Ship of Fools: FiF ≠ Conservative?

Thread: FiF ≠ Conservative? 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=030745

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

I was recently looking at London churches, and found an odd dissonance between membership in Forward in Faith and other theological issues. For example, St. Mary's, Bourne Street is a FiF parish, yet I have seen it described in these boards as being very gay-inclusive. Is this merely a clergy/laity divide or has the church truly staked out a pro-gay/anti-woman's ordination stance? It think it would be extremely rare to find a church in the U.S. opposed to the ordination of women that was at the opposite end of the theological spectrum in terms of homosexuality.

Are these two issues divorced in the CoE? If FiF membership is not a reliable indicator of conservative theology, what would be? A SSC priest?

(I don't mean to start a theological argument; I merely think clarification would help those unfamiliar with the CoE to identify like-minded churches on either side of the spectrum.)

[ 17. April 2014, 18:42: Message edited by: GCabot ]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

In the UK, it is not at all unusual for FiF churches to be overtly or covertly "gay-friendly".

I have met plenty of priests who are "conservative" in terms of the OOW, but are gay. One (now retired) bishop (whom I shall not name) was widely acknowledged by all those who knew him to be gay and yet was a strident voice in opposition to OOW.

This is one of those peculiarities of the CofE!

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
In the UK, it is not at all unusual for FiF churches to be overtly or covertly "gay-friendly".

I have met plenty of priests who are "conservative" in terms of the OOW, but are gay. One (now retired) bishop (whom I shall not name) was widely acknowledged by all those who knew him to be gay and yet was a strident voice in opposition to OOW.

This is one of those peculiarities of the CofE!

The same is true in many parts of the U.S., though not as much now as a generation ago.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

GCabot wrote:-

quote:
It think it would be extremely rare to find a church in the U.S. opposed to the ordination of women that was at the opposite end of the theological spectrum in terms of homosexuality.

Without touching on the DH aspects of your question, the answer probably lies in the above observation.

The alignment of theological and social issues in the way you expect is primarily a US phenomenon (same with "liberal"). Which is not to say that there are not partial alignments as well as disagreements in the UK. And probably to a degree down under, though my knowledge of that is limited, so take somebody else's word rather than mine!

But it helps to bear this in mind.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Traditional Catholicism and snooty no-girls-or-bad-taste allowed versions of Anglo-Catholicism both tend to attract gay men as both laity and clergy. They tend to be comfortable spaces for gay men who share a common interest in intricate Liturgy. They tend to not focus on the politicos of gay rights, but since they know where there money comes from, they do not give fire and brimstone sermons about homosexuality either. If there is an Anglican parish that is super Anglo-Catholic, opposes women's ordination, and is very aligned with liberal social justice activism that includes gay rights, I would be surprised. But you never know.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Traditional Catholicism and snooty no-girls-or-bad-taste allowed versions of Anglo-Catholicism both tend to attract gay men as both laity and clergy. They tend to be comfortable spaces for gay men who share a common interest in intricate Liturgy. They tend to not focus on the politicos of gay rights, but since they know where there money comes from, they do not give fire and brimstone sermons about homosexuality either. If there is an Anglican parish that is super Anglo-Catholic, opposes women's ordination, and is very aligned with liberal social justice activism that includes gay rights, I would be surprised. But you never know.

This is my experience too - FiF acceptance of homosexuality is rarely from a social justice perspective, but rather just places that are comfortable for gay men. In my experience, lesbian women are much less comfortable there. It's about it being a male space rather than from a politically pro-gay stance.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Support for women's ordination and support for gay marriage do not correlate much at all in English churches. Or the Anglican Communion worldwide outside outside North America. All four possible combinations of opinion are common.

[ 17. April 2014, 23:36: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

For an American example of that let me suggest a certain Anglo-Catholic shrine parish in our nation's capital.

Don't want to be more specific than that.

K

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Traditional Catholicism and snooty no-girls-or-bad-taste allowed versions of Anglo-Catholicism both tend to attract gay men as both laity and clergy. They tend to be comfortable spaces for gay men who share a common interest in intricate Liturgy. They tend to not focus on the politicos of gay rights, but since they know where there money comes from, they do not give fire and brimstone sermons about homosexuality either. If there is an Anglican parish that is super Anglo-Catholic, opposes women's ordination, and is very aligned with liberal social justice activism that includes gay rights, I would be surprised. But you never know.

I realize that high churches have always attracted gay parishioners for the liturgy, aesthetics, etc. I think there's a significant difference between acceptance of homosexuals (i.e., "we're all sinners") or "don't ask, don't tell," and open affirmation of homosexuality (i.e., "we don't believe homosexual acts are sinful") It is the latter view combined with opposition to the ordination of women that I find curious.

I guess the reason I conflated the two issues was that they go together in Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, and from my experience in the U.S. It does seem slightly cognitively dissonant to accept one, but not the other, to me anyway. But thanks to everyone for the clarification.

Are SSC members also all over the spectrum?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

This thread looks to me like it's teetering on the brink of Dead Horses. Don't be surprised if, after hostly consultation, it suddenly goes there.

/hosting

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

I've read two novels by Michael Ardritti, both written in the context of a (London based - at least in the books) culture of homosexual misogyny, which - if true - presents a rather dark side to this.

The novels are very powerful, and I would recommend them, though not to the even moderately prudish.

But is the context simply bullshit? and if so a bit scurrilous at that. Or is there really this rather dark side to the anti-women-priests campaigners.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

The converse completely throws bland secular commentators. They assume that all ordained women and all those who support women's being ordained, must be theological and ethical liberals.

Is that conjunction actually assumed in church circles in the US because it doesn't apply here?

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The converse completely throws bland secular commentators. They assume that all ordained women and all those who support women's being ordained, must be theological and ethical liberals.

Is that conjunction actually assumed in church circles in the US because it doesn't apply here?

I would say that within mainline denominations (Episcopal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, and UCC), that is usually a safe assumption (but then most of these parishes tend towards the theologically liberal anyways).

In other denominations in the U.S. and with non-denominational churches, especially evangelical ones, my experience is they never considered the ordination of women an issue of serious theological import. There are certainly a great many prominent conservative churches here with female clergy.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

Thus.

/hosting

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Conservative Liturgy Queens don't want any change whatsoever in their beautiful rites. Changing the gender of the clergy is still a change (the beautiful old vestments wont fit properly on them, and what if they want to have long hair, earrings, makeup, etc.? where are my smelling salts?).

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Support for women's ordination and support for gay marriage do not correlate much at all in English churches. Or the Anglican Communion worldwide outside outside North America. All four possible combinations of opinion are common.

Oh, I think there is some correlation within the CofE - but only because one of the possible axes correlates strongly with both arguments. The radical inclusivists are in favour of both, and the Traditionalists are in favour of neither. But that's only one axis on which people base their decisions.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

I'm not sure I'd call them "traditionalists" in a CofE context.

Posted by RevMotherRaphael (# 18102) on :

I wish I had read this earlier because it is an interesting observance. There seem to be many who consider themselves Conservative Evangelicals (to use broad labels) and are members of FiF but in contrast to those who consider themselves Conservative Catholics feel very strong against homosexuality. I can only say what has been my personal experience as a female Anglo-Catholic that it is much the same as the first post; AC FiF welcome my gay male friends but would not welcome me a straight woman to the priesthood where as the FiF CE would have neither of us.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

I would consider myself to be pretty high church, AffCath person in A FIF parish. I'm a dyed in not the wool member off the Conservative Party and yet I find myself pro on both women bishops and gay marriages.

I don't think the correlation between politics, ethics and faith matters is as strong I the UK as it is in the USA.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Errm, sorry to cast a light shower on some parades but...

Our PP is FiF: as a parish we lean much more that way.

But the parish is also committed to women in the priesthood and women bishops.

Similarly it is a very gay friendly parish, as the quote from a past magazine might inform:

quote:
No one chooses to be gay, they are not “those people”: they are our sons, daughters, brothers – sometimes even our husband or wife. Until we – and the bishops – can truly claim to have no bias by marrying gay people and welcoming them into our congregations the church will continue to be seen as an irrelevance by the younger generations missing from our pews.

Think that sums it up neatly.

No dissenting opinions were received when this appeared.

[Permission for quote gained from the writer - not a member of the clergy.]

[ 22. May 2014, 15:14: Message edited by: L'organist ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But the parish is also committed to women in the priesthood and women bishops.

But that isn't the FiF position though is it?

quote:
Originally posted by FiF website:
For these reasons, we are unable in conscience to accept the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Ah but you're talking about the church of England where any amount of diktat from on high or formal authority will be listened too politely and with good humour, and then quietly ignored by the overwhelming majority.

I think its the moderating effects of tea and cakes that does it myself. We are English after all.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I think its the moderating effects of tea and cakes that does it myself. We are English after all.

As the Blessed Eddie Izzard said: "Cake or Death?"

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I said the PP was FiF, not the parish.

What the parish likes is well-ordered liturgy leaning towards the more traditional AC type - a visit from an AC bishop a couple of years ago drove everyone nuts because (a) he seemed incapable of following an order of service, and (b) insisted on a ghastly happy-clappy ditty at the offertory which, of course, no-one sang (least of all him) because its not part of our usual repertoire so unknown by most.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Every time you post about your parish, l'o, you make it sound better and better!
I suspect that there are quite a few parishes/ congregations like this out there: fairly trad in much of their theology and liturgical tastes, fairly high in ecclesiology, to all appearances (and in reality) pretty 'solid' CofE- and committed to OOW and really not het up about questions about sexuality.

[ 24. May 2014, 11:17: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I thought that was pretty much the point of Affirming Catholicism, despite the attempts to paint it was theologically liberal.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Well thank you, Albertus.

I don't actually live in the parish where I play (fairly common among organists) but I wish I did.

As you surmise, its full of straightforward nice people who go to church, do their best to be good to their neighbours and contribute to their community and only try to fix something if its broke - so naturally the local authority views it with suspicion.

The last bishop hated the parish and the archdeacon isn't too keen either, naturally!

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Your parish does indeed sound marvellous, L'O. Can I ask which diocese it's in, if that's not too nosey? Is it representative of the diocese or not?

Interestingly my church would align with AffCath if asked (we're not a member but part of a centrist-to-liberalish group of churches in a mostly FiF town) but is actually pretty similar. DH issues never really come up - we have male clergy but would support female clergy, there's just only one female priest in the entire town (and she is struggling to find a children's worker willing to work with female clergy). Would probably support LGBTQA partnered clergy, though I don't think it's really an issue on the radar of most of the congregation - though I know other clergy in the group are a bit more vocally supportive of it. We also have an excellent organist! [Biased]

He, however, attends a conservative non-Anglican Protestant church (not Baptist but similar I think) outside of playing for us, and has markedly different theology to the clergy.

FWIW our church is a Victorian one amongst terraced housing, in part of the town that used to be a separate village and still feels somewhat separate to the rest of the town.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Get LGBTQ but what's the A stand for? 'Anything else?' [Smile]

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Get LGBTQ but what's the A stand for? 'Anything else?'

I've usually heard it as standing for 'allies' though in the context that doesn't seem to quite fit.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Get LGBTQ but what's the A stand for? 'Anything else?'

Usually I would think asexual, but I can't imagine any congregation having a problem with an asexual priest.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Well indeed. That was all I could think of.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

A stands for asexual, yes. You would be surprised - there are definitely some con-evo places who would have an enormous problem with an asexual priest (not that they'd call them a priest!). I know of churches which insist on their clergy being married.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0