership.

All Justin has left is a grossly exaggerated evaluation of his importance as effective head of the CofE.

John

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
All Justin has left is a grossly exaggerated evaluation of his importance as effective head of the CofE.

I think that this a very pertinent point.

I think that Welby (and most of the C of E hierarchy) have lost track of how little moral authority the ABC now has in the UK. He is no longer the "go to" person for statements on moral matters. His views are not that important to people outside of the C of E (and not that important to many people within the C of E either!).

Added to that is the continuing failure to recognise that the ABC is NOT an Anglican Pope and should not try and behave as such. The Anglican Communion at its best has never been a multi-national denomination, so much as a family of churches joined together by bonds of history and affection.

I think that there is little point in trying to maintain the idea of the ABC as head of the whole denomination, yet Welby seems to regard this aspect as being of equal (if not greater) importance than being the Primate of All England.

My advice would be to stop globe-trotting and focus on the issues of the Church of England. (And that would have been my advice to Rowan Williams as well). The more the ABCs have tried to be global ecclesiastical troubleshooters, the more of a mess they have created and the less effective they are in every aspect.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
The Bishop of California has responded:
quote:
The Archbishop of Canterbury has made public statements that reveal at best a lamentable naiveté and at worst both homophobia and colonial thinking. Archbishop Justin Welby has claimed that the Church of England, if it marries gay and lesbian people there is responsible for the deaths of homosexuals in Africa.
(more at link)

While I applaud the bishop's views, Welby didn't talk about homosexuals being killed. It was Christians.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

When l'Organist writes:

quote:
But we've been in the situation of having these supposed conversations for the past 25+ years,

I fear that my experience has been different. We have had a quarter century of procedural manoeuverings at varying levels. To be honest, I know of a few conversations, but they have been taking place at a personal level and occasionally at congregational levels (such as at the earlier stages of the discussions in the late 1980s in Vancouver), but most of what has been happening was differing ways of one side overcoming the other. And I know directly of how actors on both sides have been using this issue as a weapon/engine in their (ecclesiastical and theological) political agendas, no matter what damage is done to individuals. The level of trust, damaged in the debate over another Dead Horse, has been degraded even further. Sitting in attempts at informal discussions recently, the first and nigh-impossible task is for discutants to accept each other's bona fides. It's getting worse, and not better.

I understand what ++Justin is trying to do in keeping some sort of conversation in play for, once it stops, it will be very difficult to start up again, but I am not certain if anyone wants the conversation.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:
The thing is, Justin was not speaking on behalf of the world-wide Anglican communion, he was speaking on behalf of the Church of England. Any moral authority he (or any ABC) had to speak on behalf of the communion disappeared years, decades ago, probably when Robert Runcie sat in the seat of Augustine. At the moment, there is no way of assessing the mind of the communion, and no agreed leadership.

Well, quite. The whole "naturally we deplore homophobia" bit is not exactly the position of, say, Uganda or Nigeria and the bit about homosexuality being roughly equivalent to adultery is not quite the position of North American Anglicans. He's not the Anglican Pope, he's the Nick Clegg of human sexuality.

Anyway, there should be a bit of quid quo pro Clarice about this lark. If the Africans expect us to refrain from marrying gay people in order to keep Boko Haram off their case perhaps they could refrain from making eyewateringly homophobic remarks that cause non-Christians in our country to conclude that the Anglican communion are a bunch of bigoted twats. (The homophobia thing does come up from time to time in conversation with the natives in Darkest England whereas I've yet to see any empirical confirmation of the whole, "right lads, I see that David Furnish and Elton John have tied the knot, enough is enough, break out the pangas we're going to massacre the inhabitants of the village next door" thang.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I wasn't arguing that the ABC was asserting a leadership role, or assuming one. Wrestling with the call to unity in the midst of diversity has always been a part of the ethos. Once that goes, then the current loose association will split irreversibly.

Some folks think that is a good and necessary development, given the sharp differences. I doubt whether Justin Welby is one of them.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Welby speaks to the Anglican Journal:
http://www.anglicanjournal.com/articles/welby-explains-gays-and-violence-in-africa-remarks

To give Welby credit, if this issue was anything other than LGBT issues, he actually makes a legitimate point: What we decide in the developed world does affect other countries.

Ecological issues come to my mind.

[ 09. April 2014, 16:37: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Gildas writes:

quote:
whereas I've yet to see any empirical confirmation of the whole, "right lads, I see that David Furnish and Elton John have tied the knot, enough is enough, break out the pangas we're going to massacre the inhabitants of the village next door" thang.

Neither have I, but the claims that local imams are saying something similar were solidified somewhat for me when a Montréal Tuareg friend told me that, when her sister began dating a practising Presbyterian lad (there's still some left!!), the imam gave her parents a lecture that the Protestant Christians tolerated sodomy in their church schools and that their daughter was in grave moral danger, and that they should act on this.

Discussing this with a feminist Muslim activist friend whose name some might recognize, she told me that a diligent peruser of Muslim student bulletin boards and fora can find some fairly strong comments relating to homosexuality as a Christian vice forced upon Muslims.

While this is clearly a fringe element, I would not dismiss it too quickly, or its implications in some parts of the world.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

In the post Reformation borderlands where the frontier between Protestantism and Catholicism was fairly fluid for a long time there was a lot of intense witch-hunting because each side wanted to show that the heretics were in league with the devil and his minions and soft on witch hunting.

This was cultivated not just on the frontiers but in places where a religious minority was being attacked - an internal frontier so to speak. So you'd get suggestible possessed people pretending to channel their devil during RC exorcisms saying how much Satan enjoyed Protestant psalm-singing and suchlike ( and vice versa anti-catholic propaganda from Puritan exorcists who used similar showmanship but that's the one I remember)

What's being argued could be a similar attempt at compound scapegoating: scapegoating the other scapegoaters because they allegedly don't scapegoat enough, but the problem is (1) that the scapegoating which lies at the bottom of it is based on an evil falsehood.

And (2) also in situations which have got to this point (See how soft the enemy is on the evil Jews/ witches/etc!) The enemy is already 'the enemy' for a multitude of much more solid reasons and 'the enemy' producing an acceptable hard line on witches et al. does absolutely nothing to stop the thrust of persecution because it does nothing for the main doctrinal/political conflicts at all.

Nigerian jihadis don't sound likely to give up jihad because they can't play the gay card anymore - Christians worship three Gods, they let women go about uncovered, they pretend to eat the flesh of the prophet Jesus! They drink wine and say it's holy! The kind of people who would post on bulletin boards that "homosexuality as a Christian vice forced upon Muslims" sound like they'd be unlikely to suddenly turn into bunny-hugging ecumenicals if GAFCON took over the Anglican communion

It's a bit like saying the problem is the cherry on the cake when the problem is the entire cake. Remove the cherry and the cake-hater just finds another ingredient to object to.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Louise writes:

quote:
It's a bit like saying the problem is the cherry on the cake when the problem is the entire cake. Remove the cherry and the cake-hater just finds another ingredient to object to.

Indeed, while your analysis is not identical to mine, it's fairly clear. However, it does continue to be a problem, and it is real, and I wonder if ill behooves us to tell the Nigerians that it's not. The diverse voices to which we must pay some attention are not always in agreement or concord.

The particular line which I've noticed has the advantage over the others (Trinity, etc) in that it is new, in the news generally with conflict and drama, and fits into a general anti-western discourse (we even see it in eastern Europe).

I'm afraid that I'm of the school of thought which would give ++Justin some time in which to negotiate responses and messaging. North Americans, at any rate, have a tendency to impose our timelines on the entire planet.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

The basic problem Justin Welby faces here is that Britain is a formally 'Christian country' precisely because of the status of his nationally established church. Because of this, in Muslim countries with nationally established Islam, what England does is seen as a 'Christian' action, even when in reality it is the action of a plural democracy and Christians may actually regard it as sinful. You saw similar thinking in that terror raid on a desert industrial facility when the terrorists told the native people "You're safe, we've come to kill the 'Crusaders'" - that is, the foreigners even if atheists personally, were interpreted as agents of a 'Christian' country 'crusading' for Christ against Islam.

If our 'Christian' country passes a same-sex marriage law, the Muslims in these foreign states will interpret that as meaning that 'Christians' approve and promote homosexuality and will take it out on their local Christians, often in lethal ways as homosexuality is a death penalty offence in Muslim terms.

The ABC is somewhat trapped here so long as he wishes the CofE to continue to be the established religion of the UK. Only by allowing disestablishment and England ceasing to be formally Christian can he get the African Christians off the hook.

You should note that there is a difficulty in disestablishment as well; if England were no longer formally a state with an established monotheist religion, it would, as I understand it, immediately become a legitimate target for full-scale Jihad, especially if we are fighting wars in Muslim territories to give even the least warlike Muslims the excuse that the faith is simply defending itself against us infidels.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

The fact remains, is that short of humanitarian military intervention, there is little we can do regarding any sort of human rights violations in other countries, whether it be Christians being persecuted in Africa or LGBT persons being attacked for their sexuality. We can't do much about children being trafficked into slavery or prostitution in developing countries or women being subjected to domestic abuse.

Moral condemnation only goes so far, Anglicans have an exaggerated view about how important our church leaders are. One wise comment made on the Anglican Church website is how little attention the ABC's visit to Canada is getting from the mainstream secular media. The fact is that most people in Canada and the US, as well, as I imagine, most in the UK, don't care what the ABC says on issue X, Y, and Z.

[ 10. April 2014, 13:58: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Welby speaks to the Anglican Journal:
http://www.anglicanjournal.com/articles/welby-explains-gays-and-violence-in-africa-remarks

To give Welby credit, if this issue was anything other than LGBT issues, he actually makes a legitimate point: What we decide in the developed world does affect other countries.

I read something in the Ekklesia website today to the effect that Welby may as well say that Christians in England must NOT believe and preach the doctrine of the trinity because this will offend Nigerian muslims - they'll say it is blasphemous and start to attack Christians.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Leo/Anglicanbrat; you may have missed my point which is that at present African Christians may get persecuted for what ENGLAND does, because so long as England has an established church it is assumed to be a Christian state and the acts of England are taken to be representative of Christians. That is an added layer of complication we don't need.

Christians being persecuted for their own beliefs is tragic enough; Christians being blamed for the acts of a country which isn't really Christian but still has the trappings of having been so - tragic in a way we don't need....

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Leo/Anglicanbrat; you may have missed my point which is that at present African Christians may get persecuted for what ENGLAND does, because so long as England has an established church it is assumed to be a Christian state and the acts of England are taken to be representative of Christians.

Sounds far-fetched to me. And like almost every other post in this sad excuse for a thread a ridiculous over-interpretation of what, after all, were a couple of passing remarks in a radio interview about other things entirely.

Most of the English-speaking non-Anglicans who post on is site have little or no idea about how the establishment of the CofE works. Nor do they care about it. Its hard to imagine many West African Muslims do.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

I read something in the Ekklesia website today to the effect that Welby may as well say that Christians in England must NOT believe and preach the doctrine of the trinity because this will offend Nigerian muslims - they'll say it is blasphemous and start to attack Christians.

Just goes to show that the Ekklesia website can talk as much ignorant drivel as lots of posters on this thread.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Precisely, ken; West African Muslims don't know how Anglican establishment actually works including what a dead letter it is these days. But many do have the perception of the West, Europe and the US, as 'Christian' states whose 'crusading' armies seem to threaten Islam. The results of that can be lethal.

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Precisely, ken; West African Muslims don't know how Anglican establishment actually works including what a dead letter it is these days. But many do have the perception of the West, Europe and the US, as 'Christian' states whose 'crusading' armies seem to threaten Islam. The results of that can be lethal.

I agree. I don't think formal establishment/disestablishment makes much difference. And it is true that, for better or worse, western nations are viewed as "Christian" and so to many what they do is what "Christianity" is doing.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I think the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) could be viewed as having a reasonable awareness of sensitivities in other countries when it comes to commenting on issues of the day. So, if it could fairly be assumed that what was said in London could be detrimental in some way they would weigh that very carefully before making any pronouncement on an issue that might be regarded as controversial.

So it is interesting to note that the FCO first spoke out against LGBT discrimination in Africa some years ago: in 2013 Foreign Office Minister Hugh Robertson spoke specifically about the then-proposed legislation in Uganda. And this year Foreign Secretary William Hague has made several speeches condemning anti-gay witch-hunts in Africa and in Jamaica.

Maybe +Justin thinks the average muslim extremist is more aware of the views of an archbishop than of a Foreign Secretary???

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

I read something in the Ekklesia website today to the effect that Welby may as well say that Christians in England must NOT believe and preach the doctrine of the trinity because this will offend Nigerian muslims - they'll say it is blasphemous and start to attack Christians.
Just goes to show that the Ekklesia website can talk as much ignorant drivel as lots of posters on this thread.

Why is that 'drivel'?

Islam often uses the idea of three gods as an attack on Christianity.

The point is, are we to curtail/censor our beliefs in the UK for fear of some Muslim reaction.

And, earlier, when you said that these were a couple of remarks that Welby made on the radio - he has since defended them in more detail in today's Church Times.

It's the daftest thing i have heard him say and he is becoming more like a Carey than a Williams.

[ 11. April 2014, 16:44: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Some people have said that "that's not what Archbishop Welby meant" and I'm too lazy to read all this thread - so does anyone here know that if he didn't mean that Christians will be at risk of violence in Africe if the C of E starts having same sex marriage, and that that is a reason why the C of E should not have same sex marriage - what did he mean by his comments?

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Basically the situation is a mess and a lot of it is about perceptions which we may not see as very logical to the reality here, but which look horribly logical to Muslims in Africa and Asia. Islam is heavily committed to the concept of state religion as part of their further commitment to 'oneness/unity' (I think the Arabic word is "Taw'hid"), as seen in their rejection of the Christian Trinity. In my experience even many Muslims who have lived in the UK for years have trouble getting their heads round the ideas of plural democracy, or indeed the concept that the UK is not Christian in quite the sense that Saudi Arabia is Muslim. Separation of 'state and church' is NOT an Islamic concept.

With homosexuality still a death penalty offence in many Muslim lands and in the eyes of many more extreme Muslims, the combined perception of western countries as Christian and also now as pro-homosexuality, together with often a perception of African/Asian Christians as allies of western 'Christian crusaders', it seems that this has indeed in some places produced a threat to African Christians, which the ABC has witnessed during African visits.

He is concerned at how actions here may exacerbate these problems. I would guess that if the Anglicans did formally accept SSM here it would not help already confused perceptions in an already often violent situation.....

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

He was always going to be more Carey than Williams.

People got all excited about him for various reasons: first, because of his being an old Etonian; second by virtue of his having worked in a 'normal' job before going to theological college; third because of his link to HTB and all things Alpha - and then he was seen as being the first Evo ABC.

But then HTB is THE place for OEs: Sandy Millar, Nicky Gumbel, +Justin, not to mention Bear Grylls, Sam West, Jonathan Aitken, etc, etc,

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

"he was seen as being the first Evo ABC".

What? What about Donald Coggan and George Carey? Whatever you may think about them they were undoubtedly Evangelical!

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Coggan was not Evo - he was simple middle-of-the-road.

In any case, his greatest love was model railways...

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Basically the situation is a mess and a lot of it is about perceptions which we may not see as very logical to the reality here, but which look horribly logical to Muslims in Africa and Asia. ... the combined perception of western countries as Christian and also now as pro-homosexuality, together with often a perception of African/Asian Christians as allies of western 'Christian crusaders', it seems that this has indeed in some places produced a threat to African Christians, which the ABC has witnessed during African visits.

He is concerned at how actions here may exacerbate these problems. I would guess that if the Anglicans did formally accept SSM here it would not help already confused perceptions in an already often violent situation.....

Does anyone think that if the UK rejected equal marriage, those perceptions would change significantly? Those perceptions aren't just about the recognition of equal marriage; the perception is that Western culture is irredeemably perverted. If it wasn't teh gayz, it would be how our women dress like prostitutes, or our yoof misbehave, or our books and movies are blasphemous and obscene.

Backtracking human rights in the West will not garner anyone better treatment anywhere else. It will just make us seem perverted AND spineless.

(not agreeing, just describing from a point of view)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Coggan was not Evo - he was simple middle-of-the-road.

But he was chair of his Christian Union and principal of London College of Div - also curate of St. Mary's Islington -hardly MOTR. Strongly evo., but like many who become bishops he had his spine removed.

[ 12. April 2014, 17:11: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

I'd agree with all of that leo, except the last part about having his spine removed. One of the greatest blessings of my life was to grow up under the ministry of a man who had been trained by Coggan, and who held him in very high esteem. That may well make me biased but I've always rated him.

As for his churchmanship, the official webpage says:

quote:
He election to the See of Canterbury in 1971, succession to Michael Ramsey brought a 65-year-old thinking evangelical into the post.

While there are several things wrong with that as a sentence, I think its meaning is clear. Today he might be classed as an "open evangelical" (he was an early advocate of the ordination of women, as well being one of the most actively ecumenical ABoCs ever) but I don't know if that phrase was around during the 70s.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

quote:
By Soror Magna
Those perceptions aren't just about the recognition of equal marriage; the perception is that Western culture is irredeemably perverted. If it wasn't teh gayz, it would be how our women dress like prostitutes, or our yoof misbehave, or our books and movies are blasphemous and obscene.

SL: This isn’t the most relevant issue – there are rather a lot of Christians who would agree with that assessment!

quote:
SM: Does anyone think that if the UK rejected equal marriage, those perceptions would change significantly?

SL: No, those perceptions wouldn’t change significantly if the UK rejected equal marriage. But again, that’s not quite the point. ‘The UK’ is not the same thing as ‘The Christians in the UK’; a distinction which is rather the point of our pluralist democracy!!

Trouble is, as I pointed out earlier, Islam has trouble with pluralist democracy. Unlike Christianity, Islam was founded from the get-go as a state religion whose founder, having been driven out by his countrymen, raised an army and went back to take the place over by force. And Muslims seeking the ‘fundamentals’ of their faith will find exactly that. Therefore Islam seeks to set up states run by ‘Sharia’ law, under which homosexual sexual activity is illegal at death penalty level. Plus it seems that even where there is not a full Islamic state, Muslims may apply the death penalty ‘privately’ anyway – we have perhaps heard of that more often in relation to blasphemy cases.

The ABC has the problem that with western countries seen as ‘Christian’ it also seems to many Muslims that if the nation supports SSM it means Christians support SSM. While there remains an established Christian church in England (and in terms of how African Muslims see it, I might as well have said ‘in the UK’), and many of the African churches have started as branches of that… the ABC faces a considerable problem. He presumably doesn’t want to give up the establishment – but unless he does, Muslims will see the UK and its Christians as identical.

Disestablishment which clearly separated the UK from its Christians just might help, though I’m afraid I end up overall agreeing that

quote:
SM:Backtracking human rights in the West will not garner anyone better treatment anywhere else. It will just make us seem perverted AND spineless.

On a slightly different point I noted this earlier in the thread….

quote:
By leo
If I wasn't an anglo-catholic, I would abolish bishops.

Oh dear, your tradition has given bishops an exaggerated place that the Bible never gave them, and now the real bishops aren’t able to live up to that exaggerated position… Perhaps the tradition should be reconsidered…??

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Worth pointing out that there are many gay Muslims and Muslims who are allies of gay people. There are also plenty of Muslims in favour of pluralist democracy, particularly within Islamic socialism (yes that's a thing!).

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Not arguing with you, Jade Constable. But these are even now not entirely typical Muslims, and it remains true that Muslims aiming to be 'fundamentalist' aren't going to find that liberal pluralist stuff in Muhammad's/the Qur'an's teaching, they're going to find the concepts of the Islamic state and Sharia law.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Um, the Qu'ran and Hadith are pretty explicit about allowing Christians and Jews in an Islamic state to practice their religion as long as they pay a special tax called a Jizyah. So the Islamic "Fundamentalists" who think that Christians are evil and are committing violence against Christians just because they are Christians, if that is in fact what they are doing. are engaging in a rather selective reading of their own sacred texts. I'm not so sure that that is what they are doing, though.

Also, a word about Boko Haram. They are not just for establishing an Islamist State in Northeastern Nigeria. They want to abolish all Western Science and Education. This is not a normal phenomenon in Salafism or Wahhabism or other varieties of Islam called "fundamentalist." Boko Haram believes that any teaching that gives a natural explanation of things other than "God causes it" is evil. So belief in the water cycle is evil, because only God causes it to rain. This is a very strange interpretation of Islam, even to other fundamentalists.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I'd just like to return to the original Guardian article on Welby. He said he had heard reports that people who had killed Christians justified it by saying

quote:
"If we leave a Christian community here we will all be made to become homosexual and so we will kill all the Christians."

Therefore, he said, we shouldn't support equal marriage.

I wonder what his reaction would be if the killers had said

quote:
"If we leave a Christian community here we will all be made to give up female genital mutilation and so we will kill all the Christians."

quote:
"If we leave a Christian community here we will all be made to educate our wives and daughters and so we will kill all the Christians."

Would he respond by saying we should go quiet on the issue of female genital mutilation? Would he say we should stop educating women and girls?

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

By Stonespring

quote:
the Qu'ran and Hadith are pretty explicit about allowing Christians and Jews in an Islamic state to practice their religion as long as they pay a special tax called a Jizyah. So the Islamic "Fundamentalists" who think that Christians are evil and are committing violence against Christians just because they are Christians, if that is in fact what they are doing. are engaging in a rather selective reading of their own sacred texts.

On the first bit, yes, but it's decidedly not a pluralist democracy; the Christians and Jews are 'second class citizens', and at least in many Muslim states Christians are not allowed to 'practice their religion' in terms of evangelising Muslims.

Christians who engage in warfare against Islam are not protected by these rules; and at present, with a perception of western 'crusaders' in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., native Christians, even pacifist Mennonites and the like, tend to be regarded as 'allies of the crusaders', a 'fifth column' to be fought against.

Also, as I've been saying, a big part of the problem here is the 'established' status of Anglicanism, which means that many Muslims interpret the acts of England as the acts of Christians; if the UK approves homosexuality, it gets assumed that Christians do too....

Adeodatus; can't really disagree with you. But again the 'western = Christian' assumption is playing a part. Welby's problem is that he won't separate church and state, but still doesn't want Christians to be blamed for the deeds of the state in question. This confusion isn't helping!

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

Steve: I'm not convinced that the established status of the CofE is a critical part of people's understanding of things. For instance, when that pastor in Florida was burning Korans, this resulted in general outrage against the US because it was assumed he must be part of a state-controlled church.

So either we need to make the CofE more obviously disestablished than a small independent baptist church in America, or we need to accept that some muslims will criticize the west for things that aren't actually grounded in reality.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Leon; you've put your finger pretty much on the problem - the specific establishment of the CofE is just part of the bigger problem of 'Christendom', in this case running up against its Muslim equivalent - that Islam is very much a state religion and Muslims have trouble understanding that Christianity ain't necessarily so!

Many Muslims are criticising us for things that aren't quite reality any more; trouble is, they were reality at the time of the foundation of Islam, and the time of the Crusades and Muslims even in the UK are still seeing things from that perspective. And of course far too many Christians haven't yet got it that Christianity wasn't meant to be a state religion in the first place.

As regards the US it should be pointed out that though they have 'separation of church and state' they also have very much a 'Christian state' attitude - Anabaptists like me call it 'neo-Constantinianism'. Muslims therefore regard the US as a Christian country.

For me it ought to be one of our big arguments against Islam that Muhammad went backwards from the ideas about religion in the state that Jesus (who is considered a prophet in Islam) started - why would God send Muhammad with a contradictory message?? Unfortunately the history and the continuing established churches like the CofE compromise that argument.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As regards the US it should be pointed out that though they have 'separation of church and state' they also have very much a 'Christian state' attitude - Anabaptists like me call it 'neo-Constantinianism'. Muslims therefore regard the US as a Christian country.

Ah yes, American Exceptionalism and (in its weaker form) 'God bless America'. [Projectile]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:

As regards the US it should be pointed out that though they have 'separation of church and state' they also have very much a 'Christian state' attitude - Anabaptists like me call it 'neo-Constantinianism'. Muslims therefore regard the US as a Christian country.

For me it ought to be one of our big arguments against Islam that Muhammad went backwards from the ideas about religion in the state that Jesus (who is considered a prophet in Islam) started - why would God send Muhammad with a contradictory message?? Unfortunately the history and the continuing established churches like the CofE compromise that argument.

Maybe it would be easier, ironically, if the USA simply had fewer Christians? In a nation where the majority practice one faith, it must be hard to conceive of the organisation of the state as entirely separate (or entirely secular). Jesus didn't have that problem simply because he lived under the leadership of a different people who worshipped different gods. (Maybe that's something we should pray for!?)

As for the Archbishop, I haven't studied his comments but they do highlight the muddle that is the Anglican Communion. Do African Anglicans genuinely feel themselves to be benefited by having Justin Welby speak for them? Are Nigerian Baptists and Pentecostals truly relying on him to give a 'conventional' image of Western Christianity in order to keep the Muslims off their backs? It seems rather strange to me, but then I'm rather confused as to the significance of Archbishops of Canterbury outside of the UK. They seem to be a bit like the Queen, but at least she has the good sense to keep quiet!

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

Ah yes, American Exceptionalism and (in its weaker form) 'God bless America'.

But when it comes to contemporary Christianity, the American influence is 'exceptional'. Maybe that's hard for British Christians to deal with, but it's no less true for that.

[ 15. April 2014, 15:57: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

But the religious "exceptionalism has been quite successful at driving many of the young AWAY from religion, once they notice that the attitude is totally opposed to the message the church is supposed to be preaching.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe it would be easier, ironically, if the USA simply had fewer Christians? In a nation where the majority practice one faith ....

It's important to understand that the exceptionalist USA has its own exceptional version of Christianity.
This classic article is only available to subscribers, but there's an excerpt here. . The original Harper's article cited a survey which found that substantial number of USA Christians believe that "God helps those who help themselves" is a Biblical quote; others believe that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife.

quote:
The power of the Christian right rests largely in the fact that they boldly claim religious authority, and by their very boldness convince the rest of us that they must know what they're talking about. They're like the guy who gives you directions with such loud confidence that you drive on even though the road appears to be turning into a faint, rutted track. But their theology is appealing for another reason too: it coincides with what we want to believe. How nice it would be if Jesus had declared that our income was ours to keep, instead of insisting that we had to share. How satisfying it would be if we were supposed to hate our enemies. Religious conservatives will always have a comparatively easy sell.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I think many of us on this side of the ocean realise that American Christianity is of an 'exceptional' type! That's why we find it so fascinating!

Would a Justin Welby-type character ever find a job leading an international denomination in the USA? It doesn't seem to be the sort of country that has much use for religious figureheads who try to be all things to all men. You have to be one thing or the other, and be clear about it. Or is that a mistaken impression?

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

It's more a case, I think, that in the US and Canada and a good many other countries, someone with as slim a set of qualifications as Welby would never have been put into a position of leadership.

And, of course, in no other country, would someone have been put into a position of "international" leadership without extensive consultations and the approval of those he is supposedly to lead.

John

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

John, some of us over here are worried about those very points with Welbey (is there a typo in the title?). For me the jury is still out; he doesn't seem to be doing much but that might be a good thing, of course.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
It's more a case, I think, that in the US and Canada and a good many other countries, someone with as slim a set of qualifications as Welby would never have been put into a position of leadership.*snip*

John

O John Holding. I have a list for you-- I will leave USian shipmates to provide their own.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
It's more a case, I think, that in the US and Canada and a good many other countries, someone with as slim a set of qualifications as Welby would never have been put into a position of leadership.*snip*

John
O John Holding. I have a list for you-- I will leave USian shipmates to provide their own.

O Augustine -- not just a bishop -- because I'd agree there have been a number of underqualified bishops. Justin is probably no worse than many bishops in terms of his education and training -- but then, that's an awfully low bar.

But I can't think of any bishop with as little pastoral experience, or a metropolitan or primate with as little experience as a bishop (about 1 year as I recall). Or one with as little experience (given that it's Canterbury we're talking about) of the church outside his own little bailiwick.

John

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I certainly agree with you on his lack of experience and, sadly, few Anglican bishops know much about anywhere outside their own turf (who knows of England who only England knows, with mutatis mutandis), but he is not alone. TEC's PB is another such misfit. Were the English a tad desperate after the ++Rowan archiepiscopate where one of their most capable was overwhelmed by the situations he encountered? I wish I knew more about the consultations with the rest of the Anglican world to comment.

There have been some good Ireland/Scotland exchanges of late, and I think some of the African churches could do well by trading prelates, thereby avoiding any tribal considerations. Indeed, this would have perhaps been a healthy resolution of some purple problems in Rwanda.

Sometimes I look fondly on the Coptic practice of choosing their leaders by lot. There is apostolic precedent, no?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

How do the Copts select the names which go forward to the lot selection process?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Never mind, I've found it out via a Vatican site! Looks very sensible.

[ 17. April 2014, 20:10: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

JH:

quote:
But I can't think of any bishop with as little pastoral experience, or a metropolitan or primate with as little experience as a bishop (about 1 year as I recall). Or one with as little experience (given that it's Canterbury we're talking about) of the church outside his own little bailiwick.

I don't think Carey had much of either - and that's not a cheerful comparison from my perspective.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The way that +Justin's pre-ordination experience of working with Elf and then Enterprise has been taken to mean that he is an authority on banking and city regulation shows how out of touch the hierarchy of the CofE is with the world outsde the church.

Yes, he was a company treasurer but the bulk of his experience was gained with a French company, and during a time when it was subsequently revealed that Elf has been party to one of the biggest frauds in recent French history: granted this happened after +Justin left the company but at the trial of one of the chief architects of the fraud it was revealed that financial controls at Elf had been suspect for at least a decade. There were also rumours about the Elf acquisition of Sanofil, which happened in Justin's time...

So, little pastoral experience and not very much 'city' or banking experience either.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Welby flannels and flounders ...

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0