|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Bishops' stance on Jeffrey John
|
gbuchanan
Shipmate
# 415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I'd remind you that ++Rowan holds the same views and made it despite that; the challengers to him did not focus on the gay issue. So I don't think that is a legitimate reading of the situation after the JJ fiasco.
Well, ES, if you'd actually read the letter from the 9, it states that his appointment would prejudice any debate - that statement said:
quote:
"as well as Dr John's severe criticism of orthodox teaching, which gives cause for concern".
...erm, sort of seems a bit of a focus, as there is only one area in which JJ's beliefs aren't pretty sturdily orthodox, and indeed earlier in the letter they refer to his previous relationship. Furthermore they state:
quote:
The appointment appears to prejudice the outcome of the Church's reflection on these matters
...so, either you are grossly misinformed or wilfully misrepresenting the facts, or being a troll.
Posts: 683 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
gbuchanan
Shipmate
# 415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
gbuchanan (no relative of the Rt Rev Colin, I hope) said:
...actually, a distant relation, but there you go - why should you hope I were not a relative of his?
quote:
You can only speak as you find. For what it's worth I'm not into "queer bashing" but the thought of what homosexuals do still turns my stomach.
Let's be clear, any debate of Homosexuality per se should be on the appropriate thread in Dead Horses. As you've made nearly 500 posts, you really ought to know that by now. There are lots of practices I'm not personally comfortable with that I don't worry about other people doing...
quote:
I get rather fed up though picking up a newspaper, be it one of the secular press or the church press, only to see one headline after another along the lines of 'Gay this', 'Gay that', 'Gay the other flippin thing.' Haven't people got other things with which to occupy their minds?
...well, it seems not to be like that to me - unless you're really looking hard for it. Given that 5-10% of the population is gay, the representation in the media on sexual matters seems generally a bit low.
Posts: 683 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Two key questions perhaps could be asked of the Dow-evangelical constituency.
What precisely would a celibate gay person have to do to establish his / her credentials, (assuming that such a thing was possible)?
Well, they might join a celibate Anglican Order(eg the OGS) if they wanted to be a bishop. It is, I think, indelicate to make references to the sexuality of bishops - indeed, of anybody - at this juncture, but perhaps membership of a celibate order might sate the hystericals. On second thoughts, it isn't really about that, is it?
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I really do think the saddest thing about this whole sorry episode is the way Fr John is being punished for honesty. There was an excellent letter in the Tablet soon after this all blew up saying that whatever the ethics of homosexuality, the ethics of systematic lying should be more straightforward for Christians. Jeffrey John was (excuse pun) straight with people, the reaction of professed followers of Truth Incarnate, was to bully him into resignation. A church which rewards subtefuge and dishonesty is a very sick church.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Archimandrite
quote:
On second thoughts, it isn't really about that, is it?
No, it is not.
[ 08. July 2003, 22:52: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I'd remind you that ++Rowan holds the same views and made it despite that; the challengers to him did not focus on the gay issue. So I don't think that is a legitimate reading of the situation after the JJ fiasco.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, ES, if you'd actually read the letter from the 9, it states that his appointment would prejudice any debate - that statement said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"as well as Dr John's severe criticism of orthodox teaching, which gives cause for concern".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...erm, sort of seems a bit of a focus, as there is only one area in which JJ's beliefs aren't pretty sturdily orthodox, and indeed earlier in the letter they refer to his previous relationship. Furthermore they state:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The appointment appears to prejudice the outcome of the Church's reflection on these matters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...so, either you are grossly misinformed or wilfully misrepresenting the facts, or being a troll.
huh?
++Rowan has a clear pro-gay view. This did not prevent his appointment to ABC. It is therefore acceptable to hold that view, and another candidate for the post who does not have JJ's history (whether or not he has his sexuality) should be acceptable; indeed it is likely that the bishops will want to appoint one to prove the point, and hopefully he will be accepted by one and all. (at least that is my bet when the dust has settled - in the heat of the moment, the 9 may have gone further than they would want to)
JJ caught it as a symbol of something which a substantial group (majority or minority - who knows) of those in the CofE and the wider communion were not prepared to accept. He was a symbol because there is a perception that the liberal establishment is pushing forward its agenda on the gay issue despite deep resistance in the pews, and that the appointment of JJ was 'taking the urine'. Enough was enough; the opposition united and rose to resist. The future will show if this leads to a united front on other issues (like taking the promises about equal treatment of the opponents of women priests seriously ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) ) or whether it is a 'one issue coalition'.
Fr G - there's no problem with the Archbishops of the Anglican communion getting together - there are regular primates meetings. It's just that the West - i.e. the USA and the UK - are dominated by people who think they know better than the combined wisdom of the primates - so the views of the wider church are a matter of total irrelevance to them. The emphasis is 'provincial autonomy' - not 'collective wisdom'.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
ES I think you are caricaturing your opponents. I, for example, do not believe for one second in 'provincial autonomy'. Indeed, I am more extreme than you appear to be and hold that the Anglican Communion has no right to define doctrine apart from the universal Church.
BUT, there are questions. Firstly, how do matters of faith relate to matters of morals (not just homosexuality, but also polygamy, het promiscuity and other things I want to imperialistically oppress the god-fearing Anglicans of the developing world over ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) )? Secondly, how are we to behave during a period when the Church universally is in a period of debate and discernment. The 'gay debate' is not a peculiarly Anglican phenomenon. I think the Church is going through a period of thought and development on this question. I think this will take decades to issue in anything concrete. I think that over that period diverse opinions and practices will co-exist. I don't have a problem with this, because this is the way the Church goes about developing. We are a pilgrim people - and that entails not always having all the answers.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I think the latest events - which happened whilst I was out of the country, hence no immediate reaction (probably just as well) - makes me think the following.
1. That this was a case of the most appalling bullying - behaviour not worthy of any organisation, let alone a church
2. That the long-held views that I have held about evangelical Christianity as a philosophy, and many evangelical Christians, have been confirmed. I cannot think of their beliefs as anything remotely connected to mine.
3. That the Church of England, as it now stands, is simply not feasible. The sooner a split happens, the better.
4. That the African bishops simply said, honestly and bluntly, what Bishops such as my own really think.
5. That I seriously wonder why I bother with Christianity at all, when secular humanism would lead to a far better society than anything the Church of England's hierarchy has displayed in the past few days.
6. That we need to write to Rowan Williams in the strongest possible terms. Unity on the basis of evil, bigoted bullying is not something worth having.
Heartily sickened.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
I'd just like to say that, as an evangelical, I amappalled at the behaviour of some of the bishops and other fellow evangelicals. We are not all homophobic bigots. This current debacle has done immense harm to the evangelical movement in the CofE.
Why have no evangelicals broken ranks and spoken out in support of JJ? Because Reform and co. would denounce us as 'never really been evangelicals anyway'. Does the label matter then? Personally I think it does, but the more sensible of us have got to speak out now. If that does not happen, then MerseyMike will be right.
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I'm glad that some of you are saying it, Charles. Christina Rees has spoken out, but I gather that she has been shunned by the rest of her evangelical colleagues and labelled 'liberal'.
I actually know a priest here in much the same position, who was regarded as a sound evangelical until their views became known. I don't think that the priest concerned thinks of themeselves as evangelical any longer because of this sort of reaction.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Collins
Shipmate
# 41
|
Posted
As I'm not a member of the CoE or even (any longer) a Christian I've stayed out of this argument as I wouldn't want to intrude on private grief.
It does seem to me, however, if I might say so, that if the CoE had collectively sat down and tried to think of the most effective way to damage itself, to upset and distress the largest number of people, to make itself a complete laughing stock and to find the most unsatisfactory conclusion to the whole self-inflicted episode they could hardly have come up with anything more comprehensively successful than this.
--------------------
John Collins
Posts: 179 | From: Welwyn Garden City, Herts | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
It does seem to me, however, if I might say so, that if the CoE had collectively sat down and tried to think of the most effective way to damage itself, to upset and distress the largest number of people, to make itself a complete laughing stock and to find the most unsatisfactory conclusion to the whole self-inflicted episode they could hardly have come up with anything more comprehensively successful than this.
Is that entirely so? From my crow's nest down in NZ it seems that many people have taken the opinion that (from their perspective) a forward looking liberal appointment was blocked only by a hardline minority. From that perspective the CofE comes out of this looking better than most other organisations.
Although, I myself believe that this whole matter has been very disappointing and most unedifying.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Can the decision by those who opposed Jeffrey John's appointment to call their group the 'Anglican Mainstream' when they are quite clearly not be seen as anything other than an attempt to inflame the situation?
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Cheeky buggers!!!!
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W:
Can the decision by those who opposed Jeffrey John's appointment to call their group the 'Anglican Mainstream' when they are quite clearly not be seen as anything other than an attempt to inflame the situation?
Language is always the first casualty of war.
Cosmo
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W:
Can the decision by those who opposed Jeffrey John's appointment to call their group the 'Anglican Mainstream' when they are quite clearly not be seen as anything other than an attempt to inflame the situation?
Errmmm - what would name would you have preferred, that they would be happy with?
Orthodox Anglicans?
The Real Anglicans?
Faithful Anglicans?
Continuing Anglicans?
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gill H
Shipmate
# 68
|
Posted
I don't agree with the protestors, and I'm saying it if anyone asks me. So far our church has kept its head down and mouth shut, but since we were started by Graham Dow, I expect some will agree with him.
Apparently the vicar mentioned it the other week, but I was away. I'm waiting till I hear the tape and find out what was actually said. If I disagree with it I will write to him.
Favourite comment from my father, a retired vicar: "I thought the worst of the seven deadlies was pride, and I've known many bishops full of that!"
--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.
- Lyda Rose
Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
'Fundamentalists semi-detached from Anglicanism who like getting their clergy trained at diocesan expense and the other benefits of belonging to a large church without being prepared to affirm the diversity that entails.'
as an alternative name. A bit of a mouthfulI must confess.
I was disappointed to see Andrew Goddard's name on the list. He always struck me as a decent and reasonable person.
[ 09. July 2003, 12:51: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw-Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
It's the pensions that are the problem Ken, not the stipends. I'm talking about existing commitments in a length of service scheme.
But nothing the parishes can do will affect that pension money either way, there is no way the dioceses can get hold of it to spend on ongoing current ministry, and any likely scheme of disestablishment would continue to pay the existing beneficiaries from the old money, even if new people had to join a more normal pension fund (as in fact they are doing to some extent already)
So the general points hold:
- there are no vast central funds available to dioceses or provinces of the Church of England other than what is provided by the parishes
- the CofE is in effect a voluntarist membership church, supported financially by the contributions of its members.
- if central financial support of ongoing parish ministry was withdrawn the CofE as a whole could almost certainly cope by a modest increase in giving and a modest rise in the numbers of NSMs. Both already happening anyway - the rise in NSM numbers being very fast.
- but many individual parishes could not - can not - cope with their day-to-day ministry costs without outside support
- so the real question about funds is about how much is redistributed from congregational giving in the richer parishes to support ministry in the poorer parishes.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tim V
Shipmate
# 830
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
I was disappointed to see Andrew Goddard's name on the list. He always struck me as a decent and reasonable person.
Andrew Goddard is a thoroughly decent and reasonable person - I babysit his kids from time to time. It is possible to disagree with JJ's consecration without being hideously bigoted - see other stuff by him here and here. The leaders at Ebbe's and Aldate's are also decent and reasonable. Of course, it's much easier to disagree with someone if you can also imply that they're unchristian.
--------------------
Scots steel tempered wi' Irish fire.
Is the weapon that I desire.
Posts: 212 | From: The crow's nest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Ken
What you say is fair but do you hold the view that there is no financial storm cloud over the Church of England and that further cuts are unlikely?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
quote:
Originally posted by W:
Can the decision by those who opposed Jeffrey John's appointment to call their group the 'Anglican Mainstream' when they are quite clearly not be seen as anything other than an attempt to inflame the situation?
Errmmm - what would name would you have preferred, that they would be happy with?
Orthodox Anglicans?
The Real Anglicans?
Faithful Anglicans?
Continuing Anglicans?
I don't know much about the Anglican Mainstream. But in the context in which this organisation seems to have arisen, how about
- Anglicans against Gay Bishops?
- Conservative Anglicans?
- Anglicans against liberals?
- illiberal Anglicans?
- Anglicans Who Think Things Have Just Gone Too Far?
- Anglicans who would prefer it if other people didn't entertain ideas they don't like?
- James Jones for Pope (just joking, I have a lot of respect for James Jones...I spent a lot of last evening quoting a selection of his very sensible comments at my Fellowship group)
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
How about: Bigots R' Us?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
What you say is fair but do you hold the view that there is no financial storm cloud over the Church of England and that further cuts are unlikely?
No, there is a financial storm, and further cuts are happening.
But I oppose the view that the CofE is being "held to ransom" by a small number of rich evangelical parishes.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
quote:
James Jones for Pope (just joking, I have a lot of respect for James Jones...I spent a lot of last evening quoting a selection of his very sensible comments at my Fellowship group)
I think we must have a different idea of 'sensible', and I can't think of anyone I have less respect for within the CofE.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
In reply to Merseymike
quote:
Originally said by James Jones:
The sexual mores of our society are changing before our eyes. We need wisdom greater than Solomon's to discern the mind of Christ and how to apply the word of God in contemporary culture.
We need to understand that debates about sexuality go to the very core of our being and stir the deepest emotions. All of us need to exercise great restraint while being honest in our arguments. We need to respect the integrity of each other's consciences and refuse the temptation to demonise those with whom we disagree.
If this is to be a genuine debate within the church then we need to be open to at least two possibilities. On the one hand, the mind of the church might well change along the lines that Dr Jeffrey John is arguing...On the other hand, we must be prepared for the alternative scenario which is [the conventional evangelical one]
My italics. I thought that was very sensible...though I don't share James Jones' viewpoint on this, I think it is incredibly important for the 2 sides to be able to discuss the issues as he sugests.
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Merseymike - welcome back. Hope NY was an oasis of sanity far from the loony clutches of the diocese-of-Sydney-on-Merseyside. As for your comments
quote:
1. That this was a case of the most appalling bullying - behaviour not worthy of any organisation, let alone a church
2. That the long-held views that I have held about evangelical Christianity as a philosophy, and many evangelical Christians, have been confirmed. I cannot think of their beliefs as anything remotely connected to mine.
3. That the Church of England, as it now stands, is simply not feasible. The sooner a split happens, the better.
4. That the African bishops simply said, honestly and bluntly, what Bishops such as my own really think.
5. That I seriously wonder why I bother with Christianity at all, when secular humanism would lead to a far better society than anything the Church of England's hierarchy has displayed in the past few days.
6. That we need to write to Rowan Williams in the strongest possible terms. Unity on the basis of evil, bigoted bullying is not something worth having.
Heartily sickened.
I can only agree wholeheartedly ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Welsh ; I should declare an interest as I live in his diocese, and have met him on a number of occasions.
I have written to him to say these words, and received a reply which simply didn't deal with the questions raised.
Which are - relating to the quotes - that his wish for 'dialogue' does not prevent him being in the very vocal forefront of anything within the Church which wishes to prevent further acceptance of gay people, and that I have not once ever heard him support anything pro-gay without consider4able 'but's'.
And if there is one thing that was done in the Jeffrey John case, it was both demonisation, and worst of all , bullying - and I regard Jones as the worst bully of the lot. I have also never got a straight answer from him as to, if his 'side' wins the day, what he actually thinks the gay people in the CofE and those who want to see an inclusive church should do.
To be honest, I don't really want an 'inclusive' church if it has to include those of Jones' ilk. I would prefer a split and then we can get on with being Christians without being held back by conservative evangelicals.
Thanks Angloid ; thewre are many of us here who feel the same way. And did you notice that out of the last batch of ordinands in this diocese, only one was a conservative evangelical?
[ 09. July 2003, 20:14: Message edited by: Merseymike ]
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pope Adrian 1:
... but the thought of what homosexuals do still turns my stomach.
I can't think of anything that homosexuals do in bed which isn't part of the repertoire of most heterosexual couples.
I think Stephen Fry quite rightly said that people who are disgusted by homosexuality actually just don't like sex very much.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Fiddleback
I referred to this in the Dead Horses thread (and that's the place for this). However, briefly, and without elaboration here ... I think that there is more to it than this. Visceral disgust can be sexual (and therefore sometimes onmi-sexual) but there is also the disgust factor of same gender LOVE. I am inclined to think that this is the primary issue. Males are expected to fight and compete, friendship is of the back-slapping variety only ... which is probably why many het males have this thing about lesbian sex .... and why that (sic) has never been illegal.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Merseymike:
quote:
I have written to him to say these words, and received a reply which simply didn't deal with the questions raised.
There was an article about a priest in Southwark in the Church Times recently. Jones had written an article in the Torygraph saying that homosexuality must be wrong because if we were all gay the race would die out. The priest wrote to him saying that if the categorical imperative were to be applied to celibacy, it would also fail. Jones wrote back to the effect that he'd had lots of letters from readers who agreed with him (well, the article was in the Torygraph, after all).
There is an intelligent traditionalist case against homosexual practice. I don't think it would be a wholly bad thing if it were heard. But we don't hear it. What we do hear is:
a) Proof-texting/ selective fundamentalism - it's in the Bible and the Bible is always right. Like slavery, anti-semitism, subordination of women etc.
b) Spin - See above. Clearly +Jones has a great future in Tony Blair's cabinet if the episcopate doesn't work out.
c) Rectal demons - see +Dow.
d) Bastardised sociobiology - "the penis belongs to the vagina". +Dow again.
e) Visceral loathing - see under ++Nigeria.
What is more, those bishops and clergy who don't take such a position are either silent in the face of such crassness either out of political opportunism (criticising one's allies in the midst of the fight is never easy) or in the cause of "unity". I think that this is a betrayal of our gay brothers and sisters in the Church, for whose fidelity and service in the face of such bigotry, we should be profoundly grateful for. It is also a far better argument for atheism than anything that you will find in the works of Bertrand Russell or Richard Dawkins.
Quite where that takes us I have no idea. But a good and decent man has been pilloried and bullied by the leaders of the Anglican communion and as an Anglican I am bitterly ashamed.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Exactly. Honestly, since when was anyone claiming that everyone should be gay or that being gay is anything other than a minority pattern. A bogus argument if I ever heard one.
![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Professor Yaffle
I agree with Merseymike concerning your piece. However, having dealt with visceral loathers quite a bit recently, (in the teaching profession I have to say), I think the "disgust" factor is far more prevalent than we care to admit. Pseudo-rationalists and pseudo-liberals are so ashamed by these base feelings, however, (in that they contradict their "liberal" self-understanding on other matters), that they pretty-up their arguments and explanations with nonsense. Do they believe their own rationalising rhetoric? I doubt it. Better to bring them back to disgust ... the true feeling.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
quote:
There is an intelligent traditionalist case against homosexual practice. I don't think it would be a wholly bad thing if it were heard. But we don't hear it.
Let me see if I can try.
I grew up in a Church of England of country parishes and quite small communities. My Uncle, Grandfather and two Great-Grandfathers were incumbents of such parishes. It was assumed that every English man and woman was a member of the Church of England unless they were positively something else. The people in their communities were not particularly evangelical, and certainly not fundamentalist, but they attended their parish churches on most Sundays, and for the most part they tried to live what they considered to be good Christian lives; that is to say, they tried to live their lives according to the moral teaching in the Bible, and according to the common law, which was based on the Bible. I think one could call them traditionalist members of the Church of England. In most town and city parishes the same attitudes prevailed, though not such a high proportion of the inhabitants went regularly to church.
One of the most abhorrent crimes under the common law was buggery (and let us not use euphemistic terms like "homosexual relations" - buggery is the word used by Parliament in the Sexual Offences Act 1967 which decriminalised it between consenting adult men over the age of 21, and the present debate would be clarified if it was used to denote the activity of which it is the subject matter, to avoid confusion with "celibate" homosexual relations). In the Middle Ages it was said to be "peccatum illud horribile, inter Christianos non nominandum" ("that abominable sin not to be named among Christians"). The punishment for anyone convicted of buggery both parties were equally liable - was, of course, death, though there is a difference of opinion about the means by which the death sentence was to carried out: burning (Britton), burying alive (Fleta), hanging for men and drowning for women (Coke). The 14th century Mirror of Justices joins buggery with heresy and apostasy as a form of treason against God.
When buggery between consenting adults in private was decriminalised, we were assured that this did not make it any the less sinful, only that it was no longer thought appropriate for the law to intervene in what occurred in private, and that there was a clear distinction to be drawn between what was sinful and what was unlawful - Lord Devlin devoted one of his Hamlyn Lectures to the difference, if I remember correctly.
Sir Patrick Cormack MP, who is a member of General Synod, put it well on the Today programme this morning:
"There are an awful lot of people in the Church of England who do hold to the traditional beliefs of the Church of England and the Christian Church. They're not bigots, they're people who do believe that their clergy should either be celibate or they should be married, married to a woman, or if they're female clergy married to a man. That is a long held traditional belief. It is one of the things that has helped to hold the Church together over the years. People who have an assertive gay lifestyle ... do challenge those traditional beliefs in a way that many find rather difficult. ... That is how people behave towards their clergy in the Church of England, and they do not expect to have an alternative lifestyle, as it were, thrust in their face. ... It is held to be a sin by many, and those who are committing that sin are answerable to their Maker, and I just do not wish them to thrust it forward."
I would call this a traditionalist approach; and it does not rely on any of the five elements which Professor Yaffle criticises. The prohibitions in Leviticus underlie the common law, but traditionalists do not need to look them up - they just know that buggery is wrong. No amount of special pleading will persuade them that what they know to be wrong is merely a misinterpretation of a rule laid down 3000 years ago in quite different social circumstances, which can now be reinterpreted to mean the opposite. The reason that Jesus did not condemn it, which is quoted by some as significant, is obvious: no one in 1st century Judaism would have dreamt of arguing the contrary (cf divorce, on which there was a genuine difference of opinion at the time).
I agree with Fr Gregory that the "disgust" factor also plays a part, and I am not ashamed to say that I find buggery disgusting. I like to think that in many respects I am a liberal, but in this one I am a humble traditionalist.
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Good summary, Egg! Though of course JJ had said he is now celibate... and I would still agree that more is being made over this than about various bishops' beliefs about the nature of Christ, about the Resurrection, what the Crucifixion does for us, etc. and I am still quite sad that JJ did not get to be bishop. (And think it would be great if he were made to be, on the grounds that his humility is badly needed right now...)
David
[ 10. July 2003, 17:02: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
I am not ashamed to say that I find buggery disgusting. I like to think that in many respects I am a liberal, but in this one I am a humble traditionalist.
You have reached this opinion after trying it?
Or do you just not like watching other people doing it?
Or thinking about them doing it?
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
long held traditional belief. It is one of the things that has helped to hold the Church together over the years. People who have an assertive gay lifestyle ... do challenge those traditional beliefs in a way that many find rather difficult. ... That is how people behave towards their clergy in the Church of England, and they do not expect to have an alternative lifestyle, as it were, thrust in their face. ... It is held to be a sin by many, and those who are committing that sin are answerable to their Maker, and I just do not wish them to thrust it forward."
There were some long held traditionalist beliefs on the Caribbean slave plantations too, by people who thought slavery was justified by natural law and endorsed by the Bible. Surprise, surprise, they weren't all ogres but they perpetuated a set of beliefs and institutions which treated others like shit just the same.
In fact, they were the sort of people who didn't like all the new fangled talk about black and coloured people but who insisted on calling them 'niggers'. Your attitude and insistence on using the more offensive word is not any better.
As for your Tory MP who goes on about people having things 'thrust in their face.' and who says "I just do not wish them to thrust it forward." I simply couldn't make that up - it is beyond satire.
You may think you are a 'humble traditionalist' but that's certainly not what springs to mind when I read your post. Purgatory rules forbid that I spell out exactly what I think of it.
Louise
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Your attitude and insistence on using the more offensive word is not any better.
As for your Tory MP who goes on about people having things 'thrust in their face.' and who says "I just do not wish them to thrust it forward." I simply couldn't make that up - it is beyond satire.
Agrees
With Louise
On both counts
And I'll stop rhyming now before someone upon me does pounce... ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif)
I did say "good summary," not "I think everything you say is spot on," after all. Wanted to make that clear...
I would say that some of the arguments used in the slave situation were very likely valid ones as well, but that they were also misused to justify things which weren't warranted. I tend to think that the same principle applies here to the way JJ has been treated.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
IMO Sir Patrick Cormack's contribution to the Today programme had the sole effect of playing into the hands of Richard Dawkins et. al. who question the desirability of the continued existence of Radio 4's 'god slot'.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Egg ; I assume, then , that you have no problem with gay couples who do not have anal intercourse ?
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear David
My mouth cannot agree with the thrust of your rhyme. "Counts" requires that I press my tongue to the roof of my mouth in a sibilant manner; "pounce" however only requires a faint whispering exhalation over the tongue.
However, by modern standards of pseudo-rhyme "you are a poet and I didn't know it!"
This of course has bugger all to do with the OP but I am unrepentant.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Wasteland
Apprentice
# 4700
|
Posted
I occasionally pop in to have a look now and again - to see if anyone posts anything useful.
Egg's post is good. I especially like:
quote:
In the Middle Ages it was said to be "peccatum illud horribile, inter Christianos non nominandum" ("that abominable sin not to be named among Christians"). The punishment for anyone convicted of buggery both parties were equally liable - was, of course, death, though there is a difference of opinion about the means by which the death sentence was to carried out: burning (Britton), burying alive (Fleta), hanging for men and drowning for women (Coke). The 14th century Mirror of Justices joins buggery with heresy and apostasy as a form of treason against God.
A better advert for secular humanism I could hardly have written myself.
Irrational primitive rules than mandate the persecution and murder of the innocent are hardly a viable basis for a positive life philosophy.
We need to move forward. LGBT people should not be party to such a hate fuelled and backward belief system. Nor do they need to be. It is perfectly possible to break free of all this nonsense and build a more positive life for yourself. The key is self-respect and a true sense of valuing your fellow man/woman regardless of race or sexuality etc.
The alternatives are there for those who wish to look:
http://www.galha.org
--------------------
but there is no water...
Posts: 27 | From: The wilderness | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Sadly, many people I know have come to the same conclusion as The Wasteland. If the Church continues in the same vein, there will be many more.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Sadly, many people I know have come to the same conclusion as The Wasteland. If the Church continues in the same vein, there will be many more.
I am curious as to the use of the term "conclusion", here, given that the author of the Waste Land itself moved on quite dramatically from where he was in 1922 and embraced a very mystical form of religion. Perhaps these "many" people are simply in a place of transition. Having read the Waste Land, perhaps they will go on to follow Eliot to Ash Wednesday and even Little Gidding (though if they have any sense they'll avoid Burnt Norton, because it's rubbish.)
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
Posted by Merseymike
quote:
Egg, I assume then, that you have no problem with gay couples who do not have anal intercourse ?
No, no problem at all. There are innumerable examples of same sex companionship, friendship, love, from David and Jonathan or Jesus and the disciple whom He loved onwards, which are entirely admirable. Some men prefer the company of other men to the company of women, and some women prefer the company of other women to the company of men, and the same sex relationships can become very close. Of course there is nothing wrong in that. But, as John Littler says in the best of the letters in to-day's Church Times, "It would help if it was realised that many people in the pew, and many non-churchgoers, have severe doubts about the morality abd desirability of homosexual practices, even if they are legal. Legality is only equivalent to morality in a theocracy, They do not relish being called 'homophobes' when they may know and value many 'homosexuals'."
That is my position too; and I was merely trying to show that it was based not only on the moral teaching in the Bible but also on the fixed rule of the common law over many centuries, which is based on the moral teaching in the Bible, that anal intercourse is and has always, until the present generation, been regarded as one of the most unspeakable of sins against God and crimes against humanity. JJ is not prepared to say that he was wrong to commit it, so that no question of repentance and forgiveness arises, and he cannot therefore maintain that he supports the current teaching of the Church in Issues in Human Sexuality, even if, for whatever reason, he no longer practises what he once did. I believe there is a good deal of justification for the 'traditionalist' view that, in these circumstances, his undoubted talents would be better not employed in the office of a bishop.
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
I'm sorry... I know I haven't read everything about this, but have I missed the part where JJ said he really enjoyed a good ass-fucking? Or anywhere that he detailed what his sexual practices were?
And look, guys, our cute little atheist crusader is back!! Another case study to add to my thesis about adult converts to any religion being the most obnoxious ones around.
[ 11. July 2003, 11:08: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Atmospheric Skull
Antlered Bone-Visage
# 4513
|
Posted
I realise this isn't really a question for this thread, but perhaps egg could answer it on the Homosexuality and Christianity thread in Dead Horses.
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
That is my position too; and I was merely trying to show that it was based not only on the moral teaching in the Bible but also on the fixed rule of the common law over many centuries, which is based on the moral teaching in the Bible, that anal intercourse is and has always, until the present generation, been regarded as one of the most unspeakable of sins against God and crimes against humanity.
Um... so, what's wrong with it, exactly?
I mean, if you're accusing a whole group of people of a crime against humanity, you'd need some pretty damn compelling evidence I'd have thought. So how, precisely, does two people having anal sex harm humanity in your view?
--------------------
Surrealistic Mystic.
Posts: 371 | From: Bristol, UK | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
That is my position too; and I was merely trying to show that it was based not only on the moral teaching in the Bible but also on the fixed rule of the common law over many centuries, which is based on the moral teaching in the Bible, that anal intercourse is and has always, until the present generation, been regarded as one of the most unspeakable of sins against God and crimes against humanity. JJ is not prepared to say that he was wrong to commit it, so that no question of repentance and forgiveness arises, and he cannot therefore maintain that he supports the current teaching of the Church in Issues in Human Sexuality, even if, for whatever reason, he no longer practises what he once did. I believe there is a good deal of justification for the 'traditionalist' view that, in these circumstances, his undoubted talents would be better not employed in the office of a bishop.
Hang on egg.
1. You don't know that this applies to JJohn.
2. You don't know that this *doesn't* apply to any other bishop, married or unmarried, heterosexual or homosexual. Hadn't you better start writing round to them all about what their sexual experience has been?
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Egg. I don't know if you are aware of this, but....
1. It is perfectly possible to have a sexual relationship with someone without it involving anal sex.
2. This is just as much the case for gay men as for heterosexual couples. Many gay couples have sexual relationships, but they do not involve anal sex.
Personally, I don't share your view, but you seem under an inaccurate misapprehension as to the nature of gay sexual relationships.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
