|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Disestablishment
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Given the absolute block the CoE has put on SSMs, is there a likelihood that said church will lose its established position in England?
Much as we should all devoutly wish and pray for disestablishment, the CofE has disagreed with the government on all sorts of things in the past, and none of them has ever led to disestablishment yet.
When it does come it will come because the CofE wants to escape from government, not because government is fed up with the CofE. Because they couldn't care less on the whole.
quote:
Is the church actually united against the threat of gays being married? If it splits, which bit might retain the ilusory notion of being "established"?
The bit that has bishoips in the House of Lords.
Perhaps a closer link with the state might be more worthwhile - the CofE being an Erastian religious department of state for those who like such things. Then when parliament led the way on SSM, the CofE would follow along quite naturally.
It would be both bold and ingenious to argue that the Holy Spirit works more effectively through General Synod than parliament.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Permission/duty to marry the unbaptised could be seen as an Erastian thing or a doctrinal thing. Or maybe the latter as a rationalisation of the former. But whereas in a neatly ordered system (which neither the world nor the C of E is) there is a logical case for insisting on baptism as the prerequisite for all other sacraments, that's not to say that God can't work through anomalies in our systems (or even that She's not all that bothered about them).
In any case, even in these post-christian days when not as many adults were baptised as infants, I don't think I've ever officiated at a wedding where neither party was baptised. Usually these days if they want a church wedding it's because of some residual connection with the church in the past, which makes it more likely that they were baptised. It may of course be different for more photogenic churches than the ones I've been involved with.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If a marriage in a church is a 'threefold cord' (2 spouses and God), how can we ask God to bless what his word has clearly stated is not in his plan and purpose for human relationships? (emphasis added)
Mudfrog, my dear old chap, someone who has been on the Ship as long as you have ought to know that there are many Christians who do not think the Bible "clearly states" that homosexuality is against his will. Some things in the Bible are clear; that isn't.
Of course I know that - but there are equally an awful lot of Christians who DO believe that it is 'clearly stated'.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
But that is the point of this discussion.
The Bishops have said that, in their opinion, the issue is settled on the "anti" side, while the congregations that they represent are divided very largely. The Bishops may even represent a slim majority of the regular attenders, but they certainly do not represent enough of the members, adherents and just-interested to claim that they speak with a united voice.
The Bishops could easily put themselves into the position of the RC hierarchy, with large groups of the faithful ignoring or actively opposing them... or just walking away from the church as ahomophobic club that is now proving to be irrlevant (see the DH thread)
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Of course I know that - but there are equally an awful lot of Christians who DO believe that it is 'clearly stated'.
The problem is when there are sizeable minorities who believe equal-and-opposite things and yet the hierarchy only seems to back one group.
Of course, the problem in the Anglican church which makes the whole thing worse is that it is a seemingly unworkable organisation comprising of 5 or more fighting factions. The only reason they don't split seems to be that they don't believe they'd survive for long as separate churches (even though most seem to agree this would make more sense).
I suspect these tensions are actually under the surface of most large organisations and churches. I'd be very surprised if there was no tension in the Sally Army - if not about this issue then about another issue of conscience.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Of course I know that - but there are equally an awful lot of Christians who DO believe that it is 'clearly stated'.
The problem is when there are sizeable minorities who believe equal-and-opposite things and yet the hierarchy only seems to back one group.
Of course, the problem in the Anglican church which makes the whole thing worse is that it is a seemingly unworkable organisation comprising of 5 or more fighting factions. The only reason they don't split seems to be that they don't believe they'd survive for long as separate churches (even though most seem to agree this would make more sense).
I suspect these tensions are actually under the surface of most large organisations and churches. I'd be very surprised if there was no tension in the Sally Army - if not about this issue then about another issue of conscience.
Just FYI - THIS LETTER shows clearly The Salvation Army's position.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I am not talking about the OFFICIAL position of the Sally Army. As any idiot can tell. Gah, why am I bothering.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I am not talking about the OFFICIAL position of the Sally Army. As any idiot can tell. Gah, why am I bothering.
I think you'll find that given its nature and it's very strict membership covenant, the majority of salvationists go along with this wholeheartedly.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The problem is real life changes views - famously Bishop James Jones* He changed his mind on homosexuality and rumour has it that it was because a close relative came out as gay.
I am sure that various Salvationists are dealing with this in their lives too.
* sorry, that's using tiny url as the wiki link has brackets
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem is real life changes views - famously Bishop James Jones* He changed his mind on homosexuality and rumour has it that it was because a close relative came out as gay.
I am sure that various Salvationists are dealing with this in their lives too.
* sorry, that's using tiny url as the wiki link has brackets
I know some who are.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I am not talking about the OFFICIAL position of the Sally Army.
Yes you clearly were. Or rather you were talking about the official position of the Church of England, and speculating on various reasons why it might suit the bishops politically to stick to it, and then you said the SA might be in the same sort of situation, and Mudfrog demonstrated that their official position is the same as the CofE one.
quote:
why am I bothering.
Maybe because, like most theological liberals and agnostics you think believers are stupid or ignorant or misled, and being a decent sort of chap, you want to educate us.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@Mudfrog - :blink: and you don't accept that not all Salvationists are happily going along with this statement?
There will always be difference of opinion, but seeing that full covenant membership of TSA is not open to non-celibate gay people there is unlikely to be much dissent.
Just to be clear, however, adherent membership which an awful lot of people avail themselves of, requires no subscription to anything other than a statement of faith in Christ and will therefore have a lot more leeway in matters of personal conscience - small example, many will drink alcohol whilst that is barred for covenanted 'soldiers'.
People know where the Army stands and therefore won't disagree too.
Regarding morality and ethics TSA is very close to the RCC on most things (apart from contraception).
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I realise that this article was written by a self-defined atheist, but the point of his headline is arguable: A church fit only for bigots and hypocrites
How does a church walk when there are so many holes being shot in it's feet?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I realise that this article was written by a self-defined atheist, but the point of his headline is arguable: A church fit only for bigots and hypocrites
How does a church walk when there are so many holes being shot in it's feet?
Is it wholesome for anyone to insist that an organisation should let itself be defined by its enemies?
If a fellow Christian argues that according to their understanding of the faith, Christians should think or do X one should give them a hearing. They might be right. If an atheist tells us that according to his parameters, Christians should think or do X, the wholesome reaction is a polite version of 's*d off'.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I am not talking about the OFFICIAL position of the Sally Army.
Yes you clearly were. Or rather you were talking about the official position of the Church of England, and speculating on various reasons why it might suit the bishops politically to stick to it, and then you said the SA might be in the same sort of situation, and Mudfrog demonstrated that their official position is the same as the CofE one.
It seems like you need to go back and read what I actually wrote in my exchange with @Mudfrog. To repeat what I actually wrote,
quote:
I suspect these tensions are actually under the surface of most large organisations and churches. I'd be very surprised if there was no tension in the Sally Army - if not about this issue then about another issue of conscience.
The fact that the SA have an official position is not relevant when discussing whether there are tensions under the surface of most churches and large organisations, because the official policy doesn't reflect the tensions under the surface. I didn't say that I knew for certain, I just said I would be surprised.
I stand by this comment. If you want to infer other made-up-shit about what it shows that I believe about it, infer away in your own time.
quote:
quote:
why am I bothering.
Maybe because, like most theological liberals and agnostics you think believers are stupid or ignorant or misled, and being a decent sort of chap, you want to educate us. [/QB]
You know almost nothing about what I believe, so I'll ask you to refrain from putting me alongside how other 'theological liberals and agnostics' act or believe in your experience and furthermore I'll thank you to refrain from casting aspersions as to my intent on this thread.
I believe that there are tensions on issues of conscience in all large organisations including churches NO MATTER THE STATED POLICY OR THEOLOGY. I don't really care if you think that is a liberal or agnostic view, because I've been around enough churches and large organisations to know that what happens on the surface is a pale reflection of the true undercurrents.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
So, Enoch, there can be no possibility that the outside observer might see things in a useful way?
[ 18. June 2012, 01:17: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
1. I think the legal minimum is for the two partners to declare their vows in front of a minimum of two witnesses.
2. The registrar isn't even obliged to do the famouts "speak now and forever hold your peace" bit, as your wedding license is displayed in the local registry office for x days beforehand, and it nobody objects to that then you can go ahead.
3. There was a query at a wedding I attended once because the happy couple signed the register using a Biro, and someone questioned whether it was all legitimate because it wasn't indelible ink. I think that "urban myths" like this are legion.
A clarification from someone who has taken a few weddings, albeit in a baptist church. Information correct as of the moment - we reregistered for weddings last year as we had a new building.
1. Correct - and the assent to marriage/vows taken have to be in one of the agreed forms. You will find them on the CofE website and (I think) on the form issued by Registry Offices. Note that only these vows are legally necessary - you can add what oithers you like as long as they don't contradict the "legal" ones. (I've had couples write their own vows, in the wpords of Ruth to naomi e.g).
Technically it's possible to do a wedding in church or anywhere using just the legal bits in about 5 mins. The rest is the religious service or civil padding.
The vows are the same whatever the location. Standard legal declarations.
2. Incorrect. The couple and the congregation must be asked about "any legal impediments" to marry. Weddings conducted in Anglican churches aren't advertised outside Registry Offices - the church itself is effectively a Registry Office and they just have to give notice in the services (technically all of them).
3. Signing in anything other than indelible ink makes the marriage technically invalid, irrespective of the words used in the ceremony. This will be picked up - as errors are - on the quarterly returns.
4. Bear in mind that the Church of England operates as a Registry Office and so has a different status to other religious groups. We (e.g baptists) have Registrars (ministers or church members) who carry out the instructions of the Superintendant Registrar at the Registry Office.
5. We could choose to do SSMs if it becomes legal to do so as the Quakers wish to do and as we have been marrying divorcees for many years (decision based on individual cases, rather like all marriages - we don't have to marry anyone). We are unlikley to assent to SSM as a denomination but there is strong sympathy for this position in some cases in the denominations hierarchy and perhaps a growing openness in soem churches. It is still a minority view IMHO and IME.
[ 18. June 2012, 06:04: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I am not talking about the OFFICIAL position of the Sally Army.
Yes you clearly were. Or rather you were talking about the official position of the Church of England, and speculating on various reasons why it might suit the bishops politically to stick to it, and then you said the SA might be in the same sort of situation, and Mudfrog demonstrated that their official position is the same as the CofE one.
It seems like you need to go back and read what I actually wrote in my exchange with @Mudfrog. To repeat what I actually wrote,
quote:
I suspect these tensions are actually under the surface of most large organisations and churches. I'd be very surprised if there was no tension in the Sally Army - if not about this issue then about another issue of conscience.
The fact that the SA have an official position is not relevant when discussing whether there are tensions under the surface of most churches and large organisations, because the official policy doesn't reflect the tensions under the surface. I didn't say that I knew for certain, I just said I would be surprised.
I stand by this comment. If you want to infer other made-up-shit about what it shows that I believe about it, infer away in your own time.
And let me just suggest that you cannot equate TSA with the Church of England.
When an Archbishop makes a statement, all Anglicans can be mildly interested in it, accepting of it or vehemently opposed - you are a broad church and there are no set standards of behaviour and morality. It is also, so I understand, perfectly acceptable to be an active gay couple in the church, unless you are a clergyman/woman.
That is why, in the CofE, there are tensions and disagreements about this issue.
The Salvation Army is entirely different. To be a uniformed member one has to sign up to some pretty strong covenantal promises. And where there are some abberations, usually in younger people, we have a system of discipline that actually removes Salvation Army membership from those who cease to live by their promises.
People know where TSA stands and if they don't want to 'sign up' they don't. There will be very littkle dissent over this, not because we don't allow it, but because of the standards that Salvationists accept for themselves in other areas of life.
Of course, mistakes are made, people fall from grace and are often lovingly restored, but as far as lifestyle choices are concerned, you will not find much in the way of 'tension' regarding the SA's position on gay marriage.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
For Sweden, I believe that the Chief Justice administers the oath but it is the speaker of the Belgian Senate who administers.
Wait - the Belgian speaker is involved in the kingmaking of the King of Sweden?!?
'King 'ell - that means John Bercow would swear Brian in! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So, Enoch, there can be no possibility that the outside observer might see things in a useful way?
Not totally impossible, but a hostile journalist writing in the Grauniad, no.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
