|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: What 'listening process'?
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
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
(Mouth appears to go dry, and with a suggestion of awkward, barely hidden eagerness...)
I, uh, I'd be up for that.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
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.]
I'd send the questions with the Christmas Card
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Elder son just glanced at my screen and came out with a helpful suggestion:
"Do the House of Bishops want to borrow my purple furry handcuffs?" *
Your thoughts, shipmates?
*No, I haven't asked why he has such things
--------------------
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
But is the fur of the proper liturgical/vestment colour?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Perfect for Advent and Lent, but surely the conscientious clergyperson would have a selection in all the colours of the liturgical year?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I'd imagine that a bishop could get away with purple all year round- surely these would count as 'walking out dress' rather than, heaven forbid, any kind of litrugical garments. Black furry handcuffs with red trim for canons, all red for Chaplains to the Queen, and when there's a special call from Rome for a pair of bespoke white ones- no, best not go there...
[ 24. September 2014, 10:15: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
These pages report on how far different provinces have got.
At the risk of generalising:
Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia acknowledges different views
Australia need to listen, particularly at parish level
Brasil need to be more sophisticated re- Bible and to become more inclusive
Burundi faithful to bible but must also be caring
Canada different views but open to new insights from Spirit
Central Africa shrill voices but no gay bashing
Central de America variety of countries and views
Congo unable to discuss
England unique role within the communion; celibate gays not barred
Hong Kong inclusive
Indian Ocean pastoral care
Ireland different views
Japan value and accept people but culture discriminates
Jerusalem and the Middle East need to be sensitive
Kenya disapproves inclusivity, faithful to scripture
Korea different views
Melanesia traditional teaching
Mexico inclusive
Myanmar generally conservative
Nigeria idolatry like sex with animals
Papua New Guinea violence against women more important; single men valued
Philippines not an issue, no discrimination
The Scottish Episcopal Church inclusive
Southern Africa inclusive
Southern Cone pastoral care but too busy to confront listening process
Sudan call for repentance
Uganda insulated by linking ordination of women and homosexuality, biblical counselling
The Episcopal Church (USA). Inclusive
Wales sets out different views but tending towards inclusive
West Africa individual rights do not trump Bible but treat gays with respect instead of denigration
West Indies loyalty to scripture and worldwide communion
So the various stances and the number of provinces holding those stances are:
Obey the bible 9
Fully inclusive 6
There are different views 6
Need to be more inclusive 2
Need to care 2
Need to listen 1
Need to be sensitive 1
Unable to comment 1
Unique role in the communion to sitting on the fence 1
There are more important issues to discuss 1
--------------------
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
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
Related to this (I think) was a poster spotted in my church this evening. Our local Evangelical Association is advertising a meeting with the headline: Human Sexuality, discerning a Biblical vision. It promises to help prepare you with an orthodox perspective for the planned "Conversations" (their "", not mine) within the CofE.
Now a total cynic might wonder whether this is a way of making sure that people have the "right" answers.
Also, on looking at the CofE proposal on the next steps in the listening process here: https://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2014/06/next-steps-in-shared-conversation-process-published.aspx
60 participants are to be involved in each of the 12 groups for listening, and there should be at least one LGBTI person in each group. 1 in 60 doesn't sound very many to me - and lower than the number of LGBT people in the population, surely?
The participants are to be chosen by the diocesan bishop, and their views should, as far as possible, represent the range of views of people within the diocese.
So....
How does the bishop decide who to include, and how does he know what the range of views within the diocese are?
I know I lean naturally towards the cynical, but this isn't doing much to change my view. Perhaps it's the only way the CofE decided they could make things work.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Related to this (I think) was a poster spotted in my church this evening. Our local Evangelical Association is advertising a meeting with the headline: Human Sexuality, discerning a Biblical vision. It promises to help prepare you with an orthodox perspective for the planned "Conversations" (their "", not mine) within the CofE. much to change my view. Perhaps it's the only way the CofE decided they could make things work.
I have seen a similar meeting here and someone reported back to me that it was heavily biased towards the 'traditional' view.
And it was led by the 'psychiatric expert' on Pilling, who follows the Bible and believes that homosexuality is pathological rather than his own professional association.
--------------------
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
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
I read the proposal as saying:
quote:
LGBTI people should be represented by more than one person in each diocesan group.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
It's going to be based on this prepared material written by those with different viewpoints. It will be interesting to see if any gay or pro-gay people were invited to contribute if this material is ever published.
And it's to provide a safe space to come to "good disagreement" since there's no expectation to resolve the issue.
[ 27. September 2014, 20:30: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Back when I was a student UCCF produced a booklet entitled "Homosexuality - A Christian Option?". They withdrew the first print run because the ? had been left off the cover, which did not give the impression they wished to convey.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Jemima the 9th quote:
I know I lean naturally towards the cynical, but this isn't doing much to change my view. Perhaps it's the only way the CofE decided they could make things work.
Its the only way the bishops can see of achieving their goal - which is to keep sitting on the fence.
The reason is that they're running scared of challenging the homophobia in the ranks, especially among evangelicals: and many of the bishops have firmly closed minds in any case. Plus there is likely to be latent homophobia among the mitres as well - did I say Birkenhead?
What they're absolutely terrified of is that someone with good contacts gets terminally pi**ed off with them and leaks the names of gay bishops and their partners to, say, Stonewall.
Some must be getting jittery at the very least, bearing in mind that even The Daily Mail has managed to 'uncover' and get photographs of the lover of Kieran Conroy, RC Bishop of Arundel and Brighton - press and freelance photographers on the loose in the supermarkets of Brighton and Hove can only be a cause of anxiety.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
rajm
Shipmate
# 5434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Back when I was a student UCCF produced a booklet entitled "Homosexuality - A Christian Option?". They withdrew the first print run because the ? had been left off the cover, which did not give the impression they wished to convey.
This was Grove Books rather than UCCF - unless UCCF made a similar error!
Posts: 131 | From: Cheshire | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Jemima the 9th quote:
I know I lean naturally towards the cynical, but this isn't doing much to change my view. Perhaps it's the only way the CofE decided they could make things work.
Its the only way the bishops can see of achieving their goal - which is to keep sitting on the fence.
The reason is that they're running scared of challenging the homophobia in the ranks, especially among evangelicals: and many of the bishops have firmly closed minds in any case. Plus there is likely to be latent homophobia among the mitres as well - did I say Birkenhead?
What they're absolutely terrified of is that someone with good contacts gets terminally pi**ed off with them and leaks the names of gay bishops and their partners to, say, Stonewall.
Some must be getting jittery at the very least, bearing in mind that even The Daily Mail has managed to 'uncover' and get photographs of the lover of Kieran Conroy, RC Bishop of Arundel and Brighton - press and freelance photographers on the loose in the supermarkets of Brighton and Hove can only be a cause of anxiety.
I'm not usually in favour of forced outings, but it's got to the point where I wonder what else would be enough to do anything.
--------------------
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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Give it a few more months Jade and if the 'facilitated conversations' seem to be going into a cul-de-sac I know several people who will out their mitred friends, albeit with heavy hearts, because they're fed up with the hypocrisy.
If that comes to pass expect a few shocks because there are more than a few bishops who seem to conform to the traditional minor public school definition of adultery and homosexuality:It only counts as adultery if its with a woman.
--------------------
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
I've looked at the press stories carefully and what Bishop Kieran Conroy has said. Some of the press allegations (accompanied by photographs) fall into the category of potential Commandment 7 infringements when repeated here.
No further comments please on the press speculation about particular individuals, certainly not at this stage. You know we have a very cautious approach to Commandment 7, given out lack of any reserves with which to defend against accusations of libel.
Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host
[ 28. September 2014, 20:06: 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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
When a number of conservative closet gay politicians were outed after passing anti-gay legislation I could see the point. If nothing else, it scuppered the careers of those who concel their own activity by persecuting. Justification for doing so seemed to involve active damage done by the individual and not merely going along with the malic of others.
I'm not sure what practical purpose outing any Bishops would serve. It might vent some ire at those who block others but is it "a heavy heart" or pique?
When I say "I'm not sure" that's not rhetorical, I'm really not close to the situation, but my assumption is any exposed Bishops would be replaced by even more homophobic Bishops. Is this not the case?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm not sure what practical purpose outing any Bishops would serve. It might vent some ire at those who block others but is it "a heavy heart" or pique?
When I say "I'm not sure" that's not rhetorical, I'm really not close to the situation, but my assumption is any exposed Bishops would be replaced by even more homophobic Bishops. Is this not the case?
I am not sure but if it is, that would end the hypocrisy, which is the most objectionable part of the current situation.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rajm:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Back when I was a student UCCF produced a booklet entitled "Homosexuality - A Christian Option?". They withdrew the first print run because the ? had been left off the cover, which did not give the impression they wished to convey.
This was Grove Books rather than UCCF - unless UCCF made a similar error!
I think my story predates Grove Books. Certainly I had a copy of the booklet many years ago, from UCCF, but with the punctuation in the "correct" place.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
This is possibly a slight tangent: but you may not know that the URC is conducting a "Listening Process" of its own. Its General Assembly last July considered a resolution which would permit local churches to register for and host Equal Marriages. Despite a huge majority in favour, the motion was not carried due to the consensus rules in place (some folk were not prepared to "agree to disagree" and there was a question as to whether such a change would represent a fundamental change in doctrine).
As a result the URC is now consulting all its churches, with an end-date next March and the possibility of holding an extraordinary Assembly later in 2015.
Fuller details are to be found in this booklet. We shall see what happens!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I read the proposal as saying:
quote:
LGBTI people should be represented by more than one person in each diocesan group.
You're right! I'm sorry. I misread. Although...more than one per 60. So, the group organiser could get away with 2. Which in a group of 60 could still be quite intimidating. And only "should", so nothing statutory.
And the idea of people being handpicked by the Bishop still troubles me. It brings to mind an image of a Bishop sitting at his desk pondering. "Now, who do I know who is gay....." - and I mean this in a non-libel-law-worrying way.
I think it was a real mistake not to open applications to the congregation at large - unless this is to happen, in which case I have missed it. There's a wider issue of who, in the congregations at large, has even heard of the listening process. None of my church friends seem to have done.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
When a number of conservative closet gay politicians were outed after passing anti-gay legislation I could see the point. If nothing else, it scuppered the careers of those who concel their own activity by persecuting. Justification for doing so seemed to involve active damage done by the individual and not merely going along with the malic of others.
I'm not sure what practical purpose outing any Bishops would serve. It might vent some ire at those who block others but is it "a heavy heart" or pique?
When I say "I'm not sure" that's not rhetorical, I'm really not close to the situation, but my assumption is any exposed Bishops would be replaced by even more homophobic Bishops. Is this not the case?
They should be outed because the teaching and discipline that springs from their self-oppression is toxic, not good news and they tend to do wiotch hunts on others.
They need not be 'replaced' - just living in the open air might be healthy because honest.
--------------------
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
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
One in 10 Church of England bishops 'could be secretly gay' – says bishop (Daily Telegraph)
I haven't been following this thread partiularly closely, so apologies if this 'news item' interrupts the flow, but didn't want to start a new thread just to bring this link to your attention!
What? Only 1 in 10. I bet it's more than that.
How so, leo?
(Just interested in how you come to the conclusion, not in "outing" anyone).
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Honest Ron
I'm feeling a little naughty today but I may have found the answer to your question.
Scroll down to The Bishop's Gambit section in this link, and all will be revealed.
(I think the last two quotes may have been misplaced)
[ 29. September 2014, 17:01: 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
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Tsk, Barnabas62!
On the subject of outing, it's been done before of course. I think the main power about outing is in the threat of it, not the doing of it, which can backfire.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Barnabas 62
As Chaucer would say Ful ofte in game a sooth I have herd saye.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
They should be outed because the teaching and discipline that springs from their self-oppression is toxic, not good news and they tend to do wiotch hunts on others.
They need not be 'replaced' - just living in the open air might be healthy because honest.
Unilaterally outing them seems uncomfortably close to a witch hunt in itself. Do you really think that if they were outed that there would not be a call for them to step down?
It may be the right thing to do, but outing someone is a serious action with consequences and not just done because "It might be healthy for them because honest". And if you're motivated by outrage over the hypocrisy, doing so while claiming "a heavy heart" seems mildly hypocritical in itself.
There is an argument for doing so if they are part of the group who is preventing other gay from participating in the church, if exposing the hypocrisy might lead to better conditions. It might have the opposite effect of encouraging a general witch hunt against closet gay clergy, not just Bishops.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Outing bishops would be useless unless you've cast-iron proof that they're in a sexual relationship. A gay bishop who stood up and announced his "commitment to church teaching" and his "lifelong struggle with same-sex attraction" would, far from being an agent of change, become a conservative hero, while making the folk who outed him look abhorrent.
Is the English affirming camp really going to reduce itself to the level of Labouchere blackmailers? Worse, in fact, as those parasites never held a press conference in which to fly the stained sheets.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
The Bishop of Buckingham has said a bit about how the listening went.
From the blog:-
quote:
When I was ordained the Church was a comparatively compassionate and safe place for all. The end of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" has got us to a place where things are actually worse for gay clergy.
This is true, but the key word here is "comparatively."
Turning a blind eye to "discrete" gay clergy might've been better than attacking them, but the secretive, deceptive culture it led to was unhealthy in the extreme. Gay clergy benefited from none of the legal protection and social affirmation that their straight colleagues took for granted.
We should always guard against nostalgia. DADT might've been better, but it was still very wrong, imposing a burden that gay clergy should never have been asked to carry.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
It still all comes down to sex.
Why do the bishops, or anyone else, feel they have a right to know whether or not people in a relationship are having sex?
If they feel they do have that right, then why don't they question male-female couples about their sexual practices? After all there are things that give thousands pleasure in the privacy of the bedroom that are still (technically at least) illegal.
It is totally illogical for the bishops to say it is OK for people to have SS relationships while objecting to those same people having a sex life: if their objections are so-called biblical then the relationship itself is wrong and celibacy won't water down the wrongness.
So, why the obsession with sex?
--------------------
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:
It still all comes down to sex.
Why do the bishops, or anyone else, feel they have a right to know whether or not people in a relationship are having sex?
If they feel they do have that right, then why don't they question male-female couples about their sexual practices? After all there are things that give thousands pleasure in the privacy of the bedroom that are still (technically at least) illegal.
I demand that Synod debate the outer limits of BDSM at the earliest opportunity. And goats.
quote:
It is totally illogical for the bishops to say it is OK for people to have SS relationships while objecting to those same people having a sex life: if their objections are so-called biblical then the relationship itself is wrong and celibacy won't water down the wrongness.
So, why the obsession with sex?
The bishops operate under the absurd and offensive fiction that gay relationships are "friendships" because, when the Bible was authored, no-one had a clue about sexual orientation. That's what comes when you try to reconcile premodern texts with two millennia of discovery.
They ignore, of course, the fact that the attraction is inherently sexual, even if the couple decline to engage in thrice-daily bouts of vigorous sport-fucking.
It's a crowning irony that the Church of England's attempt to be tolerant and diverse has lead to it plumbing the most absurd depths of legalism. (Higton even specified "homosexual genital acts," so presumably tonsil-hockey and spanking get a pass ... and we're back to S&M, synodical debates must be had!)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Well I counted too and I had to remove my socks... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
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
Why only goats, Byron? Obviously the Bible is definitely pro-sheep (no celtic jokes, please) but, so long as the beast concerned is kosher and consents, where's the harm?
And if Higton objected to 'genital acts' is that two sets of genitals or one? Because if one then that means the sex-toy market has an entirely new marketing angle.
I think we should be told
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
On the possibility of gay bishops outing themselves, this letter to the HoB is being widely circulated for signatures by lay and ordained Anglicans in and beyond the CofE: quote:
This letter is simply to say that, for those bishops who choose openly to acknowledge their sexual orientation as gay or bisexual, you will receive our energetic support, prayer, and encouragement.
Sadly we continue to live in a time when those who are honest about being LGBT Christians are treated poorly by a vocal minority within and outside the Church.
But we fully expect that the vast majority will welcome and embrace you for your courage and conviction and weep with you with joy and sadness for the journey past and the journey ahead.
If you stand out we will stand beside you.
--------------------
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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
What a wonderful letter.
I'd like to hope it does some good but won't hold my breath.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
Reform have withdrawn from the shared conversations.
As far as I can make out, they object to the conversations being shared and the disagreement being good. Presumably it's progress that they have clearly stated their position.
Not sure about progress, but it's a headache for the CofE hierarchy, because it forces them to do something more than stuff themselves full of Anglican-brand fudge. This is a display of open contempt for even this lame, half-assed, long-grass-kicking initiative, entirely undermining the stated aim of discussion and reconciliation. So what's to be done?
Take on Reform - Hahahaha, no, but seriously. Even a mealy-mouthed statement of regret would be an unusually bold step.
Stop the "listening process" until people are prepared to listen - Nope, that would be admitting failure. Not going to happen.
Let the "pro" camp dictate the agenda in the absence of any effective opposition - Vanishingly unlikely.
My money's on an initial pretence that nothing's happened, followed by a revised framework/process which could plausibly be spun to either side (but especially Reform) as giving them more of what they want. Expect that new framework to take about a year to be drafted and get agreement - longer if they can get away with it. That grass is so long, there are probably lost tribes living in there.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
Jeffrey John has always been a problem for the hierarchy, because Reform types hate him, but can't find any reasons for opposing his appointment that are consistent with the public and agreed position of the CofE. So the choice is between confronting those complaints head on and appeasing hypocritical bigotry. History indicates the latter as the most likely course of action.
--------------------
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
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It will be interesting to see if Jeffrey John ends up being appointed to St, Edmuindsbury. If he is, that might irrevocably kill the Listening Process.
Am I right? I'm not an Anglican, so I may have completely the wrong idea about this.
If you believe that the purpose of the shared conversations is to create '‘space and an environment for the Church of England to live together as a family who disagree with one another' (to quote Reform quoting the bishops) then the appointment of Jeffrey John as a bishop could be quite helpful.
It will certainly make compromise with Reform harder. It'll also prevent most solutions involving fudge or long grass.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
Reform have withdrawn from the shared conversations.
As far as I can make out, they object to the conversations being shared and the disagreement being good. Presumably it's progress that they have clearly stated their position.
They seem to be objecting to what they see as a change in the stated objectives of the conversations. They're wrong, but unfortunately don't get that they are. The objectives are set out in a GS Misc paper that went to Synod. They're reading a press release which they think changes the terms of reference. It doesn't. The agreed objectives (whether you like them or not) are here.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
This just goes to illustrate, yet again, the folly to trying to keep such incompatible groups within the same organization. Reform just won't compromise. So far as they're concerned, it's their way or the highway, and they shouldn't be the ones to leave.
The church should, simply, call their bluff. If they want to leave, fine, but if they go, they give up their stipends, buildings, and diocesan funding, and walk out with the shirts on their backs.
I expect instead yet more of that Anglican fudge packing, and LGBT people sacrificed once more on the altar of the church's great and terrible idol, unity.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I'm with Byron: While it may give Reform some small, temporary advantage to call their bluff, it must happen - any move towards accommodating them now would be disastrous and nothing more than a charter for every loony-tune pressure group to have a go at pushing onto the church some obnoxious prejudice.
The position of Reform is inherently unChristian: what they seem to want is an amalgam of MOTR Judaism and Pauline (to the exclusion of all else) Christianity.
The fact that ++Justin and a few others have given these people encouragement beggars belief but even he (and York, for that matter) must now see that this particular tail can no longer be allowed to wag the dog, however much money it comes wrapped in.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I agree. The "conversations" must go on as planned. To delay any further would be catastrophic - this is already almost 12 months behind an extremely dilatory schedule.
It sounds to me as if Reform were simply looking for an excuse to walk away. And having "lost" on the issue of women bishops, it becomes imperative for the leaders of Reform that they don't "lose" again.
I will be interested to see how this plays out abroad. Will Gafcon (or whatever we're supposed to call them these days) attempt to interfere on behalf of Reform? I'm anticipating a press release from them in the near future. How will the archbishops handle that?
As for Jeffery John, I hope that he DOES get the nod for St Edmundsbury & Ipswich. By all accounts, he's more than adequately equipped to be a bishop. Of course, that would cause immense difficulties for Sentamu, given how well documented are the lengths he went to prevent JJ becoming bishop of Southwark. Given his age and health problems, I wonder if Sentamu might not take the opportunity to retire if JJ is made a bishop? He would have a chance to bow out gracefully, should he so desire. He's held Welby's hand for long enough, now.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
