|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: What 'listening process'?
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
BTW I can only imagine that +Wallace's purple shirt was down to Eric Kemp either (a) going gaga or (b)deciding to have a fling at discrediting the conevos by appointing someone patently unfit from within their ranks.
Or perhaps he tried to find someone acceptable to the conevo faction in Chichester Diocese and Wallace Benn was the best he could come up with. Let's face it - I don't think there were many people on the shortlist.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
BTW I can only imagine that +Wallace's purple shirt was down to Eric Kemp either (a) going gaga or (b)deciding to have a fling at discrediting the conevos by appointing someone patently unfit from within their ranks.
According to that great theological principle, Buggins turn, an evangelical was required and, it being +Eric an opponent of the ordination of women was required. It therefore seemed good to +Eric and, one hopes, to the Holy Ghost that Mr Benn became Bishop Benn.
--------------------
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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Albertus quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Actually, in Runcie's day it was rather more to do with the appointments secretary Mr Smith who was rumoured to limit his suggestions to those clergy he had either met in the Athanaeum or in the showrooms of Watts & Co...
quote:
That all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. At least you got some bishops with a bit of class and style.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
But then Runcie was also creative and could mould the most unlikely pig's ear into the sumptuous silk - I speak as one who remembers +London in his youth ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
As for any explanation, rational or otherwise, for +Wallace, I'm not sure Callan has it quite right: quote:
According to that great theological principle, Buggins turn, an evangelical was required and, it being +Eric an opponent of the ordination of women was required. It therefore seemed good to +Eric and, one hopes, to the Holy Ghost that Mr Benn became Bishop Benn.
I think you'll find the diocese in question developed a tradition of proposing a candidate likely to cast those of opposing views in the least flattering light - I'm told some of Eric's successor's choices as NR canons fall into this category.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Thanks for an affirming evo perspective, Barnabas62. Although I make no secret of disagreeing with evangelical theology, my frustration's better directed at liberals and moderates, who refuse to argue a case for change on their own terms.
Any coalition to end institutional homophobia must be broad, and of course affirming evangelicals will argue from their perspective. It's just that liberals and moderates should do likewise.
So when bishops take as given that it's all about scripture, they should be pulled up on it. "Yes, our affirming evangelical allies would agree, and they argue their position strongly, but many of us don't hold to an evangelical view of biblical authority."
Something about this comment doesn't ring true to me. I'm not entirely sure of my ground, am posting intuitively here, but I think it may be worth flying this kite.
Being evangelical informs the way I think and feel, and reason, and decide. But it doesn't control those aspects of my behaviour. So, for example, I'm not entirely comfortable with being labelled "affirming evangelical" if by that you mean I'm associated uniformly with a subset of evangelical views and behaviour.
Basically, I take responsibility for my own views, opinions, and understanding and seek to do that in good conscience. A part of my Christian understanding is that the outworking of my conscience is influenced by the indwelling Holy Spirit - and that view is held by Christians of all denominations to a greater or lesser extent.
So in dialogue with other Christians, I'm basically interested in what they think and believe, not which part of the rainbow they come from. The concept of Bulverism comes to mind. I don't say these things because I am an evangelical, I say these things because I have pondered over them. My church context for the last forty years has been evangelical and within that context there have always been issues in which my pondering has put me in a minority amongst my peers.
That's never bothered me, I suppose because my natural forebears are probably better described as noncomformists. The fact that I've been able to journey for forty years, living with differences with the folks with whom I worship (and they with me) probably says something as well.
I'm also a Companion in the ecumenically orientated Northumbria Community, which is interesting in this context since that Community refuses to have policies on issues which divide Christians, preferring the concept of pilgrimage together despite differences.
What I am getting at, I think, is that pigeon-holing of people is a subtle temptation, and can easily get in the way of any effective dialogue. Of course it's often true (as a Moody Blues song puts it) that "I'll sit down and lend an ear, yet I hear nothing new".
But not always. The essence of effective listening processes within dialogue is that we may be surprised by the way folks from other parts of the rainbow really do think and feel and reason. Once you get beyond the parroting of group opinions, of course. But I think there's great value in being less defensive about group views, even when they have been presented to us as doctrines, or even "salvation issues".
--------------------
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
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
BTW I can only imagine that +Wallace's purple shirt was down to Eric Kemp either (a) going gaga or (b)deciding to have a fling at discrediting the conevos by appointing someone patently unfit from within their ranks.
Or perhaps he tried to find someone acceptable to the conevo faction in Chichester Diocese and Wallace Benn was the best he could come up with. Let's face it - I don't think there were many people on the shortlist.
I think the ecclesial character of that part of the Chichester Diocese is attributable to Wallace's policy of appointing only ConEvos opposed to women (ie in his image) - it wasn't, if I recall, an anti-OOW stronghold in the days of Ian Cundy as Bishop of Lewes.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
[QUOTE]That all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. At least you got some bishops with a bit of class and style.
Might then that (both the process and the people involved) go some way towards explaining the mess the CofE is in?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
BTW I can only imagine that +Wallace's purple shirt was down to Eric Kemp either (a) going gaga or (b)deciding to have a fling at discrediting the conevos by appointing someone patently unfit from within their ranks.
Or perhaps he tried to find someone acceptable to the conevo faction in Chichester Diocese and Wallace Benn was the best he could come up with. Let's face it - I don't think there were many people on the shortlist.
That was always the answer I got (from people who approved of +Benn) when I lived in E Sussex.
--------------------
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
[QUOTE]That all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. At least you got some bishops with a bit of class and style.
Might then that (both the process and the people involved) go some way towards explaining the mess the CofE is in?
Well, perhaps the abandonment of that process, and the consequent loss of the kind of bishops that it produced, might.
[ 20. October 2014, 11:46: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I see the Bishop of Fulham has informed his clergy of his impending re-marriage: to be held in a register office with a blessing afterwards.
So - fine for a civil union to be followed by blessing even if you've been married before and your ex-spouse is still living but not OK if you're gay.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I see the Bishop of Fulham has informed his clergy of his impending re-marriage: to be held in a register office with a blessing afterwards.
So - fine for a civil union to be followed by blessing even if you've been married before and your ex-spouse is still living but not OK if you're gay.
Ah but he's not committing adultery because [reasons]. Also: gays are icky.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
When the rules to allow divorced and remarried persons to become Bishops were changed Forward in Faith went on the record as describing them as "unacceptable" and "more serious than gay marriage".
Broadly speaking I would have thought that an insistence in dying in a ditch for something, followed by an abrupt change of mind on the grounds that, "er, um, let us get back to you with regard to that one" was an invitation for ones interlocutors to consider that other ditches, hitherto worth dying in, were clearly not to be taken that seriously, after all. Let the reader understand.
--------------------
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
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
The 'blessing afterwards' is to be a Mass presided at by the Bishop of London.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Be fair, Amos. The woe unto Illium stuff on the Diocese of London's website is strictly for the benefit of the peasantry. Not for Chaps Like Us.
--------------------
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
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
I'm guessing there aren't that many people insisting.that suicides are unceremoniously bundled put of north door these days either.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not anti the service in church bit: what I don't get is why isn't he getting married in church? After all, if +London is happy to celebrate and bless the union surely he's happy to marry the happy couple - or am I missing something?
--------------------
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
Interestingly, the only churches I have come across who will not marry divorcees (not even divorcees who work for them) were in E Sussex and very friendly with +Benn. So at least no hypocrisy, I guess? I mean that's cold comfort but still.
--------------------
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 L'organist:
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not anti the service in church bit: what I don't get is why isn't he getting married in church? After all, if +London is happy to celebrate and bless the union surely he's happy to marry the happy couple - or am I missing something?
Well if you don't believe in marrying divorcees then a blessing isn't the same, surely? As I said, I've been in (evo) Anglican churches that won't marry divorcees but they'll bless the marriages.
--------------------
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
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I've been in (evo) Anglican churches that won't marry divorcees but they'll bless the marriages.
But that's the bizarre aspect of this. If you think it is wrong to remarry divorcees, why are you then blessing the self same remarriage?
The only answer I can come up with is that it is about the exercise of power: "I can make you jump through needless hoops so that you really get the message that God is disappointed with you."
It is my experience that churches which refuse to remarry divorcees but still do a blessing, will also throw in - for free - a fairly heavy-handed confession of sin as part of the blessing service - just so that the poor couple get the message that God is VERY disappointed with them.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
If you're prepared to bless divorces, why not bless a gay couple as well? I have heard the line, "Gay relationships are of such nature that they cannot be blessed," but wasn't deeply impressed with it.
--------------------
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
Just standard, old-fashioned CofE hypocrisy: the CofE may not be world class at much but we certainly lead the field when it comes to this sort of nonsense.
--------------------
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
Yeah, it does seem hypocritical. Was just trying to find some semblance of dignity about the whole thing...
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Was just trying to find some semblance of dignity about the whole thing...
There's none. It's partiality - and that is condemned in James 2. What else will bring a bend in the "rules" for the sake of a chum or expediency?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
If you're prepared to bless divorces, why not bless a gay couple as well?
That is much the question that ++Barry Cambrensis is asking- since the church's views on marriage have evolved to include first the blessing, then the marriage of divorcees, might not those views evolve further to encompass the blessing and then the marriage of gay couples? And that is pretty clearly what he would like to happen.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Fr. Hunwicke seems to think that this is the equivalent of blessing pedophile relationships.
While I consider the comparison to be evil in all respects, and I'm shocked to see it from someone as smart and (I'd previously thought) decent as Fr. Hunwicke, something useful does come out of that post: it illustrates the results of liberal and moderate cravenness.
This isn't a "difficult issue" to wring your hands over: this is a simple issue on which far too many lack the courage to speak plainly. Homosexuality isn't a sin. Period. The church was wrong, and needs to repent and atone.
The biggest problem isn't traditionalists. It's the Rowan Williams, Nicholas Holtams, and everyone else who refuses to take a stand.
[ 03. November 2014, 23:10: Message edited by: Byron ]
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Well if you don't believe in marrying divorcees then a blessing isn't the same, surely?
I completely fail to understand this argument. If it's not OK for divorcees to remarry, why is it OK to bless their remarriages?
Thinking it's OK to bless a second marriage but not to perform one in church seems to me to contain an assumption that registry office marriages are second-class, and not "proper" marriages. I don't think that's a defensible idea.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Precisely, LC.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not anti the service in church bit: what I don't get is why isn't he getting married in church? After all, if +London is happy to celebrate and bless the union surely he's happy to marry the happy couple - or am I missing something?
It's a piece of nonsense. Either one is prepared to remarry divorced persons in certain circumstances or one holds that said unions are, in all circumstances, adulterous. There isn't really any theological basis for holding that in such circumstances God would disapprove of a Christian minister acting as a registrar but would be quite comfortable with said minister pronouncing God's blessing on the union.
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
There isn't really any theological basis for holding that in such circumstances God would disapprove of a Christian minister acting as a registrar but would be quite comfortable with said minister pronouncing God's blessing on the union.
Well, I do know of a few Baptist ministers who refuse to act as Registrar for ANY weddings as they say that ministers (and churches) shouldn't act as servants of the State. But that has nothing to do with divorcees in particular!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
There isn't really any theological basis for holding that in such circumstances God would disapprove of a Christian minister acting as a registrar but would be quite comfortable with said minister pronouncing God's blessing on the union.
Well, I do know of a few Baptist ministers who refuse to act as Registrar for ANY weddings as they say that ministers (and churches) shouldn't act as servants of the State. But that has nothing to do with divorcees in particular!
Yep, I'm one of them. I'll do the service, pronounce the blessing - but it's all done in the name of God, not the state. That'd stick in my throat and I couldn't do it, not just wouldn't do it.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Then what is your role in the service? You (like any other minister or priest) are not marrying the couple in the sight of God: they themselves do that.Your conscience will not permit you to do what is necessary to marry the couple in the sight of the state. Are you, then, essentially a (doubtless very dignfied and supportive) MC and general diffuser of goodwill, rather as, say, a humanist celebrant might be, except that you also bring a gift for public prayer?
[ 04. November 2014, 17:28: 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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I can't speak for EM, of course.
But what we would like to know is whether he is presiding at a Blessing of a Marriage, following a Civil Ceremony held elsewhere; or if he is conducting a Marriage Service, made legal by it taking place in a registered building with the presence of a Registrar or an Authorised Person appointed by the church (the normal Nonconformist situation).
In my church, we have an AP - if I were to drop dead in the service, it could continue with someone else reading the words and the marriage would be legal. However, if the AP were to drop dead, the couple would not be legally married (although they might be married in God's sight)!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Then what is your role in the service? You (like any other minister or priest) are not marrying the couple in the sight of God: they themselves do that.Your conscience will not permit you to do what is necessary to marry the couple in the sight of the state. Are you, then, essentially a (doubtless very dignfied and supportive) MC and general diffuser of goodwill, rather as, say, a humanist celebrant might be, except that you also bring a gift for public prayer?
I bring the presence and Christ as His representative within the local church. The Registrar performs as a state functionary.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But what we would like to know is whether he is presiding at a Blessing of a Marriage, following a Civil Ceremony held elsewhere;
or if he is conducting a Marriage Service, made legal by it taking place in a registered building with the presence of a Registrar or an Authorised Person appointed by the church (the normal Nonconformist situation).
The latter - with a duly appointed AP (and very good she is too).
If we hold to the ideas that some have about ordination and/or priesthood, then my role is that of "walking sacrament"
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Thank you, that is very clear. I prefer not to be the AP (I have been in the past), but that is more do to with the impracticability or combining the two roles of Minister and AP than for any more thought-through theological reason.
There are one or two Baptist churches - I understand, but I've never encountered them - which refuse to have their buildings registered for Marriages, and to appoint an AP, so that they can be completely free of the State. (I have heard that they may also refuse to register with the Charity Commission, for the same reason).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There are one or two Baptist churches - I understand, but I've never encountered them - which refuse to have their buildings registered for Marriages, and to appoint an AP, so that they can be completely free of the State. (I have heard that they may also refuse to register with the Charity Commission, for the same reason).
Yep, these issues have often flitted through my mind but remain stored in the file marked "when I've got time."
Our Baptist forbears would be astonished at our complicity in these matters. We did discuss the latter (gift aid) at church meeting a year or so ago: surprisingly it was brought by one of our more liberally inclined members. It was perhaps more a matter of "we know that gift aid for churches is under discussion in advance of removal" [it has been in process for at least 5 years but HMRC haven't found a fool proof way of being able to extract churches from other charities], than a question of "we shouldn't have any truck with this stuff."
[ 05. November 2014, 06:53: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Surely Gift Aid wouldn't be a problem as it involves taking money from the Caesar(Boo!) and giving it to God (hurrah!). At the height of the expenses scandal I facetiously suggested that the congregation at a Baptism should gift aid on the grounds that the money would come to us, rather than being spent on an MPs Duck House. Every contribution came in a little yellow envelope with name and address on the front!
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Surely Gift Aid wouldn't be a problem as it involves taking money from the Caesar(Boo!) and giving it to God (hurrah!).
It's only a problem if you see participating in the state's systems (ie Gift Aid) to be wrong. Some churches believe this to be the case and don't register as charities - they can't then claim gift aid anyway.
[ 05. November 2014, 18:38: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
But- forgive me, this is a genuine attempt to understand- you have no problem with the church appointing an AP- who is presumably a Christian- to met the state's requirements for a legal marriage, but you do see an objection to it being you, a Christian minister. Am I right? And if I am, given that IIRC you have a pretty low view of the distinction between clergy and laity, what is it that makes the difference here between you and the lay AP?
--------------------
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
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
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.
I bimbled along to this event to see what it was all about. I took cookies. A side note - the man introducing proceedings said that the event was put on by the local EA, New Wine and Reform, which given that a) it was specifically advertised to be about the listening process and b) Reform have now withdrawn from that process, struck me as not entirely playing fair.
We were promised "winsome orthodox Biblical teaching" which I found distinctly thin on the ground. The small group facilitation was interesting - it's always entertaining to be told that one's view is coming from a different point to everyone else here, since theirs is Bible based.
My impression was of a climate of fear, and almost a siege mentality from some of the speakers (possibly not helped by one, who said he had been reading a lot of Daniel lately, and thinks that we are living in a post-Christendom exilic state). They also spoke about "the issue" "people experiencing / struggling with same sex attraction" - a phrase I haven't heard for ages, and I'd forgotten just how much it annoys me. It seems to me to trivialise people's lives and experiences, their hopes and dreams, to the level of how you feel aged 16 when the boy you fancy sits on the bus infront of you.
I suppose this is because those speaking don't actually believe that being gay (bisexuality was conveniently ignored) is a thing that exists. As far as they're concerned, people are, basically, heterosexual. All of them. I know this is blindingly obvious, but it seems there is such a deep-rooted division between this and another view - that non-straightness might just be part of our creation as humans, that I can't possibly see how the two sides can work together.
Plenty of the usual tropes were raised, I'll not bore you, but I played a nice little game of bullshit bingo with myself. And the cookies went down well.
[ 23. November 2014, 10:05: Message edited by: Jemima the 9th ]
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Thanks for that report, Jemima. Many of the con-evos talk another language.
Part of the reason I was so hard on pete173 earlier in the thread is 'cause we need people like him to take things forward. He holds a traditional position, but once fought for gay rights, and could again. I have no doubt that, if he could somehow be persuaded that gay relationships can be reconciled with scripture, or that he could modify his views on biblical authority without abandoning his faith, he'd affirm them in a heartbeat.
People like him can translate, and work to find a way forward.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
My impression was of a climate of fear, and almost a siege mentality from some of the speakers (possibly not helped by one, who said he had been reading a lot of Daniel lately, and thinks that we are living in a post-Christendom exilic state).
Given that gay men, until recently, could end up in the 'lion's den' of prison, maybe it is the turn of fundamentalists!
--------------------
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
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
A conversation with a main protagonist from the LGBTI groupings this last weekend led me to two conclusions:
1. that he sees this (and the whole Christian faith) as about relationships, while those of us at the traditionalist end see it as about salvific relationship with God, revealed religion, discipleship, and transformation (which LGBTI people might well also affirm, but with entirely different presuppositions).
2. that the conversations are still likely therefore to be a useful place of meeting, but also a dialogue of the deaf, which made us both pull up short and say "do we want to put vulnerable people into this sort of context, at great risk to themselves, when there is no end result in view?"
If you believe (as I and many evangelicals do) that being in relationship cannot trump fundamental theological differences, no amount of being nice to each other in the same room is going to crack it.
Byron's helpfully provocative stuff suggests that I and others can "take things forward". The present reality is that I can't see a way forward - because in Sidney Smith's words about two women having an argument from upstairs windows across the street, we are discussing things from entirely different premises.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Pete173, I get that we're operating in radically different frameworks. The solution is finding a way for those frameworks to coexist within the same organization.
I know that you consider your hands tied on this. You believe that sexual relationships between two people of the same gender are sinful, in all circumstances. I don't know how you developed that belief, but you have. That's where you are, and that's where you'll likely stay.
Without changing that belief, can you think of any way that the Church of England could tolerate gay relationships amongst clergy without driving you out? You already tolerate them amongst the laity, and evangelicals don't tend to emphasize the distinction between ordained and non-ordained, so might there be hope on this?
[ 24. November 2014, 14:44: Message edited by: Byron ]
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by pete173 quote:
...those of us at the traditionalist end...
THERE is the problem.
Not only that you see yourself as quoted above, but that you think you therefore speak for many of us who are AC and assume we have a 'problem' with SSM, gays, etc simply because you do.
Your citing of 'revealed religion' rather gives the game away: you can give yourself whatever label you want but deep down you have more in sympathy with the EA than any traditionalist I know.
And the very fact that you use those words give a fair indication that as far as you're concerned you know what G*d thinks on the matter and nothing will persuade you otherwise.
Sloppy thinking which is no surprise from someone who is perennially stroppy.
--------------------
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
L'organist, while pete173 may be certain of his beliefs, progress is still, I think, possible.
Recently, I've come around to thinking that the best way forward is convincing evangelicals to accept a "on your head be it" toleration. In their eyes, it's a "salvation issue," but the evangelical tradition has a strong emphasis on free will. From their perspective, if a person wants to send themselves to hell, surely they have the right, just as a nonbeliever has a right to reject Christ.
They would remain free to do everything in their power to persuade LGBT people to suppress their sexuality for life, but church discipline would end. From their perspective, I can see how such persuasion would not only be right, but essential.
Within the church, evangelicals already tolerate Christians who, in their eyes, aren't Christians at all. There's a realistic chance that this evangelical tolerance can be extended to LGBT people.
It's the best way forward I can see at present.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
My impression was of a climate of fear, and almost a siege mentality from some of the speakers (possibly not helped by one, who said he had been reading a lot of Daniel lately, and thinks that we are living in a post-Christendom exilic state).
Given that gay men, until recently, could end up in the 'lion's den' of prison, maybe it is the turn of fundamentalists!
Don't encourage him! ![[Biased]](wink.gif) The persecution complex is strong with this one, as they didn't quite say in Star Wars.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
... no surprise from someone who is perennially stroppy.
(Italics mine)
Not sure if pete might actually take that as a back-handed compliment! But I think you cross the line between legitimate critical comment on a post and critical comment on pete's character. That's Commandment 3 territory. Have a care.
Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host
[ 24. November 2014, 21:19: 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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
A conversation with a main protagonist from the LGBTI groupings this last weekend led me to two conclusions:
1. that he sees this (and the whole Christian faith) as about relationships, while those of us at the traditionalist end see it as about salvific relationship with God, revealed religion, discipleship, and transformation (which LGBTI people might well also affirm, but with entirely different presuppositions).
2. that the conversations are still likely therefore to be a useful place of meeting, but also a dialogue of the deaf, which made us both pull up short and say "do we want to put vulnerable people into this sort of context, at great risk to themselves, when there is no end result in view?"
If you believe (as I and many evangelicals do) that being in relationship cannot trump fundamental theological differences, no amount of being nice to each other in the same room is going to crack it.
Byron's helpfully provocative stuff suggests that I and others can "take things forward". The present reality is that I can't see a way forward - because in Sidney Smith's words about two women having an argument from upstairs windows across the street, we are discussing things from entirely different premises.
I still don't see how being a 'traditionalist' on this issue should prevent you from co-existing in the same church with people who have equally strong and Christian but different convictions about it. Any more than being a 'traditionalist' about the ordination of women means that they don't accept you, and the rest of us, as members of the same Church.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I still don't see how being a 'traditionalist' on this issue should prevent you from co-existing in the same church with people who have equally strong and Christian but different convictions about it. Any more than being a 'traditionalist' about the ordination of women means that they don't accept you, and the rest of us, as members of the same Church.
As evangelicals have explained it to me, equal ordination is "adiaphoron," or a "thing indifferent" to use the old school phrasing. In short, as it's not a core doctrine, Christians can agree to disagree.
Gay relationships, by contrast, are, thanks to Paul's words in Corinthians, a "salvation issue." For many (not all) evangelicals, it can't be tolerated without corrupting the church.
So the key to getting past this impasse is finding some way to tolerate something that isn't adiaphoron.
And something I gotta say: it rips my heart to see the harm arguments from authority do. All this could be finished in an instant if we could just say, "Paul was wrong." So much pain, done to, and by, good and decent people, in the name of this ideology. It's so pointless. Its makes us cruel when we could just be kind. I'll fight it, always.
If that's God's will, then God isn't good, just strong.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
