|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why is the public discourse of the Church of England dominated by Dead Horses?
|
bad man
Apprentice
# 17449
|
Posted
In 2007, the religious correspondent of The Times, Ruth Gledhill, wrote: quote:
”Tell anyone outside the Church that you’re a Christian these days, and they make one assumption about you. It is not that you are spiritual, or ascetically-minded, or dedicated to helping others, or opposed to the culture of consumerism. It is that you are a homophobe.”
And I think that's truer than ever.
This morning, the Minister for Women, Nicky Morgan, was asked on the radio why she voted against equal marriage for lesbians and gay men. She referred to her Christianity and the teaching of the Church of England.
I go to a little rural parish church. I have been going to churches, mostly in London, since the 1970s. I'm sure the majority of those I heard preaching over the years assumed that all gay sex is wrong (which is the official position of the Church of England even now). But when I heard the Rector say a year or so ago a propos of nothing that the Church could not support same sex marriage from the pulpit, as part of his sermon it was the first time I had ever heard this said as part of the church service.
It was a shock because it suggested to me that rejection of gay sexual relationships, and (to a lesser extent) a struggle with the absolute equality of men and women, are now core preoccupations of the Church of England.
This is certainly reflected in press, TV and radio reports and it is not just a question of reporting: the General Synod, the statements of the House of Bishops, and the Church's interventions in Parliament include heavy emphasis on refusing equality to gay people and qualifying the equality of men and women. A lot of the Church of England's political capital has been expended in preserving and strengthening its immunity from what are now regarded as basic human rights in the Equality Act and other laws.
Why is this? The Church is divided. The issues are very damaging to its mission. They are not in the creeds, not in the ten commandments, and not in the gospel reports of the teachings of Jesus Christ. I am not saying they are not in the Bible, and St Paul, obviously, springs to mind, but they are not core issues. Yet now they are touchstones of what conservative Anglicans call "orthodoxy".
Why has this happened?
I think I'm pretty loyal to the Church of England, but I find I don't share its values any more and that makes it harder and harder to feel like a member.
Posts: 49 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bad man:
They are not in the creeds, not in the ten commandments, and not in the gospel reports of the teachings of Jesus Christ. I am not saying they are not in the Bible, and St Paul, obviously, springs to mind, but they are not core issues. Yet now they are touchstones of what conservative Anglicans call "orthodoxy".
Why has this happened?
The answer is in your post: they are in the bible and that's what ticks the boxes for conservative Anglicans.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bad man:
I think I'm pretty loyal to the Church of England, but I find I don't share its values any more and that makes it harder and harder to feel like a member.
You are not alone.
One reason for starting to seriously consider a move abroad was that I felt so disconnected from the "official pronouncements" of the C of E, especially in the matter of homosexuality. It has been an amazing sensation to now be at a church where the issue is done and dusted as far as the congregation is concerned. "We've been there; we've done that; we've moved on to more important things. What is the C of E's problem?"
I know of a number of faithful Anglicans (in your diocese!) who also share your concerns and are hanging on in there.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) for you and all such people. It can be really hard, I know.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
Our little corner of the C of E (charismatic evangelical) has rather loudly supported the ordination of women. So it was a shock to me to learn that the recent appointment of a woman as curate was criticized by a small but vocal minority of the congregation. And then one of the junior staff who we are supporting to plant a church in a few months got up to preach the Sunday following and said he does not agree with women in church leadership.
So on the one hand, he has that right, but on the other, why has he been chosen to lead a church? I have to wonder what the motivations are behind this.
I hope things do not start turning in a more conservative direction. I spent long enough in a church like that to know I don't want anything to do with it.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
One commentator I read said that the CofE had already come to an official decision about homosexuality, but people were continuing to debate the issue as though no decision had been made! What I take from this is that unless a complete consensus is reached, matters of sexuality and sexual behaviour will continue to be discussed, no matter what the official position is.
Additionally, I think the public discourse will remain dominated by this topic because people are always interested in sex, whereas they have less and less interest in theological arguments about the virgin birth, poverty, the Trinity, etc.
Arguments about female bishops in the CofE don't seem to generate quite so much heat on the internet, perhaps because the very notion of a bishop is hard for many people to understand. An ordinary vicar might conduct your family wedding, baptism or funeral, but unless you spend a lot of time attending CofE churches you'll probably never see a bishop, and won't have much interest in what anyone of that title, male or female, has to say.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bad man:
In 2007, the religious correspondent of The Times, Ruth Gledhill, wrote: quote:
”Tell anyone outside the Church that you’re a Christian these days, and they make one assumption about you. It is not that you are spiritual, or ascetically-minded, or dedicated to helping others, or opposed to the culture of consumerism. It is that you are a homophobe.”
... I think I'm pretty loyal to the Church of England, but I find I don't share its values any more and that makes it harder and harder to feel like a member.
I think both you and Ruth are wrong. Or at the very least you are mixing with a like-minded bunch of people not necessarily fully representative of the population. I've never heard a sermon even mention homosexuality in decades of churchgoing. I've heard a handful of non churchgoers complain about the church from a so-called progressive perspective and a handful from the opposite end of the spectrum. In my experience some people are vaguely well disposed to the church, a few are hostile, most are entirely ignorant.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by bad man:
In 2007, the religious correspondent of The Times, Ruth Gledhill, wrote: quote:
”Tell anyone outside the Church that you’re a Christian these days, and they make one assumption about you. It is not that you are spiritual, or ascetically-minded, or dedicated to helping others, or opposed to the culture of consumerism. It is that you are a homophobe.”
... I think I'm pretty loyal to the Church of England, but I find I don't share its values any more and that makes it harder and harder to feel like a member.
I think both you and Ruth are wrong. Or at the very least you are mixing with a like-minded bunch of people not necessarily fully representative of the population. I've never heard a sermon even mention homosexuality in decades of churchgoing. I've heard a handful of non churchgoers complain about the church from a so-called progressive perspective and a handful from the opposite end of the spectrum. In my experience some people are vaguely well disposed to the church, a few are hostile, most are entirely ignorant.
I think that depends hugely on local churchmanship and to a lesser extent, the diocese. Certainly when I lived in extremely conservative evangelical East Sussex, I heard quite a few sermons on homosexuality. Funnily enough, once I moved (2010) I only heard homosexuality mentioned in church once again, and not in the sermon (it was when the letter from the RC cardinal or archbishop on homosexuality was released).
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Our little corner of the C of E (charismatic evangelical) has rather loudly supported the ordination of women. So it was a shock to me to learn that the recent appointment of a woman as curate was criticized by a small but vocal minority of the congregation. And then one of the junior staff who we are supporting to plant a church in a few months got up to preach the Sunday following and said he does not agree with women in church leadership.
So on the one hand, he has that right, but on the other, why has he been chosen to lead a church? I have to wonder what the motivations are behind this.
I hope things do not start turning in a more conservative direction. I spent long enough in a church like that to know I don't want anything to do with it.
We have one female member of clergy in our entire town (which being important historically, has many churches). She is currently struggling to find a children's worker for their popular and growing church (not mine!) who is willing to work with female clergy ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Jade Constable
Out of interest, would a female children's worker be unwilling to work with a female minister, or is it just a problem that male children's workers have? After all, a fellow woman could hardly claim that it was theologically unacceptable for another woman to be 'in authority' over her, could she?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
There are plenty of conservative Evangelical women in the Church of England who are opposed to women in positions of leadership. There are also still Anglo-Catholic women in the Church of England who believe that women cannot be priests. A quick google search will find you several of the most prominent of each. And outside the Church of England--how do you think Missouri Synod Lutherans reproduce themselves?
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bad man:
Why has this happened?
I suspect that these issues are more visible now because they are the pertinent issues of the day, both within the church and without. The push for gay rights draws the most attention of any political social issue nowadays, and the Anglican Communion is currently in turmoil over both the ordination of gay clergy and the blessing of gay marriages. Thus, the church is merely addressing contemporary events. Issues surrounding homosexuality were not anywhere near the public forefront decades ago as they are now, so there was no need for the church then to elaborate on its related positions.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
The front line of debate is constantly shifting. When I was younger it was contraception and divorce now it is sexuality I suspect in the future it will be transgender issues unless the wheels come of the 'progressive' bandwagon. And abortion remains a perennial topic.
Of course Christians talk about lots of other things and Christian life is about more than sex. However, the family is central to society and to the Church in the world so issues related to strengthening or undermining it will always be a key discourse. I can't answer for Anglican or Evangelical positions on this but I think Catholicism would find a way around all of those issues if it did not have the fundamental, and correct, insight that all these tendencies if accepted will have the cumulative effect of fatally wounding the family in favour of rampant individualism and/or the State.
[ 05. June 2014, 08:36: Message edited by: StevHep ]
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Svitlana: quote:
One commentator I read said that the CofE had already come to an official decision about homosexuality, but people were continuing to debate the issue as though no decision had been made!
Why not? The opponents of women's ordination have done exactly this, despite the fact that the C of E has been ordaining women for 20 years.
Svitlana: quote:
After all, a fellow woman could hardly claim that it was theologically unacceptable for another woman to be 'in authority' over her, could she?
You'd be surprised. There are plenty of women who see no theological contradiction in being a youth leader who opposes women's ordination, even in the Anglican church. Being a youth leader is a similar kind of role to teaching Sunday School - which women have been doing for centuries.
I find it depressing that the bishops have chosen to take this line on SSM without acknowledging the fact that there are faithful Anglicans who hold a different view and without conceding that there may be other ways of interpreting the Biblical verses on homosexuality. Heck, some of the bishops who weren't on that committee disagree with them!
Last Sunday, in an otherwise excellent sermon, our vicar recommended Christian Concern to us as an organisation that is doing good work in opposing persecution of Christians. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
[ 05. June 2014, 11:32: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Out of interest, would a female children's worker be unwilling to work with a female minister, or is it just a problem that male children's workers have? After all, a fellow woman could hardly claim that it was theologically unacceptable for another woman to be 'in authority' over her, could she?
There were women in the group who objected to a female curate at our church.
I went to a course at St Helen's Bishopsgate, a conservative evangelical church in London, and it was the women giving a hard line on complementarianism and submission. Which was hilarious because they were giving lectures to a mixed crowd. I don't think they noted the irony.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Jade Constable
Out of interest, would a female children's worker be unwilling to work with a female minister, or is it just a problem that male children's workers have? After all, a fellow woman could hardly claim that it was theologically unacceptable for another woman to be 'in authority' over her, could she?
Um yes of course another woman could claim it was theologically unacceptable for another woman to be ordained priest. It happens all the time within conservative areas of the Anglican church. It's about women having teaching authority over women and men, the female children's worker wouldn't be the only person the priest had teaching authority over! Male children's workers aren't that common in the CoE - it's still seen as 'women's work'.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Out of interest, would a female children's worker be unwilling to work with a female minister, or is it just a problem that male children's workers have? After all, a fellow woman could hardly claim that it was theologically unacceptable for another woman to be 'in authority' over her, could she?
There were women in the group who objected to a female curate at our church.
I went to a course at St Helen's Bishopsgate, a conservative evangelical church in London, and it was the women giving a hard line on complementarianism and submission. Which was hilarious because they were giving lectures to a mixed crowd. I don't think they noted the irony.
I know women who object to women's ordination but will preach in church as a lay person. Given that they don't believe in an ontological change at ordination anyway, I am baffled by this. I think it's seen as OK because they are under the authority of the male priest/minister...? I know women who are OK with husband/wife pastor teams for the same reason, that it's OK for a woman to be a pastor as long as her husband has ultimate pastoral authority over her.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
To take a stab at the question asked in the thread's title (even though I'm in the US):
We call them "Dead Horses" on this board, and no doubt they seem so in countless Synods and meetings all over the world as they get dragged in for flogging year after year. I think, though, that they are just the issues of our time (as a previous contributor suggested). One way or another, it seems unlikely to me that the next generation will worry about them the way we do. Three or four generations down the road many of our ideas will seem quaint and they will wonder how we could be so blind as to miss the obvious! Think about how the issue of slavery played out in our past. In three or four generations, the church will no doubt be grappling with issues we can scarcely imagine.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
It's hard to believe that the CofE (or any mainstream denomination) could function if women were prevented from exercising any sort of leadership in a church context! The side effect of barring women from any of the ordained posts but not from other forms of church leadership is that you emphasise the distinction between the clergy and laity, and of course undermine the claim that we're all equal in Christ, male and female too. It's interesting that evangelicals should take this position.
Unfortunately, I don't see how the CofE can resolve the differences over this sort of thing; if you want to maintain a 'broad church' identity that means you've just got to live with a lot of disagreement. Conservative evangelicals could either increase in number and influence in the CofE, or else leave the CofE and go elsewhere. Neither possibility seems to be what the CofE in general would like.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's interesting that evangelicals should take this position.
Lots of us con evos don't - even in the CofE.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's interesting that evangelicals should take this position.
Lots of us con evos don't - even in the CofE.
That's why it's interesting!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
The answer is simple. Sexuality and gender issues are the only place where the Church of England's views are out of step with mainstream society.
Politically, the Church of England is still the Tory party on its knees, siding with the City of London over protesters and is more worried about its profits than not investing in payday loan companies (almost six months after Justin Welby decided Wonga.com would make a nice target).
Let me repeat that last. The Church of England came out second best in a moral confrontation with a company that lends at 5800% APR.
It also has lofty sentiments about Our policy is not to invest in companies that supply or manufacture armaments. But once again when its profits are in the equation investments in companies that derive less than 10 per cent of turnover from strategic military sales are allowed.
The closest thing to moral leadership the Church of England has provided pretty much since +Runcie was Archbishop has been homophobia - as underscored by all the toys flying out of the pram around the attempted election of a celibate gay man as bishop. To give him his due, +Welby tried to take on Wonga.com - and lost. Because the Church was invested in the payday loan company and wasn't willing to take the financial hit for divesting. Which was the worst possible answer - the Church demonstrating that for all the sermons were talking the talk it simply wasn't willing to walk the walk.
And Theology doesn't matter. What matters is that by their fruits ye shall know them. If you don't believe in Christianity, you treat discussions about Theology about as seriously as ones about astrology. But if the psychics who claim to see the future were to start winning the lottery one after the other, that would vastly change the conversation about psychics. Likewise if the Church who claim to follow a source of goodness were to not demonstrate this by bearing the evil fruit of homophobia, but instead by actually doing good from the top down, that would change things.
This isn't to say that at a local level the Church doesn't do a lot of good by e.g. running food banks. But this is at a local level and the only moral value (as opposed to supernatural teaching) that the Church consistently preaches on at a national level that is out of line with mainstream society is homophobia.
You want this to change? Get that shit changed. ASAP! And do a better job of it than Welby!
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
ISTM that the CofE suffers from needing to satisfy the attenders who keep its churches functioning, while also needing to present a friendly, tolerant face to the (largely non-religious) nation. The expectations of each group aren't necessarily the same, and the gap seems to be growing wider over time. Most ordinary people don't care about this gap, though, do they? If they did, there'd be public calls for Disestablishment - but there aren't any.
As for Anglicans being 'Tories at prayer', maybe it all balances out when compared to the Nonconformists and Catholics, who are more likely to vote for others parties. Ethnic minority Christians are more likely to vote Labour if they're anything like ethnic minority voters in general.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
It's not the people in the CofE's own pews they are trying to satisfy, for the most part, it is the people in pews in Uganda and Nigeria. Which is a fools' errand as what would satisfy the majority of Nigerian and Ugandan Anglicans on these issues is not only morally reprehensible but utterly illegal in the UK.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Is there any particular reason why the CofE and the Anglican Churches in Uganda and Nigeria need to remain shackled together when their constituencies and their theologies are so very different? I can't understand what each side gets out of the arrangement that's worth all the antagonism and bad publicity they have to go through.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Clearly the various provinces of the Anglican Communion are unable to reach doctrinal and disciplinary unity on a number of DH issues. There isn't any reason to try to paper over the cracks. The structures of the Communion should largely be got rid of and provinces should pursue their own inter-provincial relations and their own oecumenical relations with non-Anglican churches.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
It's time for all denominations and churches to stop pretending. There is no "third way" - you either agree or disagree with the issues raised under DH's.
If you disagree sufficiently you opt out as FiF have done with their flying Bishops. A tactical solution over one issue has now set a strategic precedent for division - perhaps even dissolution.
We can only pray that out of the division comes something that is authentic and which shows the church for what it is really can be as the bride of Christ.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Is there any particular reason why the CofE and the Anglican Churches in Uganda and Nigeria need to remain shackled together when their constituencies and their theologies are so very different? I can't understand what each side gets out of the arrangement that's worth all the antagonism and bad publicity they have to go through.
I would say there is no reason to dissolve the Anglican communion just because we disagree about issues that are tangential to the faith. We manage to accommodate far bigger differences in our understanding of Priesthood, of the Eucharist, of Baptism, of the sacraments in general and many more without impairing communion. A small number of people have decided to make these issues red lines, to the detriment of everyone. Part of the point of the Anglican Communion is that the churches are independent, and none should have the veto over the internal actions of the others.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Talking about the variations in different parts of the Anglican Communion reminds me of the theories of religious markets, in which national and local competition from other churches and also from religious indifference is said to impact on the theology and notably the strictness of different churches.
It's obvious that the English and Nigerian churches, say, operate under very different conditions. In a globalised, mediatised world, though, the challenge for a big denomination is to calibrate the system so that local pressures can be taken into account without seriously upsetting religious and moral sensibilities and/or creating an unhelpful backlash elsewhere. The success rate is very patchy, ISTM.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I've certainly heard a few folk suggest that homophobia in Nigeria is so prevalent due to a sort of homophobic arms race with Muslims in the country.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Arethosemyfeet
So you see, not only does the Anglican Church in Nigeria have to contend with serious competition from a range of other conservative churches, but it also has a major rival in the growth of Islam. Gay-friendly independent churches (and there is at least one) hardly offer any competition there.
In England, by contrast, the main competitor to the CofE is religious indifference, which requires a more conciliatory approach towards the widespread tolerance towards sexual diversity. However, noone seems to care what the Methodist, URC, Quakers or Unitarians have to say since they've very weak liberal competitors. As for the evangelicals, they represent a growing percentage within the CofE and in other national churches, but you implied in a post above that the CofE was critical of SSM in England not so much because of its internal makeup, but in order to send out a conciliatory message to Anglicans in parts of Africa.
What this suggests is that non-religiosity within the nation and conservative religiosity on the outside are the two utterly conflicting driving forces that propel the CofE's PR machine. As we must agree, it's hard to imagine how that combination can get the CofE anywhere!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Arethosemyfeet
So you see, not only does the Anglican Church in Nigeria have to contend with serious competition from a range of other conservative churches, but it also has a major rival in the growth of Islam. Gay-friendly independent churches (and there is at least one) hardly offer any competition there.
In England, by contrast, the main competitor to the CofE is religious indifference, which requires a more conciliatory approach towards the widespread tolerance towards sexual diversity. However, noone seems to care what the Methodist, URC, Quakers or Unitarians have to say since they've very weak liberal competitors. As for the evangelicals, they represent a growing percentage within the CofE and in other national churches, but you implied in a post above that the CofE was critical of SSM in England not so much because of its internal makeup, but in order to send out a conciliatory message to Anglicans in parts of Africa.
What this suggests is that non-religiosity within the nation and conservative religiosity on the outside are the two utterly conflicting driving forces that propel the CofE's PR machine. As we must agree, it's hard to imagine how that combination can get the CofE anywhere!
A person who sits on the fence gets splinters in their bottom.
The Church of England has decided that their main goals are going to be compromise, unity, and not rocking the boat. Even when confronted by raw evil (as some of the Nigerian, and for that matter Conservative Evangelical, teaching about homosexuality are). Because they don't oppose this when everyone else does, but keep trying to say that we shouldn't oppose the bigots they are making bigotry more acceptable so are opposed by decent human beings. Because they don't run the bigot party line but are being dragged into civilised behaviour the bigots don't like them.
And because they can't tell which side of the line between love and hate they stand on they appeal to few people in any direction.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The Church of England has decided that their main goals are going to be compromise, unity, and not rocking the boat. Even when confronted by raw evil (as some of the Nigerian, and for that matter Conservative Evangelical, teaching about homosexuality are).
Ironically, from the perspective of other churches the CofE actually looks rather tolerant about homosexuality. If I heard that it had a higher percentage of gay clergy and worshippers than the other Protestant denominations in England, maybe even more than those that claim to be more liberal, I wouldn't be surprised. I've never heard of any comparative research on this subject, but it would be very interesting.
I agree that the Anglican Communion in general, and the CofE especially, ought to move towards the mid-century with a different structure, so as to get beyond the 'fence-sitting'. Anglicans seem to hate the idea of schism, though, so any change would have to fall short of that.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
bad man
Apprentice
# 17449
|
Posted
Here we go again.
From today's Bristol Post
quote:
Bishop attacks gay marriage
THE Right Reverend Peter Hancock, right, has become the 79th Bishop of Bath and Wells.
More than 1,000 people attended a service at Wells Cathedral to mark the beginning of his ministry.
But in his first interview since he was made Bishop of Bath and Wells, Peter attacked gay marriage.
Interviewed on Radio Bristol, he said: "I think marriage is a gift from God. It's a means of grace and his way of blessing us. I believe this was set aside for a man and a woman."
This is a perfectly extraordinary choice of topic for his first interview. The moment of his installation is a moment when he has more people's attention than usual. But, there we go again, here's a dead horse, and here's a flogger.
Elsewhere, the good bishop writes:
"We will therefore need to think, pray and consider very deeply what it might mean to share the gospel across the diocese, what it might mean to foster spiritual and numerical growth in Church and community, and how we can so order our life as a diocese to enable the Church to grow and flourish in new ways."
It's not a great start, is it.
Posts: 49 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I've never heard a sermon even mention homosexuality in decades of churchgoing.
I recall four in about the last 20 years, including a memorable occasion (memorable for all the wrong reasons) on which a senior and well known clergyman used a wedding as an opportunity to preach a 20-minute diatribe on the twin evils of homosexuality and divorce.
But public discourse isn't really about sermons. And I have less and less patience, as the years go on, with the insufferably polite Anglican attitude that, when a fellow-clergyperson makes a total tit of themselves in public, pretends not to have heard. I suppose it has something to do with professional solidarity, or some other pointless waste of time. No, I'm coming round to thinking that if, for instance, m'lord of Bath and Wells has his sights set on being viewed as a total arse, then someone with at least as much clout as he has should step up to the microphone and say so.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Ironically, from the perspective of other churches the CofE actually looks rather tolerant about homosexuality.
Depends who you compare it to. The Quakers and Unitarians are on the right side of this issue (and most others). Coming off as tolerant about homosexuality when your baseline is major hierarchical Christian churches is akin to being immigrant friendly when your baseline is a UKIP meeting.
quote:
I agree that the Anglican Communion in general, and the CofE especially, ought to move towards the mid-century with a different structure, so as to get beyond the 'fence-sitting'. Anglicans seem to hate the idea of schism, though, so any change would have to fall short of that.
Or it'll end up happening between e.g. Uganda and the ECUSA and the CofE will have to choose sides anyway.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Justinian;
quote:
The Quakers and Unitarians are on the right side of this issue [homosexuality] (and most others).
Hmmm.... Unitarians questionable Christians anyway due to their denial of Jesus' divinity' (but please let's not go off down that tangent here).
Hmmm... remind me where the bit is in the Bible that says gay sex is wonderful and Christians have to enthusiastically approve?
The reason the CofE has big problems with DH issues is because they are a state church built into the English constitution and therefore if they take a stand on, say, homosexuality, that isn't just a private body saying "We think that is sinful" - it's like the state itself, through the state religion, is being discriminatory. In a modern plural democracy that's bound to be objected to, and if the CofE doesn't want to give up its established status, it's going to have a problem.
Of course the Bible also doesn't teach 'established' churches....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Justinian;
quote:
The Quakers and Unitarians are on the right side of this issue [homosexuality] (and most others).
Hmmm.... Unitarians questionable Christians anyway due to their denial of Jesus' divinity' (but please let's not go off down that tangent here).
Hmmm... remind me where the bit is in the Bible that says gay sex is wonderful and Christians have to enthusiastically approve?
There is nothing in the bible saying you have to enthusiastically approve of straight sex. Certainly, no one I have ever heard says that Christians says that Christians must condone adulterous sex. However gay sex is not inherently adulterous or immoral. At least not unless your moral standards should have been left in the dark ages.
There is, however, a bit in the bible that's pretty important about loving your neighbour as yourself - which means you do not throw up barriers to your neighbour marrying the person they love and who loves them. And the paragraph in the Sermon on the Mount that reads "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me." was not meant to imply that, despite current evidence, the persecutors would be Christians bearing false witness because of what they claim the teachings of Jesus were.
quote:
The reason the CofE has big problems with DH issues is because they are a state church built into the English constitution and therefore if they take a stand on, say, homosexuality, that isn't just a private body saying "We think that is sinful" - it's like the state itself, through the state religion, is being discriminatory. In a modern plural democracy that's bound to be objected to, and if the CofE doesn't want to give up its established status, it's going to have a problem.
On the other hand the CofE does take public positions on such matters. As homophobes. Which, as Justin Welby admits is seen deservedly by most people under 40 as wicked and akin to racism. But despite realising this he is trying to nail the colours of bigotry to the mast.
The CofE is not neutral on the subject of homophobia. It is pro-homophobe. And tried using its political clout to prevent gay marriage even in a secular context (which demonstrates that any argument about this being about religious freedom isn't worth the pixels it's written on).
The problem isn't that the CofE is taking a stand. It's that it's taking a stand by triangulating between a group that provided support for a "Kill the gays" bill and decent human beings. Triangulation is never a good moral approach at the best of times. And all this triangulation does is demonstrates that the CofE can not tell good from evil or love from hate - and treats both as the same.
quote:
Of course the Bible also doesn't teach 'established' churches....
You mean other than in pretty much the entire Old Testament? Where Judaism is the state religion much of the time?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bad man:
Here we go again.
From today's Bristol Post
quote:
Bishop attacks gay marriage
THE Right Reverend Peter Hancock, right, has become the 79th Bishop of Bath and Wells.
More than 1,000 people attended a service at Wells Cathedral to mark the beginning of his ministry.
But in his first interview since he was made Bishop of Bath and Wells, Peter attacked gay marriage.
Interviewed on Radio Bristol, he said: "I think marriage is a gift from God. It's a means of grace and his way of blessing us. I believe this was set aside for a man and a woman."
This is a perfectly extraordinary choice of topic for his first interview. The moment of his installation is a moment when he has more people's attention than usual. But, there we go again, here's a dead horse, and here's a flogger......It's not a great start, is it.
I suspect he was asked for his opinion by the interviewer.
His response is fairly much in line with what most bishops say.
he started off as a very conservative evangelical but people say that he has moved a lot since then. Time will tell.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
It was in response to a question from an interviewer - Lucy Tegg - as part of a generally sympathetic Q&A session.
I suspect that there was increased interest in the bishop because of the shenanigans over where he lives.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I've never heard a sermon even mention homosexuality in decades of churchgoing.rch, a few are hostile, most are entirely ignorant.
Maybe you've abandoned evangelical churches.
I remember a funeral where the (evangelical) minister (C of E) preached directly to the deceased's son to tell him that his 'homosexual lifestyle' would lead him to Hell so he would never be reunited to his mother.
Also an impromptu and unrequested exorcism of two gay men as part of a sermon (C of E evo again)
Most sane evos - there are some - don't dare preach on the subject for fear of alienating the young. Nor, of course, do they preach against fornication and cohabiting.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I've never heard a sermon even mention homosexuality in decades of churchgoing.rch, a few are hostile, most are entirely ignorant.
Maybe you've abandoned evangelical churches.
I remember a funeral where the (evangelical) minister (C of E) preached directly to the deceased's son to tell him that his 'homosexual lifestyle' would lead him to Hell so he would never be reunited to his mother.
Also an impromptu and unrequested exorcism of two gay men as part of a sermon (C of E evo again)
Most sane evos - there are some - don't dare preach on the subject for fear of alienating the young. Nor, of course, do they preach against fornication and cohabiting.
I've never exclusively attended evangelical churches as an adult. I've generally gone to my parish church. I still don't think that this is a common sermon topic in evangelical churches. I don't think most of the unchurched population give a damn about the church's opinion of sexuality. I certainly don't think they're surprised that the mainstream denominations are conservative. They'd expect that the church is officially conservative on sexuality as it is on adultery or sex before marriage. Privately and pastorally things might be different.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Justinian;
quote:
quote:
Of course the Bible also doesn't teach 'established' churches....
You mean other than in pretty much the entire Old Testament? Where Judaism is the state religion much of the time?
There is a reason the NEW Testament/Covenant is so called. After centuries of preparation Jesus came to fulfil the OT and develop it in new ways. One of these new ways is that God's people is no longer restricted to ethnic Jews, and this new international or transnational situation requires a different relationship between God's people throughout the world and the nations and governments in and under which they live. Therefore quote:
Of course the Bible also doesn't teach 'established' churches....
by Justinian;
quote:
There is nothing in the bible saying you have to enthusiastically approve of straight sex.
The Song of Solomon is pretty enthusiastic, I'd have thought. And Genesis 1/27 and 2/24, and the use Jesus makes of them in Mark 10/Matt 19, are to say the least strong endorsements of straight sex, and can't really be said to encourage gay sex. To say that "no one I have ever heard says that Christians must condone adulterous sex" is a silly argument - of course the Bible does not endorse the misuse of God's gift.
Yes, the Bible does include the extremely clear statement that you must love your neighbour as yourself. It occurs, I note, in Leviticus 19; 18. Part of the same book as ch20 v13, "13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
Lev 20:13 (NIV). By normal standards of interpretation it is unlikely that the two texts are contradictory... Certainly in the original 19; 18 can't mean "which means you do not throw up barriers to your neighbour marrying the person they love and who loves them" if that marriage is to lead to a breach of 20; 13.
I'm not proposing here to do the whole argument about gay sex - there's already lots of evidence that it might need inappropriate length - 'tome' rather than 'post'. That wasn't the point I was making in my original post. The point I was making is that the CofE faces unusual problems over these issues because of its established status, which is why its public discourse is currently dominated by these DH issues.
In the past, the CofE was a persecutor of other Christians, including famously Baptist John Bunyan, again because of its established status. Being established also skews its approach to the DH issues - whatever the correct answer on such issues, a church which purports to be 'national' is going to have problems over such issues. Discuss and resolve that aspect and the DH issues might come easier for all.
For the record I'm quite happy for the state to make provision for same sex marriage for those whose beliefs include that. Forcing my beliefs on others is no part of my Christianity. Being free to believe the Bible rather than the politically correct is part of my Christianity.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Justinian
For some reason the Quakers and the Unitarians haven't really stepped up to the plate as the country's religious spokesmen for SSM. This is a shame, because they could do it more authentically than the CofE. (Indeed, the conspiracy theorist side of me wonders why these two churches have said almost nothing publicly about SSM, despite having pursued the matter politically behind the scenes....)
I think some leaders in the CofE argued against SSM because they feared it might be imposed on them against their will as the established church, and perhaps they only obtained an exemption as a result of their disagreement. Of course, there are CofE folk who'd very much like their own priest to be free to conduct SSMs. Freeing up CofE structures would presumably enable this to happen, but CofE people seem to talk of 'creeping congregationalism' as a bad thing, not something that should be formalised.
[ 09. June 2014, 19:32: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Forcing my beliefs on others is no part of my Christianity.e politically correct is part of my Christianity.
I applaud you for that - indeed, the Anabaptist witness is very important to me in recalling me to my first love, despite my being a fairly 'traditional' (with a dash of 'liberal') Anglican catholic.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
bad man
Apprentice
# 17449
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't think most of the unchurched population give a damn about the church's opinion of sexuality.
You are quite right. But "most" is quite broad brush and doesn't mean that we don't have a problem.
58% think the Church of England is neither a positive nor a negative force in society. 18% think it is a force for good. 14% think it's not a force for good. And 10% don't know.
Here's what the research says.
quote:
The vast majority of the population are ambivalent about whether the Church of England is a positive force in society.
For those who said it was a negative force, the top reason was treatment of women and LGBT people...
Posts: 49 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Steve - it's not 'forcing' people to be 'politically correct', it's called expecting people to be decent human beings.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
For some reason the Quakers and the Unitarians haven't really stepped up to the plate as the country's religious spokesmen for SSM.
I think it is probably more accurate to say that, when the Quakers and the Unitarians have spoken about SSM, nobody has noticed it and it has not been considered "newsworthy". Unless you have been to a lot of Quaker and Unitarian public meetings where the topic has not been discussed.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bad man:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't think most of the unchurched population give a damn about the church's opinion of sexuality.
You are quite right. But "most" is quite broad brush and doesn't mean that we don't have a problem.
58% think the Church of England is neither a positive nor a negative force in society. 18% think it is a force for good. 14% think it's not a force for good. And 10% don't know.
Here's what the research says.
quote:
The vast majority of the population are ambivalent about whether the Church of England is a positive force in society.
For those who said it was a negative force, the top reason was treatment of women and LGBT people...
Cor blimey. I really don't think those figures tell us anything. Totally bizarre to think that's a problem we don't know about. Ignorance and us not telling people about it.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Every time I see the thread title, the first thing that pops into my head is "Because they don't have anything better to do." That's kind of my short, cynical way of saying that if they're actually doing anything other* than telling people what to do with their genitalia, nobody is hearing about it.
*Like feeding the hungry, visiting the prisoner, clothing the naked, tending the sick ... no particular type or combination of genitalia required.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
