Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: What 'listening process'?
|
Oscar the Grouch
 Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by L'organist: There are many things about the whole SSM saga which are profoundly depressing - or enraging, depending on your point of view - but IMO the worst by a mile is the lack of any sense of urgency, and that is doing as much, if not more, damage to the image and opinion of the CofE in the wider world as anything else.
Wake up, CofE: the rest of the world moves at a swifter pace than Trollope and so should you.
(Ho hum - no time for anything more. Time to get back in the car and keep moving on...)
-------------------- Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
L'organist: quote: If ++Justin, Synod, etc, really wanted to speak to people about Pilling they would have done the following... [detailed timetable from parish-level discussions to General Synod legislation snipped] That timetable is entirely realistic...
That's a great timetable (and somebody should put you in charge of the 'listening process') but what makes you think that it would inevitably result in a framework for approval of SSM/blessings for civil partnerships? From where I'm sitting, most of the House of Bishops still seem to be denying the existence of (would-be) faithful Anglicans who think SSM should be allowed.
And the C of E is in a unique position here; any other Christian denomination can restrict the provision of SSM to their own members. The C of E has a statutory duty to marry anyone in the parish (assuming that they are legally allowed to get married), so we do have to consider what to do about non-Anglicans who want to be married in church. Personally I would get round this by removing the statutory duty and allowing each parish to set its own rules, but then I'm in favour of disestablishment as well.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Bad, bad, bad idea: it would drive the CofE further down the road to becoming a loose bundle of sects. Mind you, we're distestablished here, and we still have, anomalously, the statutory duty. That's why the CinW was- without being consulted- included in the ban on celebrating SSMs. Does anyone happen to know what the position in Scotland is with regard to (i) SSM and (ii) who the CofS can, and (if anyone) must, marry? [ 16. September 2014, 15:05: 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.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Jane R: That's a great timetable (and somebody should put you in charge of the 'listening process') but what makes you think that it would inevitably result in a framework for approval of SSM/blessings for civil partnerships? From where I'm sitting, most of the House of Bishops still seem to be denying the existence of (would-be) faithful Anglicans who think SSM should be allowed.
Presumably if the conversation is remotely successful then these bishops will no longer be able to deny there are faithful Anglicans who think SSM should be allowed. Once that has happened, if there is to be 'good disagreement' or '2 integrities' then they must allow both integrities to exist with integrity. That means allowing SSM.
What's baffling me is what the bishops hope to achieve by walking into a conversation talking about good disagreement and understanding the other point of view when they clearly have no intention of making the changes that naturally flow from doing this. Have they made a mistake, and are they going to respond by looking stupid and hypocritical or by doing things that are more liberal than they want to?
quote:
And the C of E is in a unique position here; any other Christian denomination can restrict the provision of SSM to their own members. The C of E has a statutory duty to marry anyone in the parish (assuming that they are legally allowed to get married), so we do have to consider what to do about non-Anglicans who want to be married in church. Personally I would get round this by removing the statutory duty and allowing each parish to set its own rules, but then I'm in favour of disestablishment as well.
Surely there's an analogy with divorce here. The unmarried have an automatic right to get married, but for divorcees it's at the discretion of the vicar. Gays could be lumped in with divorcees. This is obviously a hassle for gays who only have connections with homophobic parishes, but it's a fudge that can be administered. (Whether or not the CofE rules on marriage are more generally in need of reform is a separate question to which the answer is 'yes')
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by L'organist: If ++Justin, Synod, etc, really wanted to speak to people about Pilling they would have done the following: - issued a letter from Canterbury and York announcing that there was to be discussion about attitudes towards LGBTI people - all people, not just Christians - at parish level
- diocesans would have issued a letter to parishes asking that they arrange meetings/ discussions within a certain time-frame - I'd have suggested by Trinity Sunday 2014 - with informal vote being taken approving SSM and/or blessing of SS civil partnerships
- open sessions of diocesan synods should have taken place straight after the parish discussions and views reported up to General Synod so that
- discussion papers could be prepared for GS members by the end of October 2014
- General Synod to act on both diocesan discussions and AGM votes to propose and vote on enabling legislation for SSM and for blessing of SS civil partnerships in Summer or autumn of 2015
This is much closer to what i was expecting to happen.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Cottontail
 Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Albertus: Does anyone happen to know what the position in Scotland is with regard to (i) SSM and (ii) who the CofS can, and (if anyone) must, marry?
The position in Scotland is that an entire denomination must 'opt in' before any one of its clergy can perform a same-sex marriage. So there can be no maverick ministers. The Executive also seeks to protect those ministers who do not wish to perform same-sex marriages even if the rest of their denomination opts in.
The Church of Scotland is not an established church, and does not have the same responsibilities as the Church of England to act as a registrar. In that sense, we work more like the non-conformist churches in England. We can marry in our parish church or elsewhere in our parish any opposite-sex couple who is legally entitled to be married, but we are free to refuse for reasons of conscience. There is no 'must' for any of it, although until the whole denomination decides to 'opt in', there is a definite 'cannot' for same-sex marriages.
-------------------- "I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by JaneR quote: That's a great timetable (and somebody should put you in charge of the 'listening process') but what makes you think that it would inevitably result in a framework for approval of SSM/blessings for civil partnerships? From where I'm sitting, most of the House of Bishops still seem to be denying the existence of (would-be) faithful Anglicans who think SSM should be allowed.
Those who love me would scream with laughter about me being put I/C of any listening process but thanks for the compliment.
I am not presuming the outcome would be a result I, personally, would favour of approval for SS blessings & marriages BUT at least everyone would then know where they stood. The HoB - and others in Church House Westminster - seem to think that no decision and endless delay is less damaging than a decision that may be divisive: they're wrong - those who are praying for the right to be blessed or married are caused prolonged pain and distress, those who are anti see it as another tactic to wear them down and dig in their heels ever deeper.
The message doesn't seem to have got through that delay (in other words doing nothing) can be as, if not more, damaging as action.
-------------------- 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
posted by *Leon* quote: What's baffling me is what the bishops hope to achieve by walking into a conversation talking about good disagreement and understanding the other point of view when they clearly have no intention of making the changes that naturally flow from doing this. Have they made a mistake, and are they going to respond by looking stupid and hypocritical or by doing things that are more liberal than they want to?
Agreed, that is one source of bafflement, and here's another:
We have the bishops supposedly starting their 'facilitated conversation' and willing to listen to both sides.
WTF - here are two bishops - Inwood and Wheatley - who have just called in two clergymen to reprimand them for contracting a civil marriage, but we're asked to believe they're approaching the issue with open minds.
WTF pt 2 - here is an Archbishop who has approved and given his blessing to Inwood in his taking action that prevents a cleric from taking up a job and exercising his ministry - gosh, what a broadminded archbishop.
WTF pt 3 - we're asked to further suspend disbelief for Birkenhead - he who's already shown he will misquote or misattribute to support his Paisleyite objections to SSM or any kind of recognition that people who are LGBT are deserving of respect.
You couldn't make it up.
-------------------- 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
*Leon*, thus:
quote: Surely there's an analogy with divorce here. The unmarried have an automatic right to get married, but for divorcees it's at the discretion of the vicar. Gays could be lumped in with divorcees. This is obviously a hassle for gays who only have connections with homophobic parishes, but it's a fudge that can be administered.
Indeed. But IIRC it's not really at the discretion of the vicar for divorcees (and I think those marrying their deceased spouse's sibling)- the couple are in a stronger position than that: the parish church must be made available if the couple can find a priest who is willing to marry them.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Albertus: *Leon*, thus:
quote: Surely there's an analogy with divorce here. The unmarried have an automatic right to get married, but for divorcees it's at the discretion of the vicar. Gays could be lumped in with divorcees. This is obviously a hassle for gays who only have connections with homophobic parishes, but it's a fudge that can be administered.
Indeed. But IIRC it's not really at the discretion of the vicar for divorcees (and I think those marrying their deceased spouse's sibling)- the couple are in a stronger position than that: the parish church must be made available if the couple can find a priest who is willing to marry them.
Not true. The incumbent is neither obliged to re-marry or to make the church available for a re-marriage if he or she cannot in conscience remarry divorced persons.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Gosh, I've just looked it up, and you're absolutely right. All these years i'd been mistaking 'may' for 'must'.
-------------------- 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
|
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Leon: quote: Surely there's an analogy with divorce here. The unmarried have an automatic right to get married, but for divorcees it's at the discretion of the vicar. Gays could be lumped in with divorcees. This is obviously a hassle for gays who only have connections with homophobic parishes, but it's a fudge that can be administered. (Whether or not the CofE rules on marriage are more generally in need of reform is a separate question to which the answer is 'yes')
Yes, that would work as well. <reads further down> Or maybe not. Pesky modal auxiliaries...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by L'organist: posted by *Leon* quote: What's baffling me is what the bishops hope to achieve by walking into a conversation talking about good disagreement and understanding the other point of view when they clearly have no intention of making the changes that naturally flow from doing this. Have they made a mistake, and are they going to respond by looking stupid and hypocritical or by doing things that are more liberal than they want to?
Agreed, that is one source of bafflement, and here's another:
We have the bishops supposedly starting their 'facilitated conversation' and willing to listen to both sides.
WTF - here are two bishops - Inwood and Wheatley - who have just called in two clergymen to reprimand them for contracting a civil marriage, but we're asked to believe they're approaching the issue with open minds.
WTF pt 2 - here is an Archbishop who has approved and given his blessing to Inwood in his taking action that prevents a cleric from taking up a job and exercising his ministry - gosh, what a broadminded archbishop.
WTF pt 3 - we're asked to further suspend disbelief for Birkenhead - he who's already shown he will misquote or misattribute to support his Paisleyite objections to SSM or any kind of recognition that people who are LGBT are deserving of respect.
You couldn't make it up.
Surely the whole point of such conversations is that all concerned come at the issue from entrenched positions and are unconvinced of the good faith of their opponents. It would be quite nice if the C of E's position on SSM could be thrashed out over a couple of gins by Colin Coward, Jeffrey John and Vicky Beeching but realistically, if we're going to get anywhere, we are going to have to convince the unconvinced.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Gildas: Surely the whole point of such conversations is that all concerned come at the issue from entrenched positions and are unconvinced of the good faith of their opponents. It would be quite nice if the C of E's position on SSM could be thrashed out over a couple of gins by Colin Coward, Jeffrey John and Vicky Beeching but realistically, if we're going to get anywhere, we are going to have to convince the unconvinced.
Yup, and depends what we're trying to convince them of.
At present, there's zero chance of convincing even a majority a liberal evangelicals to support equal marriage. (Affirming evangelicals are a tiny minority, who're instantly ostracized by the evangelical mainstream.) Evangelicals are convinced that homosexuality is a sin, and a "salvation issue," and supporting it would, in their eyes, be incompatible with Christianity. You'd have more chance of convincing them to reconsider the divinity of Christ.
These are the folks who bankroll the church, and therefore, get to call the shots. They may, against their own instincts, be persuaded to support "two integrities," but only on political, not theological, grounds. If they do, it'll be on a pragmatic, "OK, guess you've a right to send yourself to hell, on your own head be it" basis.
If the church is gonna take that path, it must ditch the interminable theological wrangling, and start addressing this in political terms.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Its questionable to what extent they bankroll the church - there are a significant number of evo parishes that don't make their parish share, some because they can't afford and others because they consider they can use the money more wisely.
I agree that the remainder do seem to be of a mindset that he who pays the piper etc: but maybe its time the bluff was called.
Quite apart from anything else, it seems a bit rich for them to be calling down hell-fire and brimstone on the heads of LGBT people and citing the 'authority' of scripture when they as churches more often than not refuse to acknowledge or obey the authority of bishops.
Funny old world.
-------------------- Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
The authority of Scripture is being misused just about all the time by certain loud evangelicals. Why would it be different in relation to any given issue.
The absolute requirement, from both the OT and the NT, that one should "Love God and Love and Love Your Neighbour" is totally ignored under most circumstances, despite the number of times it is mentioned, let alone Jesus placing those ideas in the level of commandments. Loving does not mean running screaming away from contamination, and it surely does not mean lying about anything.
-------------------- It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by L'organist: Its questionable to what extent they bankroll the church - there are a significant number of evo parishes that don't make their parish share, some because they can't afford and others because they consider they can use the money more wisely.
I agree that the remainder do seem to be of a mindset that he who pays the piper etc: but maybe its time the bluff was called.
Quite apart from anything else, it seems a bit rich for them to be calling down hell-fire and brimstone on the heads of LGBT people and citing the 'authority' of scripture when they as churches more often than not refuse to acknowledge or obey the authority of bishops.
Funny old world.
I agree that the evangelical power of the purse-strings is questionable, but what matters most is that the bishops are convinced, so convinced they'll hurt their friends, and, if the rumors are true, sometimes themselves.
I suspect there's a lot of truth to it: some evangelical churches do hold back a percentage of their share, but it's so high to begin with that even a percentage is big bucks. Others flash the wealth. They know that with money comes power, always and everywhere.
This has become intractable 'cause the discussion's at cross-purposes. What ought to be a clear matter to negotiate -- the guys paying the piper don't like the new tune -- slams into a wall of denial. Bishops feel they've gotta pretend it's all about theology, that they're above such worldly concerns as paying the bills.
They're not fooling anyone. As was said upthread, they get a lot more respect when they're honest.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Byron: [QUOTE
1. If we're going to get anywhere, we are going to have to convince the unconvinced .... depends what we're trying to convince them of.
2. Evangelicals are convinced that homosexuality is a sin, and a "salvation issue," and supporting it would, in their eyes, be incompatible with Christianity.
3. You'd have more chance of convincing them to reconsider the divinity of Christ.
4. They may, against their own instincts, be persuaded to support "two integrities," but only on political, not theological, grounds.
1. To convince the unconvinced means them throwing away every vestige of what they believe. Would supporters of SSM be prepared to do that too?
2. That's the nub of the argument.
3. There's no chance of that - even considering it suggests that you aren't (probably) an evangelical
4. I doubt it. Most feel so strongly about the issue that they will leave altogether, join another denomination or withdraw funding (declare UDI).
However much gin Jeffrey John, Vicki Beeching and Colin Coward drink - their views will just float past most people whose minds are made up.
Part of the sadness as an outsider to the CofE is the recognition that "evangelical" is increasingly used as a term of abuse. It's become worthless with every side claiming it and very few seeming to be it.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
 Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by ExclamationMark: Part of the sadness as an outsider to the CofE is the recognition that "evangelical" is increasingly used as a term of abuse. It's become worthless with every side claiming it and very few seeming to be it.
I think you're putting the cart before the horse here. If it's true that "evangelical" has been made into a term of abuse - and I don't particularly disagree with your assessment - it's a natural function of the behaviour exhibited by people calling themselves evangelicals. You imply some sort of sinister prejudice against evangelicals, but the reality's nearer to the scorn most normal people feel towards anyone identifying as Britain First, BNP or Klansmen across the Pond. If you behave in a hateful way, you don't have grounds for complaint if people end up hating you.
As for every side claiming to be "evangelical" - absolutely not. In many circles, the label's utterly toxic, as you yourself said. Even actual evangelicals commonly qualify themselves as "open" or "post" to disassociate from the nutters in an increasingly common NALT approach, or drop the label altogether when talking to people who don't understand all those nuances.
-------------------- The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Agreed. We're Not all like that. As this forum demonstrates.
None of which means that those of us who are N.a.l.t. should stop there. There's a need to engage and sometimes confront those who, for whatever reason "are like that". Uncomfortable though that may be.
And I respect those who lose patience with that, no longer wish to be associated with a particular dysfunctional characteristic. It gets wearing.
-------------------- Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The Great Gumby Got it in one.
Until you've have to deal with some of the sanctimonious clap-trap and plain nastiness of some evos you assume that, broadly speaking, because they're 'Christian' they'll treat you with courtesy at the very least.
Not so!
There's nothing like being told your children are illegitimate because you're divorced from a previous partner - it really gives you a warm and fuzzy glow. Ditto receiving a condolence letter on the death of a partner which starts off by pointing out that you were, in fact, never married and so they couldn't 'in all conscience' really condone the relationship. I experienced both.
-------------------- Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
A nice quote from Hermione to Ron (in HP and the Order of the Phoenix) comes to mind at this point.
"Just because you've got the emotional range of a teaspoon doesn't mean we all have".
I must admit to having met some conservative evangelicals who seemed to have the emotional ranges of teaspoons, but I'm not sure whether it's their beliefs which have affected them in that way, or they were always like that.
That's probably why the words "dogmatic" and "unfeeling" seem to sit so close together these days. [ 17. September 2014, 16:24: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
-------------------- Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Exclaimation Mark:
quote: Part of the sadness as an outsider to the CofE is the recognition that "evangelical" is increasingly used as a term of abuse.
As Emo Philips famously said to his German girlfriend, when she complained about the difficulty of finding a decent bagel in Berlin: "Whose fault is that?"
-------------------- 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
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by ExclamationMark: 1. To convince the unconvinced means them throwing away every vestige of what they believe. Would supporters of SSM be prepared to do that too?
2. That's the nub of the argument.
3. There's no chance of that - even considering it suggests that you aren't (probably) an evangelical
4. I doubt it. Most feel so strongly about the issue that they will leave altogether, join another denomination or withdraw funding (declare UDI).
However much gin Jeffrey John, Vicki Beeching and Colin Coward drink - their views will just float past most people whose minds are made up.
Part of the sadness as an outsider to the CofE is the recognition that "evangelical" is increasingly used as a term of abuse. It's become worthless with every side claiming it and very few seeming to be it.
A small point: no problem with you reformatting my post for clarity, but next time, could you please make it clearer that it's an edit? Thanks.
Sure, a majority of evangelicals may up and leave the church if it adopts "two integrities." If that's gonna happen, best it finds out now, and splits as smoothly as possible.
Gotta say, it's a strange field on which to take a moral stand. Church of England already tolerates sexual relationships between LGB couples; it's in full communion with churches that bless them (TEC, & Scandinavian Lutheran churches). Evangelicals haven't waged a war against this, have they?
Why draw the line at tolerance coming out the closet?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Byron: Gotta say, it's a strange field on which to take a moral stand. Church of England already tolerates sexual relationships between LGB couples; it's in full communion with churches that bless them (TEC, & Scandinavian Lutheran churches). Evangelicals haven't waged a war against this, have they?
Why draw the line at tolerance coming out the closet?
I could probably make a case for "tolerating LGB relationships..." being a reasonable position if you thought homosexuality was probably wrong, but weren't sure, whereas endorsing such relationships (by performing SSM, allowing priests to be in a SSM etc.) needs you to think that homosexuality is at least probably OK.
This doesn't seem like a terribly con-evo way to think, though.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Given that despite this apparently being the 21st century, Vicky Beeching still gets stuff like this coming her way now, it's hardly surprising that 'evangelical' is a tarnished label. The rot within evangelicalism just has not been dealt with properly. I think even the RCC has been marginally better at condemning those within the church who have done harm in its name.
-------------------- Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Leorning Cniht: quote: Originally posted by Byron: Gotta say, it's a strange field on which to take a moral stand. Church of England already tolerates sexual relationships between LGB couples; it's in full communion with churches that bless them (TEC, & Scandinavian Lutheran churches). Evangelicals haven't waged a war against this, have they?
Why draw the line at tolerance coming out the closet?
I could probably make a case for "tolerating LGB relationships..." being a reasonable position if you thought homosexuality was probably wrong, but weren't sure, whereas endorsing such relationships (by performing SSM, allowing priests to be in a SSM etc.) needs you to think that homosexuality is at least probably OK.
This doesn't seem like a terribly con-evo way to think, though.
But con-evos already 'endorse' divorce by allowing priests to be divorced and marriages of divorcees to take place in church. Why one approach towards divorce and another towards SSM? Makes no sense.
-------------------- Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Leorning Cniht: I could probably make a case for "tolerating LGB relationships..." being a reasonable position if you thought homosexuality was probably wrong, but weren't sure, whereas endorsing such relationships (by performing SSM, allowing priests to be in a SSM etc.) needs you to think that homosexuality is at least probably OK.
This doesn't seem like a terribly con-evo way to think, though.
True, but the con-evos aren't the problem: open evangelicals are also fiercely opposed. Con-evos are a minority, and generally, do call for witchhunts and enforcement of "clear teaching."
According to liberal evangelical leaders, openly tolerating lesbian and gay relationships is too much like endorsement: yet tolerating them on the quiet is, apparently, fine. Good ol' deniability!
They claim not to know what's happening, but it looks like turning a blind eye. If you don't take active steps to seek out "wrongdoing" where you have reason to believe it exists, then surely you're culpable in it continuing?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Jade Constable: But con-evos already 'endorse' divorce by allowing priests to be divorced and marriages of divorcees to take place in church. Why one approach towards divorce and another towards SSM? Makes no sense.
'Cos people like them might get divorced: but gay and lesbian people are definitely 'other'. Standard 'high grid, high group' behaviour: when you feel under attack, draw your boundaries and identify an external enemy who must be resisted at all costs. [ 17. September 2014, 19:17: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
 Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Byron: quote: Originally posted by ExclamationMark: 1. To convince the unconvinced means them throwing away every vestige of what they believe. Would supporters of SSM be prepared to do that too?
2. That's the nub of the argument.
3. There's no chance of that - even considering it suggests that you aren't (probably) an evangelical
4. I doubt it. Most feel so strongly about the issue that they will leave altogether, join another denomination or withdraw funding (declare UDI).
However much gin Jeffrey John, Vicki Beeching and Colin Coward drink - their views will just float past most people whose minds are made up.
Part of the sadness as an outsider to the CofE is the recognition that "evangelical" is increasingly used as a term of abuse. It's become worthless with every side claiming it and very few seeming to be it.
A small point: no problem with you reformatting my post for clarity, but next time, could you please make it clearer that it's an edit? Thanks.
Sure, a majority of evangelicals may up and leave the church if it adopts "two integrities." If that's gonna happen, best it finds out now, and splits as smoothly as possible.
Gotta say, it's a strange field on which to take a moral stand. Church of England already tolerates sexual relationships between LGB couples; it's in full communion with churches that bless them (TEC, & Scandinavian Lutheran churches). Evangelicals haven't waged a war against this, have they?
Why draw the line at tolerance coming out the closet?
Two points, Byron --
First, the CofE is nearly unique in global Anglicanism (if one can speak of such a thing) in that evangelicals are still inside the tent. In some parts they left years ago, in others they appear to own the tent. In either case, the "church" doesn't have to do what the CofE seems to feel it must and hold two incompatible entities in unity. This explains, I think, the apparent inability ot CofE leaders (see Rowen WIlliams, for example) to understand that they look a lot of right prats to the the rest of us (on both sides). And the utter incomprehension with which most of us observe the CofE tying itself in knots -- with no Alexander in sight.
Second, evangelicals in the CofE -- like the CofE itself, and many of the English for that matter -- is firmly convinced that they alone matter. No experience from outside (outside whatever box or community you're talking about) could possibly have anything to do with what they (again, not just the evangelical they) are about. The fact that other parts of anglicanism have had female bishops for decades mattered not a whit in the CofE debate; the fact that the CofE is in full communion with groups that accept LGBT people matters not in the least. Because those are outside evangelicalism in the Cof E, or outside the CofE, or outside England (depending again on which box you're in) and therefore they don't matter, and so effectively they are imaginary and don't exist. See again, as an example, Rowen Williams' attitude to TEC and the Anglican CHurch of Canada.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by John Holding: Two points, Byron --
First, the CofE is nearly unique in global Anglicanism (if one can speak of such a thing) in that evangelicals are still inside the tent. In some parts they left years ago, in others they appear to own the tent. In either case, the "church" doesn't have to do what the CofE seems to feel it must and hold two incompatible entities in unity. This explains, I think, the apparent inability ot CofE leaders (see Rowen WIlliams, for example) to understand that they look a lot of right prats to the the rest of us (on both sides). And the utter incomprehension with which most of us observe the CofE tying itself in knots -- with no Alexander in sight.
Yep, and this is 'cause, in the late Sixties, English evangelicals deliberately chose to stay in the Church of England en masse and influence its policy.
The patrician old guard, clubbable and patronizing, thought the evangelicals could be ignored, and so didn't see the danger until it was too late, and they awoke to find the evangelicals running the place.
As entryism goes, it's been as sucessful as the religious right's takeover of the GOP. quote: Second, evangelicals in the CofE -- like the CofE itself, and many of the English for that matter -- is firmly convinced that they alone matter. No experience from outside (outside whatever box or community you're talking about) could possibly have anything to do with what they (again, not just the evangelical they) are about. The fact that other parts of anglicanism have had female bishops for decades mattered not a whit in the CofE debate; the fact that the CofE is in full communion with groups that accept LGBT people matters not in the least. Because those are outside evangelicalism in the Cof E, or outside the CofE, or outside England (depending again on which box you're in) and therefore they don't matter, and so effectively they are imaginary and don't exist. See again, as an example, Rowen Williams' attitude to TEC and the Anglican CHurch of Canada.
John
Parochialism's the elite's other curse. Guess it comes from living on an island.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by ExclamationMark: quote: Originally posted by Byron: [QUOTE
1. If we're going to get anywhere, we are going to have to convince the unconvinced .... depends what we're trying to convince them of.
2. Evangelicals are convinced that homosexuality is a sin, and a "salvation issue," and supporting it would, in their eyes, be incompatible with Christianity.
3. You'd have more chance of convincing them to reconsider the divinity of Christ.
4. They may, against their own instincts, be persuaded to support "two integrities," but only on political, not theological, grounds.
1. To convince the unconvinced means them throwing away every vestige of what they believe. Would supporters of SSM be prepared to do that too?
2. That's the nub of the argument.
3. There's no chance of that - even considering it suggests that you aren't (probably) an evangelical
4. I doubt it. Most feel so strongly about the issue that they will leave altogether, join another denomination or withdraw funding (declare UDI).
However much gin Jeffrey John, Vicki Beeching and Colin Coward drink - their views will just float past most people whose minds are made up.
Part of the sadness as an outsider to the CofE is the recognition that "evangelical" is increasingly used as a term of abuse. It's become worthless with every side claiming it and very few seeming to be it.
You've both quoted and edited the quote from Byron, without making it clear that that is what you were doing.
Byron has indicated he is OK with that, provided you say so. But as a Host here I'm not OK with it. When we quote, we quote "as is", in whole or in part. That's standard practice here.
A format such as:
"@Byron post(s) [Link to that post or those posts]. I think your comments might be reasonably summarised thus;
(edited summary)
My response is
(response)"
makes it clear what you are doing. Your post didn't. I appreciate there was no real harm this time, but it's not an acceptable practice here, because of the danger of misrepresentation.
Barnabas62 Dead Horses Host.
-------------------- Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Byron wrote:- quote: As entryism goes, it's been as sucessful as the religious right's takeover of the GOP
Hardly. Whilst never having been an evangelical, I would have to acknowledge that evangelicalism in the CofE goes right back to the reformation. And so does the stay vs. go argument within evangelicalism.
It has been the dominant force at times, e.g. during the evangelical revival. Plenty of other currents in the CofE can more accurately be described as entryist, but not evangelicalism.
-------------------- Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi: Byron wrote:- quote: As entryism goes, it's been as sucessful as the religious right's takeover of the GOP
Hardly. Whilst never having been an evangelical, I would have to acknowledge that evangelicalism in the CofE goes right back to the reformation. And so does the stay vs. go argument within evangelicalism.
It has been the dominant force at times, e.g. during the evangelical revival. Plenty of other currents in the CofE can more accurately be described as entryist, but not evangelicalism.
Depends on how long "evangelicalism" has been around. I'm using the word to describe the popular, revivalist movement that emerged in the 18th century. Far from taking over the church back in Hanoverian times, it originally branched off into Methodism. Those evangelicals who remained in the Church of England were inclined to separatism.
As the linked article notes, at Keele 67, the John Stott faction chose to embrace the church's structures, & move to the center of the institution.
Now both English archbishops, and a substantial number of diocesans, are evangelicals, along with the largest parishes, the majority of ordinands, and the Christian conferences. Discussion's conducted on evangelical terms: note how, in Pilling, and these "shared conversations," all focus is on scripture, with reason and tradition shoved out the door. [ 17. September 2014, 22:31: Message edited by: Byron ]
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
 Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Byron: Yep, and this is 'cause, in the late Sixties, English evangelicals deliberately chose to stay in the Church of England en masse and influence its policy.
I've started reading the linked article, and what jumps out to me on page 2 is this:
quote: For Stott, separation was not a feasible option as Anglican evangelicals were presented with a golden opportunity to increase their influence within the Church of England.
Not: "separation was not a feasible option as splitting a church is wrong."
I'll keep reading to find out if the initial impression I get from that statement is justified or not. Nevertheless, I'm not entirely sure I'd be free of factionalism, church-splitting, and influence-pedalling and -mongering myself if push came to shove on issues that I care about.
-------------------- Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Anyone heard any responses to the Bishops new trialing material?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
My spy-in-a-palace reports when their boss got back home he headed straight for strong drink ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
-------------------- Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Probably the most appropriate place to ask - what's the policy on clergy in civil partnerships and child-rearing?
-------------------- Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote: Crap spouted by Albertus: Standard 'high grid, high group' behaviour: when you feel under attack, draw your boundaries and identify an external enemy who must be resisted at all costs.
You're thinking of 'low grid, high group' behaviour.
-------------------- we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
quote: Crap spouted by Jade Constable: Probably the most appropriate place to ask - what's the policy on clergy in civil partnerships and child-rearing?
* would have to assume that, since gays/lesbians do not ***age in procreative activities (or so the high priests say), they do not have to consider child-rearing by "that kind of person".
The hierarchy would like to appear to be out of touch, whatever glimmerings of public opinion may leak into their minds.
And civil partnerships are not a religious issue, since any heathen can take part in one, or, for that matter, register one. See: previous paragraph.
Why does the church maintain a hierarchy that is so obtuse? Perhaps a proper Reformation is needed.
-------------------- It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Byron:
quote: Yep, and this is 'cause, in the late Sixties, ***l*** evangelicals deliberately chose to stay in the Church of ***land en masse and influence its policy.
This must be a new and interesting definition of 'entryism', with which * was not hitherto familiar. It's not actually entryism to remain part of a body of which one is already a member and which one had previously joined in good faith.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote: Crap spouted by Dafyd: quote: Crap spouted by Albertus: Standard 'high grid, high group' behaviour: when you feel under attack, draw your boundaries and identify an external enemy who must be resisted at all costs.
You're thinking of 'low grid, high group' behaviour.
No. Of course, * might be misunderstanding the terminology and * can see why you are suggesting that.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote: Crap spouted by Horseman Bree: quote: Crap spouted by Jade Constable: Probably the most appropriate place to ask - what's the policy on clergy in civil partnerships and child-rearing?
* would have to assume that, since gays/lesbians do not ***age in procreative activities (or so the high priests say), they do not have to consider child-rearing by "that kind of person".
The hierarchy would like to appear to be out of touch, whatever glimmerings of public opinion may leak into their minds.
And civil partnerships are not a religious issue, since any heathen can take part in one, or, for that matter, register one. See: previous paragraph.
Why does the church maintain a hierarchy that is so obtuse? Perhaps a proper Reformation is needed.
Actually LGBT people can and do ***age in 'procreative activities' - for instance if one partner is transgender. Many same-gender couples have children from a previous different-gender relationship too.
* 'm quite confused by your answer, sorry - my question was asking whether having children was OK for clergy in civil partnerships.
-------------------- Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Gildas: This must be a new and interesting definition of 'entryism', with which I was not hitherto familiar. It's not actually entryism to remain part of a body of which one is already a member and which one had previously joined in good faith.
Fair point, but pre-Keeble, it's debatable if the majority of evangelicals were really "in," or just using the Church of England as the best boat to fish from. Post-'67, they were fully committed, and set on moving to the center of the organization.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
FYI There is an excellent article in The Church Times about Pilling, focusing particularly on ths confusion within the report and the less than clear or logical extrapolations made.
-------------------- 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
What I find particularly disturbing is the way that the emphasis shifts on the reasons for objection to SSM.
Talk to an evangelical about marriage and the subject of sex comes up very quickly - although maybe couched in language about children. They will tell you that one of the most important things about marriage is that it is a 'building block of society', they'll talk about 'family life' and certainly allude to the importance of a sexual relationship as being something God wanted us to have and to take pleasure in and from.
Even the good old CofE refers to the aspect of pleasure in relationship to sex: quote: from the Preface of the Marriage Service ... brings husband and wife together in the delight and tenderness of sexual union...
so encouraging us to see sexual pleasure as a gift from God.
However, if you mention that God wants us to have pleasure in sex in relation to same-sex relationships the tables are turned completely: then the line is that you are only acceptable to the church - and by extension to God - if you are celibate.
So which is right?
The same arguments come up with the church seeking to promote sexual faithfulness: the marriage service is all about maintaining an exclusive sexual relationship - has been since the BCP spoke of the Brute Beasts! You may even find some clerics still prepared to give voice to the old canard that 'all gays are promiscuous'. The logical and reasonable answer is that if you are trying to promote (force even) people to be faithful you don't then turn around and say to a whole section of society that their wanting to be married is wrong, sinful, even evil; no, logically you encourage the lifelong monogamous relationships you say you are in favour of for the rest of society. Similarly, if clergy are going to bleat about 'promiscuous gays' where are the statements about swingers, adults-only party weekends, etc?
Of course, the clue is that while Pilling seemed quite happy to treat proper evidence - proper, peer-reviewed, scientifically researched evidence - from the psychiatric fraternity with caution, it notably failed to apply the same caution to the other side of the argument, which it took on unexpurgated from the Core Issues Trust who view homosexuality and as a disorder and seek to offer so-called treatment for it - treatment which Pilling doesn't expose to any proper analysis or rigorous scrutiny. Its not as it CIT made any attempt to hide its agenda: its own website notes that it quote: also holds institutional memberships in the Evangelical Alliance (EA), and with the International Federation for Therapeutic Choice (IFTC), a branch of the USA-based National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH).
When the 'facilitated conversations' take place - 40 key people per diocese, don't forget! - will the material presented by the College of Bishops give any background to this? I won't hold my breath.
The bishops are asking us to trust them while any clergyman or woman who dares to publicly present themselves as gay in any of the conversations will face immediate scrutiny of and questioning about their private life which is not asked of heterosexual clergy. Why on earth would anyone open themselves up to this modern version of the pillory? Or is it now open-season on every cleric's sexual proclivities?
-------------------- 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
Maybe the answer is to greet every bishop we have dealings with or meet * with bright, breezy and determined questions about their sex life or, if they're unmarried, nice loud questions about how they're coping with celibacy.
I suspect they won't like it - well, neither would I but is it fair for them to try to impose this sort of thing on others if they wouldn't be happy with it themselves.
Alas, with a couple of the bishops I fear we shouldn't under-estimate their levels of prurience but maybe the rest could restrain them within the bounds of polite behaviour.
*[Informally I tried this with a bishop (now retired) I knew well: he went very red, looked as if he'd swallowed a wasp and I've since had a note to say that a repeat will see me crossed off his Christmas card list.]
-------------------- Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|