Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
I'm surprised that you're asking me whether the facilitated conversations or the listening process are worthwhile. The impression we've been given is that the process is seen as a way forward by many of those advocating change. Personally, I have little or no investment in them, and even less optimism that they will bring an end to the impasse in the Church of England.

It was however the use of this kind of process in relation to the issue of women bishops that brought about a breakthrough on that deadlocked debate, and I did encounter many members of Synod who felt that through facilitated conversations they had for the first time come to understand and appreciate the positions of their opponents. So that's why I think that, as a Church, we have to give it a go.

---

quote:

---

Such conversations and debates have, admittedly, been going on in the CofE since at least the 1970s - and our familiarity with the arguments and the pastoral issues on both sides of the divide does mean that we can all probably write compellingly in defence of the position espoused by our opponents.

I don't think that a negotiated two integrities model will work on this issue - the divergence over both hermeneutical and canonical understanding and liturgical practice (lex orandi, lex credendi) makes it far less easy to solve than the ordination of women.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
To buttress the above, ExclamationMark, here's the 2003 letter, signed by the bishops who condemned John's appointment.

It explicitly cites Issues ... -- "We have been repeatedly assured that the House of Bishops' position stated in Issues in Human Sexuality has not changed" -- and claims to welcome celibate same-sex relationships -- "By his own admission he has been in a same-sex relationship for twenty years. We value, of course, the gift of same-sex friendship and if this relationship is one of companionship and sexual abstinence, then, we rejoice."

Care to withdraw your claim about canon law in light of this?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
[QUOTE]Would you accept there exists no realistic chance of persuading a majority of LGBT Anglicans to never express their sexual orientation in a loving relationship?

That being so, barring a viable third option, either the church agrees to disagree (which the affirming camp is willing to do:

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Well it does seem to be supported by Pete173 (see above).

Also, I'd add my concern around tradition (as well as the now familiar scriptural considerations). For Anglicans, I'm told that tradition is a key issue: what tradition is there in the church that permits same sex partnerships?

---

quote:

---

Tradition per se has no positive or negative significance. There are good traditions, bad traditions pilloried in such famous literary stories as Franz Kafka's In the Penal Colony and Shirley Jackson's The Lottery, bad traditions that are historical realities such as cannibalism, foot-binding, and suttee, and traditions that from a public-policy standpoint are neither good nor bad (such as trick-or-treating on Halloween). Tradition per se therefore cannot be a lawful ground for discrimination — regardless of the age of the tradition.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The Church of England's understanding is that any liturgy of the church must express the doctrine of the church. A liturgy for the blessing of gay marriage - or indeed a liturgy for the marriage of gay people in church (assuming the Government removed the "lock") would by definition change the doctrine of the CofE.

Similarly, any change to our understanding of marriage would require canon B30 to be amended.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Well it does seem to be supported by Pete173 (see above).

Also, I'd add my concern around tradition (as well as the now familiar scriptural considerations). For Anglicans, I'm told that tradition is a key issue: what tradition is there in the church that permits same sex partnerships?

---

If you mean gay relationships, none. (I don't buy Boswell's claims.) Just like there was no tradition of ordaining women or remarrying divorcees.

Or, come to that, no tradition of married women being equal partners with their husbands. The abolition of coverture was at least as radical as opening marriage to same-sex couples.

As Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said in his ruling to strike down bans on equal marriage:-

quote:

---

Tradition per se has no positive or negative significance. There are good traditions, bad traditions pilloried in such famous literary stories as Franz Kafka's In the Penal Colony and Shirley Jackson's The Lottery, bad traditions that are historical realities such as cannibalism, foot-binding, and suttee, and traditions that from a public-policy standpoint are neither good nor bad (such as trick-or-treating on Halloween). Tradition per se therefore cannot be a lawful ground for discrimination — regardless of the age of the tradition.

---

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
If you can come up with a hermeneutic to set aside the clear teaching of scripture and tradition on ordaining women, you can come up with a hermeneutic to open marriage to lesbian and gay people.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
In that case, one third of the whole foundation of Anglicanism is incorrect or, at least, inadmissible. Break up the Anglican communion anyone?

I'd have to come back on that court judgement, reflecting that it's given in an American court not an english one which establishes canon law. The mileage may vary with the ocean.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
There is so much wrong with this statement, it takes the breath away. I thought you must have been using over-heated rhetoric, but this is twice that you have spoken of setting aside scripture. Perhaps I really don't understand you.

Is that really what you think those who have been working for the ordination of women and equal standing of gay people in the church have set about doing? Setting aside scripture so that anti-biblical practice can find a place in the church?

If you do then you are in a league with the ACNA, folk in North America who feel that their real complaint against ECUSA and against these innovations is the repudiation of authority, not primarily the innovations themselves.

What the proponents of ordination of women, and those who advocate an equal place in the church for gays, have been doing working to understand scripture and the tradition so that the innovations can be seen to be consonant with scripture and tradition.

There can be no casting aside. See the knee-jerk nonsense that was written on a recent Purgator thread concerning repudiation of stories of OT killing.

The Christian view cannot countenance a cut-n-paste approach to the Bible.

---

quote:

---

This is an issue of biblical authority. Despite much well-intentioned theological fancy footwork to the contrary, it is difficult to see the Bible as expressing anything else but disapproval of homosexual activity. The only alternatives are to try to cleave to patterns of life and assumptions set out in the Bible, or to say that in this, as in much else, the Bible is simply wrong.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Even if the Bible is revelation...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
[cross-posted.]

I read Byron differently, TSA. There's a name for this rhetorical tactic, I'm sure, but I can't think what it is.

---

Bluntness.

quote:

---

Anyway, I read him to be saying: "The way you lot talk about tradition and scripture, one would expect you to be in the camp that thinks ordination of women is against tradition and scripture. But somehow you found a way to convince yourselves that ordination of women is OK. So quit pretending your current position that equal treatment of LGBT people is against tradition and scripture prevents you from acting, because if you wanted to you could convince yourself that equal treatment is OK even in the face of one side's set of arguments that it's against tradition and scripture, just as you did with the ordination of women."

Byron, now I'm curious to know how you meant it, now that The Silent Acolyte has shown me there's a diametrically opposite way to interpret what you're saying, even though he and I are both reading the same words.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Even if the Bible is revelation...

---

So, tell us plainly. Is it? Or, is it not?

---

As I've not appointed myself God's mouthpiece, I've really no idea.

D'you claim to have the inside skinny?

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
There's been a fairly long string of these changes: divine right of kings, charging of interest, slavery, coverture. In the hermeneutical struggles leading up to the Church coming to terms with them, scripture and tradition haven't needed to be set aside.

There is no reason to think that women's orders or equality of treatment for gay people will prove to be any different.

---

quote:

---

Since you've now told us plainly that the bible is not revelation, ...

---

quote:

---

... there doesn't seem to be much point in carrying on the discussion. Saying the "bible is simply wrong" is, simply, the lazy man's way out.

---

quote:

---

I'd rather shelter with the those who oppose women's orders and suppress gays than with those who have no confidence is God's revelation in the bible and tradition and who need to have all the apparent inconsistencies and mysteries resolved in our lifetime. Both of these innovations are less than a generation or two old. I can afford to wait while the Church gets this right.

---

We each of us have our own priorities.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I am rather surprised that no real attention has been given to pete173's explanation of why the two year process is already running about a year behind schedule.

First of all, doesn't anyone else think that it is gobsmackingly complacent of the HoB to delay this and show no sign of understanding the urgency of addressing this properly? The original two years in the Pilling Report was always rather extravagant in my mind. But now we're looking at three years at the least before anything begins to emerge.

Pete - don't you and the other bishops understand that you really don't have the time to fart around like this?

Secondly, the reason given for the delay is that "new material" had to be produced as Pilling wasn't acceptable. Doesn't that sound remarkably like refusing to do anything until you get an answer you like? Effectively, the whole delay over waiting for Pilling to produce his report has been a massive waste of time. For so long, the C of E refused to address this matter, on the grounds that "Pilling is producing his report and it would be wrong to jump the gun. Wait for Pilling to publish his report."

All along, the HoB have appeared, time after time, to be trying to kick this issue into the long grass. "Let's have a report. Let's have two years of 'listening'. Let's get some more material and THEN have two years of listening."

Why don't the HoB get it?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Byron, as paraphrased by AR:
But somehow you found a way to convince yourselves that ordination of women is OK. So quit pretending your current position that equal treatment of LGBT people is against tradition and scripture prevents you from acting, because if you wanted to you could convince yourself that equal treatment is OK even in the face of one side's set of arguments that it's against tradition and scripture, just as you did with the ordination of women."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[...] So if you want to use the ordination of women as your timescale, I'd say gay priests have another generation or so of waiting before they are officially allowed relationships. [...]

---

quote:

---

We have to face the fact that the vast majority of people under 35 not only think that what we're saying is incomprehensible but also think that we're plain wrong and wicked and equate it to racism and other forms of gross and atrocious injustice.

---

Posted                          

• The smallest number of bishops are those who wholeheartedly, without reservation, recognise not only that LGBT people are the people they are because God made them that way - and maybe God made them that way because he WANTS them to be LGB or T?
• The medium sized group can (ought ?) to be subdivided: this is the group which doesn't think that LGBT people should have equal status within the church - the difference within the group is that the smaller section at least has the balls to admit what they think, the hugely greater group just vacillates and fence sits.
• The largest group is made up of traditional "he's a good, safe, committee man" bishops: they're not sure what they think and they're going to make damn certain no one else is sure either. They'd like to think that LGBT can be equal in the sight of God but they're not sure, and they're especially not sure about them being clergy, or being able to be married. So they'll stick to their tried and trusted formula which is (metaphorically) putting their fingers in their ears and chanting "la la la" to drown out the insistent pleas from others to actually nail their colours to the mast. So they'll drone on about being 'supportive' and 'being alongside' LGBT people, etc, its pretty meaningless.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
[...] The largest group is made up of traditional "he's a good, safe, committee man" bishops: they're not sure what they think and they're going to make damn certain no one else is sure either. [...]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The Newspaper article you quote, surprisingly for the odious Jonathan Petre, cites accurately what I said. It was his teaching that I was questioning. I made no statement about his personal life. I think he's a fine theologian. But his teaching is not consonant with scripture, canons, or the tradition of the Church.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
I'm sure the pro-women hermeneutics are made in good faith, but the Greek didn't change after 2,000 years. Society changed, and an interpretive framework used to reconcile scripture with that change.

Interpretation of any text, let alone an ancient text in a dead language, is an active, two-way process. We don't passively receive meaning: we inject as much as we take. We must. Nature of texts.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
These two passages are saying two different things. The first says that there is a single correct and clear meaning of the text, and the text is wrong. Any hermeneutic effort to reinterpret the clear meaning is well-meaning but misguided. The second paragraph says the meaning of the text is relative to the society in which it is being interpreted, and therefore the hermeneutic efforts of the pro-women camp are sound at least in principle.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The Newspaper article you quote, surprisingly for the odious Jonathan Petre, cites accurately what I said. It was his teaching that I was questioning. I made no statement about his personal life. I think he's a fine theologian. But his teaching is not consonant with scripture, canons, or the tradition of the Church.

---

I don't doubt that your concern was and is for the teaching of the Church, not the private life of one potential bishop. But could it seriously be suggested that a hypothetical candidate for bishop, with exactly the same views and teaching of Jeffrey John, but who happened to be straight and married, would have faced anything like the same opposition?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

Does Pete173 believe there's any realistic prospect that a majority of LGBT Anglicans will agree to suppress their sexuality for life?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
That's the question. All the flannel about being relevant to the younger generation and so on lends urgency to the decision, but it cannot and must not obscure the fundamental issue.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

That's the question. All the flannel about being relevant to the younger generation and so on lends urgency to the decision, but it cannot and must not obscure the fundamental issue.

And like pete173, I don't see how you can possibly end up with a "two integrities" model here. This is an all-or-nothing choice, and the fact is that a significant number of people on the losing side are likely to walk. That's unfortunate, but I don't see a way of avoiding it.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

As to the question "why are we in this process?" - the answer is that I'm not sure. But a bit like the OOW discussions, this is the only ball in play at present, so I guess we have to go with it. Those arguing for change are, I recognise, impatient. But the impatience is based on the presupposition that the Church must acquiesce in what Government has done and that it's pellucidly clear that we should introduce blessings and marriages into the CofE. But that's not where the whole Church is. So you have to win hearts and minds and achieve legislative and liturgical change (which of course go together). The conversations are prior to this.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
... But the impatience is based on the presupposition that the Church must acquiesce in what Government has done ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Those arguing for change are, I recognise, impatient. But the impatience is based on the presupposition that the Church must acquiesce in what Government has done...

---

quote:

---

I'm sure the pro-women hermeneutics are made in good faith, but the Greek didn't change after 2,000 years.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
I believe that LGBT people should be held to the same standards in their sexual relationships as straight people. To me, that means the option of getting married should be open to them as well. It should also mean that they are subject to the same sanctions as others who are guilty of sexual sins. How many churches do you know who throw people out for fornication? How many PCCs are in the habit of cross-examining straight clergy on their sex lives?

---

Actually when I was exploring ordination in the Diocese of Southwark 20-odd years ago it was made clear to me by my DDO that if I were to move in with my then-girlfriend it would not be well received. But I knew of at least two gay men who were cohabiting (not with each other) who were accepted for training,, and subsequently ordained, there around that time. For all that I am pleased that those men were ordained, I felt, and still feel, that Southwark, in its ever-so-nicely-liberal way, was being rather hypocritical.

[ 08. September 2014, 11:50: Message edited by: Albertus ]

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Yes, funny how that works, isn't it. I shared a house with my Other Half (for economic reasons) before we got married, but nobody except an atheist friend actually believed we weren't having sex until after the wedding*...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
I'm not going to engage with Oscar's permanently angry rants at me, I'm afraid.

---

quote:

---

Those arguing for change are, I recognise, impatient. But the impatience is based on the presupposition that the Church must acquiesce in what Government has done and that it's pellucidly clear that we should introduce blessings and marriages into the CofE. But that's not where the whole Church is. So you have to win hearts and minds and achieve legislative and liturgical change (which of course go together). The conversations are prior to this.

---