|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: What 'listening process'?
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Jane R quote:
The thing is, if you want to commit fornication you don't have to be living together. All that living apart does is maintain Plausible Deniability, as I said earlier.
If it's the kind of thing that matters to you, then fine.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I'll let you into a little secret - most people living together and who have a sexual relationship without 'benefit of the clergy' (sometimes not even a civil marriage) don't, on the whole, see themselves as 'committing fornication': rather they tend to feel they're making love. Yes, you can call it plausible deniability - its been going on between adult children and their parents for decades - but a more honest description would be the old 'don't ask, don't tell' (hypocrisy may be too harsh?).
quote:
Personally I think whether or not the organist is a good musician is rather more important than the exact nature of his relationship with his fiancée...
Quite, and since most of us have contracts these days unless you're prepared to put a clause into said contract about sexual practice and proclivities you'd be on very shaky ground trying to get rid of a contracted musician if they weren't breaking the law of the land.
quote:
...but if he shares your beliefs on the Sanctity of Marriage and says he isn't sleeping with his fiancée, why would you refuse to accept his assurance? If we are called to be counter-cultural, shouldn't we be challenging the assumption that two people living in the same house will inevitably end up having sex?
You've hit the nail on the head: because the clergy of the CofE are falling - some would say jumping - headlong into the same pit as their RCC counterparts: they are becoming obsessed with sex. And the refusal of some CofE clergy (again as RCC priests before them) to accept honest and truthful assurances to what are in any case rude, intrusive and presumptuous questions is very disturbing. TMM it harks back to the old habit of 'swimming' witches - sink and die and you're innocent, float and live and you're guilty so get killed anyway.
Any logical person with a reasonable libido is entirely justified to conclude from this 'damned if you do, damned if you don't - so DO'!
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
L'organist: quote:
I'll let you into a little secret - most people living together and who have a sexual relationship without 'benefit of the clergy' (sometimes not even a civil marriage) don't, on the whole, see themselves as 'committing fornication': rather they tend to feel they're making love.
Well, *I* know that... I was being sarcastic... although nowadays even people with a very traditional view of sexuality might hesitate to describe extramarital sex as fornication, so perhaps I was being unfair. If so, I apologise.
[ 08. September 2014, 13:54: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
In all fairness, l'o, we weren't engaged and we didn't get married in the end. But just to spell out the point, although I'm sure I don't need to, had we been a gay couple cohabiting then that would have been all right. Because of course the church did not, would not, ever even consider ordaining a cohabiting gay person, would it? So, ipso facto, any gay ordinand living with a person of the same sex must have been simply flatsharing. Everybody's happy! (Well, except me and my then girlfriend.)
[ 08. September 2014, 14:13: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Sorry Jane R
I've recently had a surfeit of senior clerics sounding off about 'morality' and speaking of 'the laity' as if we were a lumpen group of half-wits.
It used to be that one could look at the CofE, for all its faults, and see that at least a little (sometimes more than that) of the cream had risen to the top. Now I'm more inclined to think of the alternative: stir and pot or a river and the scum will float to the top.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[qb] Who asked for this two year facile conversation anyhow? Pete seems to think it's futile and I haven't heard of a gay Anglican (at least on the ship) who wants yet another indefinite delay.
I think that most church people change their mind on this issue when they see it as being about people', not merely an 'issue'.
If the HOB listened to the personal testimonies of gay Christians, their struggles with the Bible etc., then I believe they'd realise how much serious harm the 'traditional teaching' has done and hear scripture as it is understood by the marginalised.
As it is, most bishops seem to know very little of differing interpretations of scripture because of the briefings they have received so far. 'Issues' and 'Pilling' were highly selective (and downright dishonest) in their citing of 'evidence'.
So the reason why LGBTs want to be listened to is because the 1998 Lambeth Confernce agreed to listen but this didn't happen and it's now 16 years on - and the bishops are going to listen to str8 people too - as if their voices haven't predominated for decades.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I once expressed a strongly-pro-gay opinion (on the basis of learning to live with the mere existence of GLBTs) in a Leter to the Editor of the monthly Diocesan paper in this province. The next month, there was smug letter from a senior cleric on the topic of the clergy being remiss in not instructing their parishioners properly, to which I replied that, after 40 years of schoolteaching, I rather expected answers to relate to the question, not to engage in personal attack.
The result? No more letters to be accepted by said paper. Problem solved, obviously ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The House of Bishops didn't find Pilling to be an adequate basis for the conversations...... Pilling is not on the table.
So why was Pilling commissioned in the first place, if it was to be ditched?
Was Pilling not given enough guidance as to what was wanted?
Is Pilling being ditched for something even more conservative?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
leo: quote:
...and the bishops are going to listen to str8 people too - as if their voices haven't predominated for decades.
Actually they are only listening to straight people who agree with them. I'm straight and they're not listening to me. Perhaps because I'm left-handed?
[ 08. September 2014, 15:51: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Pilling was an embarrassment to the HoB because they were hoping for, perhaps expecting, a different outcome.
Then one of their own, Birkenhead, decided to go one step further and refuse to go along with the rest of the committee.
If you want to know just how selective some of the HoB are in their view of just who is the church, look no further than Birkenhead's reasons for his dissenting opinion: quote:
I believe the trajectory in the Report will undermine the discipleship and pastoral care of many faithful Christians
He ignores completely that the 'trajectory' in the report will have caused - is still causing - heartbreak, anguish, and alienation in many faithful Christians who happen to be LGBT. But then he probably doesn't consider them to be 'faithful' Christians, does he?
Birkenhead is a worthy descendant of those bishops in past centuries who argued variously that women didn't have souls, that non-whites were inferior, that slavery could and should be justified, etc,etc, etc. This line stretches beyond the reformation to those clerics who argued the rightness and justice of torture and the autos-da-fee.
They agree with free will - but only if it is exercised in a way that they, as wise patriarch, see fit.
If Birkenhead had any integrity he would have resigned his title but no, he'll stay to cause more upset.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The House of Bishops didn't find Pilling to be an adequate basis for the conversations...... Pilling is not on the table.
So why was Pilling commissioned in the first place, if it was to be ditched?
Was Pilling not given enough guidance as to what was wanted?
Is Pilling being ditched for something even more conservative?
Knowing that the Pilling committee bent over backwards to accommodate Birkenhead before he ditched, and were furious afterwards that they had done so, one might hope that the Bishops would come up with something that pandered less to the fundamentalists. One might be a fool to hope so after all this footdragging and bullshit, but there it is.
[ 08. September 2014, 16:35: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I rather think that you have this backwards. You are presenting the argument as: "LGBT Anglicans exist. Either Anglicanism changes to permit them to live their lives fully, with integrity, or they go elsewhere. You choose."
That's all fine and pragmatic, and may well be an accurate representation of what might happen, but it's not the question that the church should be addressing.
The question is, fundamentally, is gay OK with God? If the answer is yes, then it follows that the church should bless same-sex relationships, celebrate with gay priests who want to marry, and so on.
If, on the other hand, gay is not OK, then the church must not endorse it. The church should not bless a gay relationship any more than it should bless an adulterous one, or a bank robbery enterprise, or any other sinful undertaking. It would then follow that priests who are willful and unrepentant sinners should be subject to discipline.
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.
How d'you propose we decide that loving gay relationships are "OK with God"? People interpret the Bible differently, and have different beliefs about its authority.
There's no reason to think unanimity's coming anytime soon. The reformation questions haven't been settled after 500 years; the Great Schism's going on for it's 1,000th birthday.
Either we agree to disagree (pragmatic, yes, and proud of it) or the church splits. Or d'you have a third option?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I'm not going to engage with Oscar's permanently angry rants at me, I'm afraid.
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.
It's not at all based on the presupposition that the church must acquiesce to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act. The current climate has dragged on since the '80s, a time when the government was anything but sympathetic to the civil rights of LGBT people.
As others have said, it's about LGBT people expecting to be treated with equal dignity by the church, not dehumanized by being abstracted into an "issue," an "issue" that's really a battlefield in a proxy war over biblical authority. LGBT people are being used as a means to an end. It shames the church, shames it utterly.
Given the length of your own role in this, it's baffling, truly baffling, that your post misunderstands to such a degree.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
We have therefore commissioned David Porter to start the process based on different theological and pastoral material. stuff will be the only way we can make progress.
Don't mean to badger you - as a whole i agree with most of your views, especially on social justice, politics etc.
And i like it that you interact with us here - AFAIK the only C of E bishop to do so.
But.... why commission anyone to write materials. Why not simply LISTEN without setting the agenda as to what you will listen about?
Also, this listening should not just be about gay marriage and gay clergy.
What about listening to those who are unwelcome at church? Unable to take communion? Told that they are unrepentant sinners?
To their husbands/wives who are told to stay in marriages where their partner is meeting sexual needs elsewhere because the church told them to marry as a cure?
To those who spend years 'praying the gay away' because the church tells them that God does not love them as they are unless they change?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE] 1. ....how much serious harm the 'traditional teaching' has done
2. ..... and hear scripture as it is understood by the marginalised.
1. The Anglican church prides itself that its basis of belief and practice is tied to tradition. Are you saying that the whole basis of Anglicanism is flawed?
2. Bear in mind too that there are those who consider themselves marginalised on both sides of this debate. All perspectives on how scripture is understood should then be heard. Is there really anything new going to come to this debate? Or, is it just the same old stuff going round again ..... unfortunately for once it doesn't seem as if those who shout loudest will automatically win the day
If a split is the only way, then its time to do it, get over it and move on.
[ 08. September 2014, 18:02: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]I think that most church people change their mind on this issue when they see it as being about people', not merely an 'issue'.
Most people change their mind when it affects them - a family member, perhaps a child, declares themselves gay. Suddenly, they lose the conviction they once had.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
I agree with Byron that there are more questions around. The most recent presenting issues, though, have been about (inter alia) liturgical provision and canonical change - because it is those structural and legal changes that would be the most obvious litmus indicators of a different understanding. And because, like it or not, those are now seen by groups like Changing Attitude as the goals to which they aspire in order to get what they see as equal treatment in the Church. We won't be able to have a discussion that avoids those presenting issues. Though having looked at the discussion material that's been prepared for us (not by bishops), it is more about the general experience of the Church as voiced by LGBTI people.
Can't agree with Leo that we broaden this. It's about a specific desire for equality and justice - and we shouldn't confuse the LGBTI agenda by bringing in other ways in which the Church is perceived to get it wrong.
This isn't a proxy debate. It is crucial to an understanding of how the Church believes and lives. That much we can agree on.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[...] as a whole i agree with most of your views, especially on social justice, politics etc.
Ditto, which is why it's so incomprehensible to see pete173 take the position he does. Even if he believes the Bible obliges him to oppose loving gay relationships, why did he join the campaign to remove Jeffrey John from his post?
From a socialist and advocate of social justice, I'd expect the exact opposite: going to bat for the underdog. "Look, I disagree with Jeffrey, but this is wrong. We're a broad church, and Issues ... clearly forbids intrusive questions. Let's take him at his word, celebrate his consecration, and hear what he has to say."
Pete173 has fought for gay rights in the secular world, at personal cost. Why must his defense of LGBT people stop at the church door?
[ 08. September 2014, 18:31: Message edited by: Byron ]
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by pete173 quote:
the LGBTI agenda
Eh? So what's this magical 'agenda' then Pete?
None of my gay and lesbian friends can think what it might be - unless you think its an 'agenda' to look forward to the day when there isn't clerical gay bashing from the pulpit, when they don't have to listen to themselves and their loved ones being referred to as 'these people', when they won't be told that their sexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'.
Is that the 'agenda' which you and your fellow bishops are so scared of?
(BTW - good news about your friend Big Ears' son and his 'shallow celebrity' wife expecting another baby, isn't it?)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
The "agenda" is set out very clearly
in a letter sent to all bishops.
In other news, some woman is pregnant. Why should I care? I don't know the woman.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Err, No.
That is a press release with the full text of an open letter sent by ONE organisation representing some of the LGBT people who still have the fortitude to cope with the institutional nastiness and bigotry (not to mention hypocrisy) of the CofE.
That is NOT an "LGBTI agenda" which you referred to.
But don't take my word for it - get in touch with Colin Coward and ask him if he thinks he represents all of the LGBTI community.
Furthermore neither you nor anyone on the Pilling Committee, nor anyone from the HoB has even begun to address the very great wrongs done to the men and women who have in all innocence married people who had previously been told to 'marry themselves straight'. I know two such people and to call them angry with the church, not just on their own behalf but on behalf of their now ex-partners, is an understatement.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
As for your "other news":
You felt yourself able and entitled to comment on the possible success or failure of her (then) proposed marriage without having met her, so why so shy now?
Why should you care? To point out the bleedin' obvious, its but common good manners and Christian goodwill - which as a bishop you should know, exhibit and practise.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The "agenda" is set out very clearly
in a letter sent to all bishops. [...]
Yes, but when it comes to gay people, "agenda," like "lifestyle," is a code-word with a ton of baggage. What's more, as someone of the left, you know this. Why on earth did you use the word?
Your link says, "You need to respond to the anger and frustration being felt by LGBTI laity and clergy." Couldn't agree more. I can understand why some bishops oppose gay rights. I can't understand at all how a person can fight heroically for secular gay rights, while vigorously opposing them in the church.
That takes compartmentalization to Robert Louis Stevenson extremes!
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Byron quote:
I can't understand at all how a person can fight heroically for secular gay rights, while vigorously opposing them in the church.
The technical term for this is the socialist education protocol (Latin rara flavum hypocritum) - or don't-do-as-I-do-do-as-I-say, so-called from the fine principles shown by (amongst others) Claude Cockburn and Peter Shore in being vociferous opponents of 'elitism' and champions of comprehensives for all whilst buying for their own children the finest private education that money could buy - Glenalmond in the case of Cockburn's sons and North London Collegiate in the case of Shore's daughters.
Of course, its lovely to have gay friends, and they're so helpful with design ideas when you move house and kind and caring when things are bad at work - and don't even think about having a same-sex relationship with my son or daughter.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The technical term for this is the socialist education protocol (Latin rara flavum hypocritum) - or don't-do-as-I-do-do-as-I-say, so-called from the fine principles shown by (amongst others) Claude Cockburn and Peter Shore in being vociferous opponents of 'elitism' and champions of comprehensives for all whilst buying for their own children the finest private education that money could buy - Glenalmond in the case of Cockburn's sons and North London Collegiate in the case of Shore's daughters.
Of course, its lovely to have gay friends, and they're so helpful with design ideas when you move house and kind and caring when things are bad at work - and don't even think about having a same-sex relationship with my son or daughter.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) @ the Latin!
Self-interested hypocrisy's no mystery, but pete173's position isn't that. Its legalistic distinctions between secular and religious equality do cohere: I'm just baffled how anyone could come to draw them, since a desire for equality springs from valuing the worth of all people, solidarity that doesn't tend to stop at the church gates.
I'm especially baffled how someone of the left, someone with a passion for justice, someone who fought alongside gay people in the homophobic '80s, could help to drive a gay man who followed church rules from his office. Jeffrey John would've had every reason to expect pete173's support. Yet from this thread, it sounds like he doesn't think the campaign against John did anything wrong!
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I can't understand at all how a person can fight heroically for secular gay rights, while vigorously opposing them in the church.
Could you understand why, for example, someone could "fight heroically" for the freedom of religion, whilst also ensuring that the church kept a firm grip on orthodoxy and orthopraxis? I don't find that contradictory.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
There will be an opportunity to listen [see what I did there?] to the man himself at The Pilling Lecture, if you are within reach Of Winchester. AFAIK, he's not lectured on it before?
And while researching this, I discovered an erratum apology regarding Birkenhead's egregious Appendix here.
quote:
Erratum
The Bishop of Birkenhead has asked for the words in brackets on page 163, first paragraph of Section 5 of Appendix 3 '(and argued, e.g. by Richard Burridge)'
to be disregarded from the online document, and apologizes unreservedly for any misrepresentation of Professor's Burridge's views caused by their inclusion.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Could you understand why, for example, someone could "fight heroically" for the freedom of religion, whilst also ensuring that the church kept a firm grip on orthodoxy and orthopraxis? I don't find that contradictory.
Well sure, 'cause freedom of religion, and internal church discipline, are different things.
Equality, by contrast, extends across theological boundaries. At heart, it's about treating one another with compassion and respect.
Pete173 is against sexism across the board, blasting guys like Mark Driscoll for chauvinism, and fighting tooth and nail for equal ordination.
Yet even gay Christians who follow discriminatory rules should expect to be hounded from their post? Why do they not deserve compassion and respect?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The "agenda" is set out very clearly
in a letter sent to all bishops.
Changing Attitude <> LGBTI Christians.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Equality, by contrast, extends across theological boundaries. At heart, it's about treating one another with compassion and respect.
I don't think this can be right. I treat my neighbour's cat with compassion and respect. I expect other people to treat the cat with compassion and respect. I don't think we're equal.
(It's a cat. Obviously it's superior! </obCatJoke>)
I think you're right about the consequences of an actual belief in equality, rather than the "compassion and respect" you describe here, but I don't think that's the only reason to be a passionate supporter of secular gay rights.
I don't think it's possible for a rational person to hold a deep and fundamental opinion of equality between homosexual and heterosexual relationships whilst thinking that homosexual ones are sinful. If you think that X is all right and proper in the eyes of God, but Y is a sin, you cannot possibly think that X and Y are equal.
On the other hand, if you start from a principle of liberty rather than equality, it makes perfect sense for you to think "Y is sinful, but people should be allowed to choose to do Y. (The Salvation Army requires its members to be teetotal. I haven't noticed them campaigning for prohibition recently.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I've reached a point where I just want the CofE to make up its mind. It either needs to give LGBTI members full membership, with the same expectation of sexual conduct as everyone else, or it can say it doesn't want us at all. I for one would be more than happy to walk out the door and brush the dust from my feet if that was the deal, because 30 years of this crap has exhausted me - 30 years of being told, "Oh we love you very much and want you in the Church... but can we just beat you up a bit every now and then? "
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Amen to that.
--------------------
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.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Amen x 2.
And if I hear the tired old Love the sinner, hate the sin just once more I'll ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Do you really want to be nauseated? a gay mate was assured by a cleric that this attitude was fine and didn't just apply to him but 'its the same with other sinners - people who rape and murder: we do our best to love them all.
So, for this cleric the equation is simple:
gay <> rape <> murder.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
When will somebody in a pointy hat, not obviously a maverick, get up and say, in so many words, 'being gay is not a sin: having sex with someone of your own sex is not a sin in circumstances where it would not be a sin if it were with a person of the opposite sex'. I don't think even ++Barry Cambrensis has said this in so many words, though I'm pretty sure he believes it and would I suspect not deny it if asked outright.
In fact, here's a challenge for you, Pete. Do you believe this? If so, will you say it in so many words? If you don't believe it, will you explain why not?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Frankly the Church of England would do well to look at the Church in Wales - they might learn something.
For a start, they might learn how to be properly charitable when speaking about SSM; they might also get some theological insights.
Or to quote the Archbishop (++Barry Cambrensis) quote:
“The State allowed the possibility of divorce and re-marriage for a long time before we did as a Church. Not only do we now bless such unions, we actually re-marry divorced people in our churches.
In the past, if a cleric divorced and re-married, that person could no longer continue in the ordained ministry in Wales, whereas now that is no longer a bar to continuing in ministry.
“So our views have evolved and changed on a subject which Jesus pronounced very clearly. He had nothing to say about same-sex relationships.
Will we, as a Church, eventually adopt the same approach as far as same-sex relationships are concerned, as we have done about re-marriage after divorce, or is gay marriage in a different category from the re-marriage of divorced people?
Whatever our viewpoints, I hope that our discussions can be charitable.”
The only thing I'd add would be to ask on what grounds the anti SSM base their objections, since they've (mostly) long since given up any objecting to marriage of those whose unions where Jesus did actually say something.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
When will somebody in a pointy hat, not obviously a maverick, get up and say, in so many words, 'being gay is not a sin: having sex with someone of your own sex is not a sin in circumstances where it would not be a sin if it were with a person of the opposite sex'.
A bishop once told me the truth about this. He was a soon-to-retire bishop, so I guess he was probably a bit demob-happy. What he said was, "Look, I would love to say I'm in favour of equality for gay people in the Church. I am in favour of it. But if I said so publicly, then the four biggest evangelical churches in my diocese would stop paying their parish share tomorrow, and the diocese would be bankrupt in six months. So I can't."
I think it was the truth, because of course he thought that by telling me that I would despise him. Actually, I admired him. I think it's the only time a bishop has ever told me the truth on this issue.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I'm not going to engage with Oscar's permanently angry rants at me, I'm afraid.
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.
You don't get it, do you?
The "conversation" is one in which the bishops have been up in their pullpits week on week and preaching the official line of the Church. In order for a conversation to take place your side needs to actually listen to what is being said by the other side. Something which your invocation of the Gay Agenda says that you simply haven't done. In order to have a conversation, you need to listen as well as try to get a point across that you've been banging on about for decades and only those already in your camp agree with.
For those so worried about remaining true to scripture, please get up in your pulpits and preach about "The curse of Ham" and how slaves should obey their masters (the Bible is far, far more strongly pro-slavery than it is homophobic). You'll be seen as possibly less odious if you actually accept the teachings of Scripture and come out pro-slavery than if you merely use them to support your homophobia.
Given the state of the early 21st century, the people who need to listen as part of the listening process (and who have singularly failed to as a part of the "conversation") and the people with a lot to lose are your people. The bishops. You have a choice to make. Do you want to do the right thing eventually, or do you want to be seen as the equivalent to the John Birch Society? A society of people with an ideological attachment to persecuting others, and with links to the Establishment, and who don't care about love or compassion.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Sigh. Money. Driving politics both secular and religious.
[x-post, responding to Adeodatus' anecdote.]
[ 09. September 2014, 14:05: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Yes, l'o, that's a very typical ++Barry statement: an excellent one, I thought. He's very good at that sort of thing, preparing the ground for change in a very reasonable and even eirenic way. It helps, I think, that he's in so many ways utterly mainstream: a grey-haired grandfather in a grey suit who plays golf. I admire him immensely.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE] 1. ....how much serious harm the 'traditional teaching' has done
2. ..... and hear scripture as it is understood by the marginalised.
1. The Anglican church prides itself that its basis of belief and practice is tied to tradition. Are you saying that the whole basis of Anglicanism is flawed?
Not generally - but on this issue its working papers do not deal honestly with scholarship. Their interpretation of biblical passages verges on the fundamentalist. Their psychological 'evidence' comes from someone who pouts the bible before empirical findings and dismisses what people say as 'merely anecdotal'. I wonder if he treats his patients talking to him as 'merely anecdotal'.
'the whole basis of Anglicanism' is Hooker's 3-legged stool - scripture, tradition and reason. Reason (by which i include 'experience', which Wesley made into as extra leg, is lacking ion this topic.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But don't take my word for it - get in touch with Colin Coward and ask him if he thinks he represents all of the LGBTI community.h, not just on their own behalf but on behalf of their now ex-partners, is an understatement.
He doesn't even represent the CHRISTIAN LGBTI 'community'.
He comes across as shrill and seems to narrow down his cause to clergy and church politics.
He doesn't seem to be concerned about persecuted lay people in England - though he does, admirably, for Ugandan and Nigerian Anglicans.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think this can be right. I treat my neighbour's cat with compassion and respect. I expect other people to treat the cat with compassion and respect. I don't think we're equal.
(It's a cat. Obviously it's superior! </obCatJoke>)
I think you're right about the consequences of an actual belief in equality, rather than the "compassion and respect" you describe here, but I don't think that's the only reason to be a passionate supporter of secular gay rights.
I don't think it's possible for a rational person to hold a deep and fundamental opinion of equality between homosexual and heterosexual relationships whilst thinking that homosexual ones are sinful. If you think that X is all right and proper in the eyes of God, but Y is a sin, you cannot possibly think that X and Y are equal.
On the other hand, if you start from a principle of liberty rather than equality, it makes perfect sense for you to think "Y is sinful, but people should be allowed to choose to do Y. (The Salvation Army requires its members to be teetotal. I haven't noticed them campaigning for prohibition recently.)
This is basically tolerance vs. affirmation.
A person can support equal treatment out of tolerance, but few do, as it presupposes inequality, with the tolerated subordinate to the tolerator. Equality usually comes only when we see and treat one another equally, which usually happens only when we view one another as having equal worth.
That's why "listening" is wholly the wrong approach. Lesbian, bisexual and gay Anglicans should not be treated as supplicants to a cathedral throne.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
When will somebody in a pointy hat, not obviously a maverick, get up and say, in so many words, 'being gay is not a sin: having sex with someone of your own sex is not a sin in circumstances where it would not be a sin if it were with a person of the opposite sex'.
A bishop once told me the truth about this. He was a soon-to-retire bishop, so I guess he was probably a bit demob-happy. What he said was, "Look, I would love to say I'm in favour of equality for gay people in the Church. I am in favour of it. But if I said so publicly, then the four biggest evangelical churches in my diocese would stop paying their parish share tomorrow, and the diocese would be bankrupt in six months. So I can't."
I think it was the truth, because of course he thought that by telling me that I would despise him. Actually, I admired him. I think it's the only time a bishop has ever told me the truth on this issue.
That gets to the heart of it! The endless "reports" and "listening" achieve nothing when realpolitik is in play.
If nothing else, would pete173 work with his fellow bishops on a statement that condemns any parish using money as leverage? Even better would be legislation in General Synod to reform the parish share system to make this impossible.
No debate can be had under threat of the bailiffs.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
A person can support equal treatment out of tolerance, but few do, as it presupposes inequality, with the tolerated subordinate to the tolerator.
I don't think this describes what I was calling the "liberty" position. It's probably a reasonable characterization of "tolerance", so I conclude that "tolerance vs affirmation" isn't what I was saying.
Calling "equality" "affirmation" seems fine - we're both talking about this as a positive statement that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are of equal worth. From that starting point, same sex marriage in church, openly gay bishops and all the rest of it follow naturally.
But the thing I'm calling "liberty" is a stronger statement than the thing you're calling "tolerance". The liberty position would say that, for the purposes of secular law, I have no place making a judgement about the relative worth of homosexual and heterosexual relationships. It is none of my business, and whether gay and straight relationships actually are of equal worth or not is irrelevant.
"Tolerance" is allowing people in a "Christian country" to practice Islam, so long as they keep it quiet and don't make a big deal about it. "Liberty" is proclaiming that people have every right to be Muslim, or Christian, or Atheist, or anything else, as they choose.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Thanks for elaborating, Leorning Cniht, and I stand corrected, "liberty" is stronger than tolerance.
But what drives support for secular gay rights? It doesn't arise from indifference or vague ideals of fairness. They're hard-earned and hard-fought. You must be passionate to wage that fight.
In the U.S., the conservative Christians who're willing to live with a secular/religious split on marriage weren't leading the charge: they're reconciling themselves to victory in a fight waged by others. I have never before heard of someone who was in the trenches with gay people in the '80s, but then took a hardline position in the religious sphere.
Fighting for gay rights in Thatcher's Britain, pete173 must have made many deep and lasting friendships with gay people, friendships forged in struggle. He'll understanding the damage done by homophobia better than many who take an affirming position. Yet he now talks about a gay "agenda"? Where has that understanding gone?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Byron: quote:
...vague ideals of fairness...
There is nothing vague about a sense of fair play, as anyone in charge of distributing biscuits to a group of toddlers could tell you. In fact there is even some evidence that chimpanzees value fairness too - so perhaps it is hardwired into us.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Byron: quote:
...vague ideals of fairness...
There is nothing vague about a sense of fair play, as anyone in charge of distributing biscuits to a group of toddlers could tell you. In fact there is even some evidence that chimpanzees value fairness too - so perhaps it is hardwired into us.
You've just highlighted the crucial difference between fairness in the abstract, and its implementation.
The Church of England loves to say that LGBT people should be treated fairly, but its members mean different things by that. For conservatives, fairness is no abuse, and pastoral support in suppressing your sexuality for life; for those in the affirming camp, it's equal treatment.
Both claim to be fair, yet are poles apart.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Well, that's the problem, isn't it. It's not just people under 40 who support equal treatment: a significant number of those in older age groups support equal treatment too. Otherwise the government would never have allowed SSM; they do want to be reelected, and they know all about the importance of the Grey Vote.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I'm not going to engage with Oscar's permanently angry rants at me, I'm afraid.
Hmmm. Nice way to avoid the issues, isn't it? Actually, Pete, I am not angry with you. I AM deeply frustrated with the rank hypocrisy of the HoB, but that's another matter.
So, in a spirit of calmness and tranquility, let me ask you again the salient questions.
Question One
You maintain that your opposition to Jeffrey John was purely on the basis of his teachings. I would like to you to show me how his teaching are any more "liberal" or "radical" than other C of E bishops (past and present). As I said before, he is actually pretty mainstream theologically speaking. So I think you need to justify your claim that it was his teachings which were the problem.
Question Two
Can you show examples of where you have made similar public protests against other prospective bishops? If you were prepared to go public in THIS situation, then surely you must be prepared to do the same for other people whose teachings you regard as also beyond the pale.
These are serious questions. What is at stake here is the credibility of your claim that your opposition to JJ had absolutely nothing to do with his personal life.
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
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.
I'm sorry, but this is utter nonsense and is actually disrespectful to all those people who are desiring change in the C of E. It is NOT the case that this is simply responding to the government's actions. The impatience lies in the fact that the C of E has been dragging its feet for so long that even a Conservative dominated government is now way ahead of it. In other words, the impatience was already there (justifiably so, IMHO). All the government has done is make it even clearer that the C of E is many years out of touch.
To imply, as you have done, that this anger comes solely in response to the government's actions is to suggest that those arguing for change don't really have a case to make and are simply jumping on a convenient bandwagon. In the end, that denies integrity to their position. I hope that you don't really think that.
(Please also note that I am about to go travelling for a couple of weeks and am unlikely to have much time or internet access to engage more fully with this until I am back home.)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Contributing to the frustration in England is that so many defenders of the traditional position are otherwise left-wing, both socially and economically.
You expect moral majority Republicans to preach LGBT inequality. You don't expect to hear it from progressives who champion social justice and gender equality.
I know the reasons for LGBT exceptionalism. Sure, they're internally consistent. Nonetheless, it feels like a betrayal. It hurts in a way a rant from Scott Lively never could.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
