homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Bishops' stance on Jeffrey John (Page 9)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Bishops' stance on Jeffrey John
The Wasteland
Apprentice
# 4700

 - Posted      Profile for The Wasteland         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What, exactly, do you all imagine you are discussing here?

Imagine if the Nazis had won WWII and, during the centuries following their victory, had begun to dismantle/backtrack on all of the distasteful elements of their philosophy…

- The anti-Semitism
- The sexism
- The use of slave labour
- The homophobia
- The pogroms and ethnic cleansings

What would you be left with? Surely only a shadow of the true and original Nazism?

The Judeo/Christian religions, whether people are honest enough to admit it or not, contain all the same views and opinions as Nazism buried within Biblical text. Just take a look at the long, sordid, history of witch-burning, Inquisitions and so forth that this religion has inflicted on the world. Now it is becoming increasingly obvious that Christianity’s hatred of gay people is equally sordid and distasteful. Consequently the more astute of the Christian theologians are realising that it might well be time to conveniently sweep that nasty little prejudice under the carpet as well.

However, this latest flurry of in-fighting over the gay Bishop has allowed everyone else to see the fundamentalist fanatics in their true colours – vicious and hateful witch-burners - full of their own self-righteousness and sense of moral superiority. It is clear they lack any sense of compassion for anyone who happens to be different from themselves. Such crocodile tears as they do shed and the few platitudes they choose to mouth, represent nothing more than a self-engrandizing attempt to try to prove (against all evidence to the contrary) that they actually care about people.

In reality, it seems to me, that they care about nothing apart from their own legalistic obsession with the precise meanings of ancient dusty tombs of made-up fairy tales. And, demonstrating their own rigid adherence to this mumbo-jumbo serves no real purpose beyond filling themselves with a smug sense of superiority at the expense of their fellow man.

No wonder that the literal meanings of dead text and such impersonal concepts as “unity” mean far more to them than the suffering of real people.

However, this is a “blessing” in disguise. Because it shows people the truth! And the truth is that, in the matter of the conflict between religion and sexuality the problem is NOT sexuality – nor has it ever been. The problem is RELIGION! Perhaps now many more people will WAKE UP and GROW UP and ditch all this antiquated fiddle faddle and adopt a more sensible and appropriate philosophy for the C21st – i.e. atheist secular humanism. Ain’t no magic imaginary god gonna save us and make it all better. There is ONLY us. We’ve got to grow up as a species and start taking genuine responsibility for ourselves rather than relying on people who died 2000+ years ago to do our thinking for us. We have to do our own thinking now. This age is not their time anymore & their ideas are (not surprisingly) defunct. This is our age. This is our time. It is up to us to shape it.

As far as I am concerned, the sooner we see the back of these disgusting primitive belief systems the better. It is time to more forward and ditch the crap. This latest incident, perhaps more than any other, will hopefully help many other people in the LGBT community to realise (as indeed I myself realised some considerable time ago) that religion has no role to play in the society of the future & the sooner we see the back of it the better.

As a secular humanist and EX Christian, I accept I have no business on a Christian website really. This is your haven & under normal circumstances I’d quite happily let you get on with it. However at this particular time & in this particular context I think you all could do with reminding of how others outside the Christian community – especially within the LGBT community itself – actually view recent events with regard to JJ. At last people in the LGBT community will be able to see your religion for the enemy it truly is.

I will now leave you in peace & you can get on with discussing the impending demise of your religion.

--------------------
but there is no water...

Posts: 27 | From: The wilderness | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh how cute! An atheist crusader. We haven't had one of those for MONTHS! Isn't it just adorable?

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
'Justus'
Shipmate
# 2424

 - Posted      Profile for 'Justus'   Email 'Justus'   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:
"African bishops denounced homosexuality as an abomination, with the Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, claiming that such conduct was lower than that of beasts ...
The leader also chooses to name only one opponent of Jeffrey John, The Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola who it describes as "bigoted".

I would have thought that implying that homosexuals are lower than beasts is full-on in yer face bigoted.

quote:
=> Why does it not mention that many evangelicals consider the appt of JJ to be a breach?
=> And why does it deliberately pick this comment to represent the evangelical case?

Probably becuase the person who made it is an Archbishop.

quote:

Dr John's acknowledgement that, although he was in a relationship he was now celibate and would not campaign for a change in church policy, did not win over opponents who demanded that he should also openly "repent" of his past.

=> What this doesn't make clear is that the reason for the repentence was that it the evangelicals felt that this repentence was necessary because otherwise he would be violating the document: Issues in Human Sexuality"

And what your post ignores is that even though he pledged to be celibate, so as to uphold the Issues in Human Sexuality document, that for many evangelicals this wasn't enough.

quote:

"Dr Williams was not allowed to bring any staff with him from his previous post and has inherited all his predecessor's officials."
=> "Not allowed?": Was he banned from appointing his own staff? This is an incredibly loaded phrase which suggests that he was banned from employing his own people. AR makes this point in his earlier post.

If the officials referred to were employed as lay people, and had been in post for over a year, then they have employment rights. You can't just sack someone becuase you come in new to the job and someone else appointed them. Well, you can but you'd get sued and would probably lose.

quote:
In addition- they carried a leader headed "The Bigots Win"- which was a shocking way of tarring all evangelicals with the same brush of fundamentalist prejudice.

If I was writing that piece I probably would have used the same headline, becuase right now that's just how it feels from where I'm sitting.
Posts: 295 | From: York | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

 - Posted      Profile for Wood   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Moderator Hat On

The Wasteland, thanks for your helpful and constructive contribution to our debate. We haven't had a post like your yours for, oh, days now.

If you do wish to join in, please read the guidelines of the Ship of Fools boards and for Purgatory, and please try and keep on topic.

Thanks awfully.

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Terry Eagleton once made the point that there is a perverse commanlity of interest between, on the one had, reactionary Christians, and, on the other, atheist humanists, in that both of them deny the possibility of the Christian gospel having emancipatory potential. I think The Wasteland has done a grand job of demonstrating this in practice. [Big Grin]

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by The Wasteland:

quote:
The problem is RELIGION! Perhaps now many more people will WAKE UP and GROW UP and ditch all this antiquated fiddle faddle and adopt a more sensible and appropriate philosophy for the C21st – i.e. atheist secular humanism.
Thank you for the helpful advice. I shall write to the Bishop resigning my orders forthwith.

Incidentally, should a man of your stern views and cultured nature be naming himself after a poem by Eliot? Wouldn't Hymn to Prosperine, or something, be more apposite?

--------------------
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
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385

 - Posted      Profile for Flying_Belgian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Makesachange

My point with these quotes was that the the only individual statements from opponents which got reported were those from the more extreme opponents. Little or no coverage was given to more mainstream opponents, creating a false impression of those who opposed the appointment.

Simply because the guy was an archbishop doesn't mean that he is automatically representative.

In the case of staff- the point you make about employment rights is correct but the term "not allowed to bring in any new ones" is a very loaded way of describing the situation. And as has been made abudantly clear, these conspiracy theories are not well proven to say the least.

The coverage seemed to be in the vein of always referring to the most militant and outspoken opponents rather than representing their case fairly.

Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alt Wally

Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245

 - Posted      Profile for Alt Wally     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Anyone know of a good Atheist-Humanistic board I could empty my spleen on? I caught myself feeling compassion today for someone whose opinions differ from mine and I'm looking for a way to work through that.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994

 - Posted      Profile for Adrian1   Email Adrian1   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Fr Gregory said:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so long as he is discreet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I make the following charges against this phrase:-

(1) DISHONEST - "you can be gay (actively or not) so long as you are not plain speaking about it."
(2) HYPOCRITICAL / COWARDLY - "we welcome gay people - (but actually we think they should keep their heads down)"
(3) DAMAGING - forcing people to lie and dissemble to others is psychologically damaging ... not only to the persons concerned but also to others who relate to them.

Even if being discreet in a mandatory manner was acceptable (which it is not) ... who ratcheted this up in the public domain in the first place?

Fr Gregory, I take your points on board but in the absence of a genuine consensus in the Anglican Church at this time, I feel that doing as he pleases in accordance with his conscience but being discreet about it, is the one honourable course open to Canon John. Having at one time held a far from liberal position on such matters, I've come to take the view that so long as they are acting within the law of the land, consenting adults should do as they please behind closed doors. Not everyone has the same values or tolerance threshhold though and for these reasons, discretion is the better part of valour.

[Wink] [Eek!] [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue

Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Adrian1

If an individual chooses to keep his/her head down so be it; but to make it the policy of a church?! [Eek!] [Confused] [Eek!]

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
shareman
Shipmate
# 2871

 - Posted      Profile for shareman   Email shareman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Oh how cute! An atheist crusader. We haven't had one of those for MONTHS! Isn't it just adorable?

What I like most about them is that they think no-one's said this stuff before! It's so cute, really.

--------------------
Israel also came into Egypt, and Jacob was a stranger in the land of Ham.

Posts: 516 | From: on a rock AND a hard place | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by anglican rascal
quote:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by angloid:
Jensen rides again?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not confuse ++Carey with ++Jensen.

I wasn't intending to suggest that Carey was in any way similar to Jensen, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. What I meant was, Carey, in swinging the church massively in an evangelical direction, helped to create a climate of opinion in which Jensenite views could begin to be seen as respectable.

--------------------
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
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

 - Posted      Profile for Wood   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Host Hat Still On

Guys, you're all heart (except for Erin, who crossposted my gag before me), but please let's not feed the atheist. It's not healthy.

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Wood <tangent, forgive me>
I agree but atheism is fed by fundamentalism and there is little of that here. Perhaps our atheist friend will spew us out of his mouth as neither hot nor cold.
<end tangent>

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211

 - Posted      Profile for barrea     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Wood <tangent, forgive me>
I agree but atheism is fed by fundamentalism and there is little of that here. Perhaps our atheist friend will spew us out of his mouth as neither hot nor cold.
<end tangent>

Fundimentalists If thats what you call us,there are a few of us left and still on the ship

--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1

Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494

 - Posted      Profile for Gareth   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If there is a shred of truth in this article in The Times today, then the only reason JJ resigned is because of the very real prospect of the Evangelicals bankrupting the Anglican church. In short, it was blackmail.

So the best solution, then, would be to restructure the church - especially its finances - so that theological issues are no longer held to ransom by a wealthy minority with no conscience.

Worth considering?

--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke

Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Gareth

quote:
So the best solution, then, would be to restructure the church - especially its finances - so that theological issues are no longer held to ransom by a wealthy minority with no conscience.
Ah! Now you've hit it! The Church Commissioners lost £80 million in the Ashord investment debacle ...

See Hansard here ...

Hansard (Mr. Flynn under "Church Funds")

This was at a time in the 90's when some £800 million had been wiped off global assets through over exposure in vulnerable sectors ... thereby threatening, amongst others, my (deferred) pension.

The truth is that the CofE has been living off the legacy of its past for a long time and the chickens have now come home to roost.

For the evangelicals not to have such a grip over current income is well nigh impossible unless the pastoral structure, the assets (buildings) and the finance undergo a major overhaul.

The JJ issue cannot be separated from the disestablisment issue IMO for it is only that which will allow the CofE to slim down for a task that it is capable of without becoming vulnerable to "he who pays the piper."

They are much bigger issues at stake here. It's either that or more threats or an amicable separation. I really don't think though that CofE is psychologically prepared for major surgery.

Affirming Catholics thought that they could forge a future after the awkward brigade had left. The Catholic movement was split by the ordination of women. The rump of the CofE now belongs to Dow & Co. Abp. Rowan's appointment now increasingly looks like tokenism ... which is a shame because I think that he is the best Archbishop the CofE has had since Ramsey.

[ 07. July 2003, 22:30: 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
Marama
Shipmate
# 330

 - Posted      Profile for Marama   Email Marama   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I find it extremely hard to believe that the most pressing problem in the archdiocese of Nigeria has any relation to homosexuality. Can't people get their priorities a bit straighter - poverty, corruption, Pres Bush's visit and possible interference, relations with Muslims - and +Peter thinks GAYS are the his main problem!
I note that the strong Anglican church in PNG and the Solomons have said nothing - they really have got more important issues to deal with. A number of the Anglican Melanesian Brotherhood, on a peace mission, are being held hostage on the Gaudalcanal weather coast - held, it seems by a madman.

Posts: 910 | From: Canberra | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Wood <tangent, forgive me>
I agree but atheism is fed by fundamentalism and there is little of that here. Perhaps our atheist friend will spew us out of his mouth as neither hot nor cold.
<end tangent>

Fundimentalists If thats what you call us,there are a few of us left and still on the ship
Actually, we call you "fundamentalists", since we can spell. Anyway, keep it up. It's good for the atheists to have someone to feed their righteous indignation upon. [Roll Eyes] As for me, I'll just go sit in the corner and despair quietly, if you don't mind.

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
gbuchanan
Shipmate
# 415

 - Posted      Profile for gbuchanan   Email gbuchanan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In response to a couple of postings about the opponents of JJ acting, at least in some cases, from 'High Principle', I have to say that I find that argument deeply unconvincing, and last night I realised why.

As with the gun protection and hunting laws in the UK, I've generally had a fairly strong leaning not to force those who find such activities enjoyable to abandon them. However, the dishonesty with which they have consistently acted - failing to discipline bad practice within their own community, and clear breaches of law to boot, shows a complete lack of high principle across their actions.

Similarly, with the vocal anti-homosexual groups which tout a traditionalist line, and have in this case targetted an individual, the argument of 'High Principle' and how the argument is carried forward clash totally. The approach taken against JJ, as I've observed before in this thread, is clearly intended to prejudice any debate in the area generally, and has been conducted in a highly personal manner. There can be little 'high principle' when the basic tenets of how to treat others as demonstrated in the person of Jesus Christ are so readily thrown away.

I keep on hearing how people can disagree with the acceptability of homosexuality and yet not be homophobic - love the sinner, hate the sin. However, personally, and it may be just imbalance of experience, I've found that there is always a strong overtone of disdain or disgust at least, and I've seen at least two very strong friendships destroyed after people have 'come out' when the other party, despite touting the sin/sinner line, disagrees with there being any moral legitimacy in homosexuality, and actually is not able to demonstrate much love or acceptance of the gay person.

Now, I'm not attempting to argue the ethical point over homosexuality, but the difficulty is that the behaviour of intolerance demonstrated here tends to arouse, as it does in me, a strong backlash which I don't experience when the same view held with some humility and genuine love. I personally would not wish that those who oppose homosexuality being recognised within the CoE to have that ethical view imposed upon them, however, I do feel that they are attempting to impose their view on those of us who are more liberal (in the specific case of this issue). If it is impossible for our views to be represented in the House of Bishops, for example, that is explicitly to nullify our point of view and, implicitly, the validity of our membership. Furthermore, it ensures that our view explicitly must never be represented or permitted to be expressed, even within communities which are predominantly or exclusively so minded.

Fracas such as this actually, as with the gun/hunting/women priests, issues tend to push me emotionally towards a much less inclusive view than I would wish to have. I feel angry at seeing people treated like human refuse, and I feel angry at myself for my emotional response to that.

Also, on a personal note, having been through some really bad experiences in my marriage, I well know that folks who have a conservative view on this tend to be pretty insensitive to my own experiences, though they again decree that they aren't being condescending etc. That presses a bad button too.

I think that the point made earlier on that the 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' viewpoints can't be held readily together due to their contradicting views on the sole primacy of scripture or tradition is an important one. The question, as I see it, is why should pretty much any Liberal view be seen as tantamount to selling out to the Devil and wanting to take others with you, rather than a view which can be reached with integrity and without wishing to impose it on everyone else?

Sorry if this is tangential or otherwise, but I thought it was worthwhile saying...

Posts: 683 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412

 - Posted      Profile for anglicanrascal   Email anglicanrascal   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
So the best solution, then, would be to restructure the church - especially its finances - so that theological issues are no longer held to ransom by a wealthy minority with no conscience.

Errmm - you mean the bishops with their liberal anything-goes mentality or those beastly evangelicals?
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272

 - Posted      Profile for Ender's Shadow   Email Ender's Shadow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
If it is impossible for our views to be represented in the House of Bishops, for example, that is explicitly to nullify our point of view and, implicitly, the validity of our membership.
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.

--------------------
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
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412

 - Posted      Profile for anglicanrascal   Email anglicanrascal   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Degs:
Jeffrey John was a convenient cause celebre to force the ABC into a corner and hopefully undermine his authority.

Well, I don't know if +Oxon was trying to undermine his authority, but I do agree that he was trying to force +Cantuar (and indeed the whole CofE) into a corner. I hope he gets severely reprimanded for his sorry little power display, especially considering the damage that I'm sure it has done to Jeffrey John.

anglirasc

Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138

 - Posted      Profile for ptarmigan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Tangent warming:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
... Abp. Rowan's appointment now increasingly looks like tokenism ... which is a shame because I think that he is the best Archbishop the CofE has had since Ramsey.

Does that include Habgood?

--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)

Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994

 - Posted      Profile for Adrian1   Email Adrian1   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
gbuchanan (no relative of the Rt Rev Colin, I hope) said:

quote:
I keep on hearing how people can disagree with the acceptability of homosexuality and yet not be homophobic - love the sinner, hate the sin. However, personally, and it may be just imbalance of experience, I've found that there is always a strong overtone of disdain or disgust at least, and I've seen at least two very strong friendships destroyed after people have 'come out' when the other party, despite touting the sin/sinner line, disagrees with there being any moral legitimacy in homosexuality, and actually is not able to demonstrate much love or acceptance of the gay person.
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. However, I'm of a mind that so far as I'm concerned they can do what they like so long as it's consensual, legal and private. 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?

[Wink] [Eek!] [Embarrassed]

--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue

Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385

 - Posted      Profile for Flying_Belgian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I see what you are saying.

Unfortunately, the media only seem interesed in the church when there is a scandal, a big row or something to do with sex. This creates the impression that the churches primary concern is sex.

From my experience, issues of sexuality actually occupy only a very small space the in teaching at most evangelical churches, and elsewhere- but the media is only interested in what the church has to say about sex.

Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Habgood was (is) a good egg and had (has) a good mind ... but he wasn't really a leader and inspirer as Ramsay was.

The three monastic vows of poverty, chastity and obedience reveal what might be considered the three most explosive, dynamic and important issues of human life when they go wrong ... sex, money and freedom. It's hardly surprising that the media find them interesting as well. Don't we all?

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:

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.
[Wink] [Eek!] [Embarrassed]
[/QUOTE]

Of course, it might be that the thought of what heterosexuals do turn the homosexuals' stomachs. But everyone expects them to put up with this....
It strikes me as a bit peverted for people to be thinking in such detail about what someone else might be doing, anyway.

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(hey, that was a quick 2 minutes! did try to change the messed up quote.....)

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493

 - Posted      Profile for JoannaP   Email JoannaP   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
According to the BBC :
quote:
Dr Williams, the leader of the world-wide Church, felt he could not ignore the perspective of the Anglican Communion as a whole, and Jeffrey John was persuaded to relinquish his post.

In a statement the next day Dr Williams said "the estrangement of churches in developing countries from their cherished ties with Britain is in no-one's interests.

"It would impoverish us as a Church in every way".

Does this mean that the Church of England will be consulted on (or allowed to object to) appointments made by Diocesan Bishops in other Provinces?

I certainly do not have as high an opinion of the ABC as I did when he was first appointed.

--------------------
"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
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69

 - Posted      Profile for Rev per Minute   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
If it is impossible for our views to be represented in the House of Bishops, for example, that is explicitly to nullify our point of view and, implicitly, the validity of our membership.
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.
Really? You must have been listening to a different argument then: as far as I heard, the complaints about Rowan's appointment were entirely on the 'gay issue', given that he had been honest enough to admit to ordaining a gay priest, to having problems with the 'Issues' document and to actually having a different Biblically- and theologically-based approach to the Christian response to homosexuality. Rowan was attacked by all and sundry in what I will politely call the 'conservative' wing of the Church for 'not upholding the view of Scripture' on homosexuality.

Sadly, the Jeffrey John episode was a perfect chance for that wing to hit Rowan where they thought he was weakest.

--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor

At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken

Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well said.

One wonders how 'cherished' these links actually are if they are in danger of being severed by the appointment of one (celibate) gay bishop.

There is a kind of bizarre patrician racism about the way Western church people deal with bishops from the developing world. When such a bishop says something ill-informed, ignorant or just plain nasty, people will pat them on the head and say 'there, there' whilst talking about what a valuable part of the Church they are. To be frank, someone in England who described homosexuality in as unsubtle terms as his Grace did would not have got through clergy selection let alone been appointed as an Archbishop. "Being part of the same Church" goes two ways, and people need to be more prepared to tell some African bishops that they are talking nonsense sometimes. Not least because in some instances (Zimbabwe) some church folks have been horribly complicit in state repression of gay people - it is just not acceptable to brush this under the table in the name of 'cultural difference.'

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
TonyK

Host Emeritus
# 35

 - Posted      Profile for TonyK   Email TonyK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I wasn't going to post on this, as I felt sure that majority view in favour of JJ's appointment would ensure that it went through as normal.

Now they have lost out.

Since the vocal minority who opposed the appointment 'won' in part at least by their threat to withold their parish quotas, maybe the rest of us should now do the same.

I am ashamed to have to admit to being an active member of the C of E.

--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK

Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Divine Outlaw

This is why the Archbishops of the Anglican Communion need to meet regularly and discuss matters of mutual concern.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bongo
Shipmate
# 778

 - Posted      Profile for Bongo   Email Bongo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
Since the vocal minority who opposed the appointment 'won' in part at least by their threat to withold their parish quotas, maybe the rest of us should now do the same.

It's tempting (and it would be a lot of fun!) but I don't think we should lower ourselves to their level. Isn't there a proverb about heaping burning coals on your opponent's head?...

--------------------
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" ~ Dr Strangelove

Posts: 492 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Flying_Belgian
Shipmate
# 3385

 - Posted      Profile for Flying_Belgian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
100% correct Fr Gregory. The "debate" that we have witnessed over the last month or so is an appalling advert for the church. It should have been conducted outside of the public sphere at a suitable church forum.

If no forum exists, then debates will simply be conducted via the form of civil war.

[ 08. July 2003, 11:22: Message edited by: Flying_Belgian ]

Posts: 984 | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963

 - Posted      Profile for Charles Read   Author's homepage   Email Charles Read   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
For what it's worth I'm not into "queer bashing" but the thought of what homosexuals do still turns my stomach
Oh dear - I'm so sorry the thought of two men or women holding hands while watching TV has made you feel queasy. [Wink]

quote:
the complaints about Rowan's appointment were entirely on the 'gay issue',
Not entirely - some conservative evangelicals thought he was dodgy on doctrine - Gary Williams at Oak Hill even wrote an analysis and denunciation of Rowan's theology. Ann Atkins regularly knocks Rowan for his likening of God to a spastic child - unaware of how crassly insulting she is being to such children and their families, of course. (And Gary W's critique is hopelessly inaccurate too). Then there are those who refer to Rowan's theology as 'obtuse' or 'vague' - which being interpreted means 'I don't quite get it as it's too subtle / profound for me and he's probably a heretic anyway because he's not like me.' This would be [Killing me] if it were not [Waterworks]


And then there's the overseas dimension to the JJ issue. I've never been to Africa but those who have tell me the African Anglican churches often collude with domestic violence, polygamy and heterosexual promiscuity. I am sure many African christian leaders do speak out against such things, but the western church has not objected to the appointment of African bishops who might be 'soft' on these issues - after all, we'd be racist if we did, wouldn't we?!

--------------------
"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
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261

 - Posted      Profile for Paige   Email Paige   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
For what it's worth I'm not into "queer bashing" but the thought of what homosexuals do still turns my stomach.

Adrian--I'd like to discuss this in Dead Horses--Homosexuality and Christianity.

--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection

Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
If there is a shred of truth in this article in The Times today, then the only reason JJ resigned is because of the very real prospect of the Evangelicals bankrupting the Anglican church. In short, it was blackmail.

No, it's bollocks.

Only a tiny minority of evangelical churches are wealthy, only a tiny minority of them are witholding quota, and most of them are still paying more than less well-attended churches.

What does "restructuring finances" mean?

The CofE, like every other church, is financed by its members. The people in the pews. The old days when it was supported out of landownings are long gone.

What restructuring can you suggest that can take money out of the pockets of members of the congregation and give it to causes they do not want to support?

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412

 - Posted      Profile for anglicanrascal   Email anglicanrascal   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
What restructuring can you suggest that can take money out of the pockets of members of the congregation and give it to causes they do not want to support?

Mmmm - some kind of CofE version of Socialism? [Killing me]
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Joanna Porter:

quote:
Does this mean that the Church of England will be consulted on (or allowed to object to) appointments made by Diocesan Bishops in other Provinces?

I certainly do not have as high an opinion of the ABC as I did when he was first appointed.

The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England. Unlike the Archbishop of Nigeria, the Archbishop of Sydney, Rwanda, Singapore....you know the litany.

It appears that the Anglican Communion is split into two wings, one of which believes that the Anglican church is based on scripture, tradition and reason, believes in tolerance, dialogue and consensus, retains the historic threefold order etcetera, and the other of which is a protestant fundamentalist sect which believes it has a mandate to impose it's view on everyone else. The public kicking administered to Jeffrey John is merely an international version of the sort of thing that the Clan Jensen get up to in Sydney.

I would love to be wrong but I have a nasty feeling that this incident vindicates what Merseymike has been saying. Either the communion splits into two or the protestant fundamentalists dictate terms to the rest of us.

I still admire ++Rowan hugely, but if he thinks that he has achieved peace in our time by this he is sadly mistaken.

--------------------
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
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575

 - Posted      Profile for Xavierite         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Archbishop of Canterbury gets a thrashing in today's Independent, courtesy of Deborah Orr. "Power before principle", etc. I would link to the website, but it appears - rather infuriatingly - that they've started charging for access.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Ken

quote:
The CofE, like every other church, is financed by its members. The people in the pews. The old days when it was supported out of landownings are long gone.


That is not strictly true. The cost of maintaining a presence in low income areas and most of the cost of pensions now and in the future is still born by the Church Commissioners ... the inheritors of Queen Anne's Bounty. If the CofE really only did depend on current giving a large proportion of the clergy would have to go because of the pensions issue alone, (see my earlier Hansard link).

[ 08. July 2003, 14:05: 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
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here's that Hansard link for those who can't find it ...

Church Commissioners (Hansard)

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just want to say:

[Waterworks]

[Votive]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46

 - Posted      Profile for Edward Green   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So those who supported JJ, what do we do now? Go to war? Against whom? Picket NEAC? Or worse attend and be very gay about the place?

There is an idea!

Who wants to come to NEAC with me and engage in some light petting and good dressing. I am sure my wife will let me out.

--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin

Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
That is not strictly true. The cost of maintaining a presence in low income areas and most of the cost of pensions now and in the future is still born by the Church Commissioners ... the inheritors of Queen Anne's Bounty. If the CofE really only did depend on current giving a large proportion of the clergy would have to go because of the pensions issue alone, (see my earlier Hansard link).

In that link they pointedly refuse to answer the question about how much of the money the CofE gets through is supplied by the Church Commissioners!

Looking at the CofE's report on stipends a couple of years back, it seems that about 175 million a year.

Just over 20 million of that comes from the Church Commissioners.

So current giving would have to go up by about 10% if the Church Commissioners baled out.

As for pensions - well, none of us under the age of about 50, whether clergy or not, is likely to get the kind of pension that our parent's and grandparent's generations enjoyed. All that's over now. The CofE clergy are in a bad situation, but so are most of their parishioners.

[fixed code]

[ 08. July 2003, 18:48: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211

 - Posted      Profile for barrea     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Actually, we call you "fundamentalists", since we can spell. Anyway, keep it up. It's good for the atheists to have someone to feed their righteous indignation upon. [Roll Eyes] As for me, I'll just go sit in the corner and despair quietly, if you don't mind.

I guess I asked for that for not checking my spelling before I posted, and no I don't mind if you sit in your corner and quietly despair. [Wink]
Strange but I never thought of myself as a fundamentalist before I came on the net.

[fixed UBB for quote, and deleted duplicate post]

[ 08. July 2003, 18:51: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1

Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's the pensions that are the problem Ken, not the stipends. I'm talking about existing commitments in a length of service scheme.

Edward,

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)?

How will the Church know of the orientation of such a person unless he / she chooses to share it? Will there be questionaires for embarrassed selectors and tick boxes? Someone has mentioned web cams already of course.

I was button-holed by a middle-of-the-road-sorta-low-Anglican moralist teacher colleague of mine today who expressed satisfaction that JJ had stepped down. He no doubt expected me (being Orthodox 'n all) to agree. I had to disappoint him of course. What it all boiled down to in the end ... (after I had pinned him against the wall theologically and in terms of the canons / penitential Anglican practice of course) ... was disgust and abnormality; hence my new thread today on "Disgust." Dealing with that is not a political task but a psychosomatic and pastoral one ... and that of course is where Anglicanism has slipped up here.

[ 08. July 2003, 18:51: 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
Never Conforming

Aspiring to Something
# 4054

 - Posted      Profile for Never Conforming   Author's homepage   Email Never Conforming   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have found the many posts here and in Hell very interesting.

On Sunday I found out about the situation just before I went to church. I headed off to church (URC) and during a time for discussing topics for prayer I suggested praying for the Anglican Church (of which I am also a member). When I mentioned this there were cheers from the other members of the congregation. They are entitled to their opinion, despite the fact that I think they are misguided. Anyway, the service continued, and I thought that it was ironic really. The theme was praying for christians who are being persecuted.

Anyone else see potential irony in this?

The other people there didn't realise that anyone could possibly be offended by the responses made to the news. I will find it very hard to continue worshipping there.

As a result of this I spent large amounts of time despairing at churches in general.

Oh well.

Jo

--------------------
I used to poison Student Minds™ and am proud to have done so
Never Conforming in the Surreal World

Posts: 1419 | From: Oop Norf | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools