Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
It seems the Bishop of London is not pleased.

---

quote:

---

So much good work is being done both nationally and internationally by the Church as it seeks in the spirit of Jesus Christ to address some of the global issues of peace, justice and poverty that confront the peoples of the world. It would be a tragedy if this episode were to distract us from the big agenda.

---

Addressing issues of justice is going to distract us from addressing issues of justice?

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Well, I think you may have fallen under the spell of the propaganda. There aren't (a) authorised liturgies (important on the lex orandi, lex credendi principle); (b) many public services of blessing; (c) as many instances as folk would like to claim.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
There are quite a few bishops who have backed their clergy, provided they stay within the guidelines - but I ain't going to name them.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Well, I think you may have fallen under the spell of the propaganda. There aren't (a) authorised liturgies (important on the lex orandi, lex credendi principle); (b) many public services of blessing; (c) as many instances as folk would like to claim.

---

Then, why did not Rowen -- to whom the question was asked publicly and specifically by the Primate of Canada, not deny the allegation? Why did he remain silent?

Failing a personal response from Rowen, why did not another representative of the CofE respond?

And, unless you know certainly that there are no such services, whether widely or not -- and Leo has said he has attended two so far this year -- why are bishops of all stripes (on this issue), from Southwark to Rochester, remaining in steely silence?


JOhn

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:


Although I have to say that ordinary marriage is decreasingly a political statement. Why should it be? Politics is about getting things done, and most of the same things now get done if you simply live together rather than marry. Modern cohabitation rights have largely evacuated the political dimension from marriage. An example of the law of unexpected consequences perhaps, and still not 100% true, but largely so I think.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
Countless marriages arranged regardless of love, but simply to further the interests of a family, a nation or whatever (and we don't need to look *that* far back in history to see examples of this...)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
And they say it's gay marriage that will split the church

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

And remind me... wasn't it the marital affairs of a certain king that brought about the CofE's separation from Rome?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
And they say it's gay marriage that will split the church

---

No they don't. The problem is in the area of authority. By what authority do we Anglicans believe and do what we do? Gay 'marriage' may come to be agreed upon by the churches eventually, but this should be on the basis of theological, synodical agreement (with ecumenical understanding and dialogue) and it should certainly be congruent with our understanding of the Bible, tradition and reason.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Ok.. so why do we have the OoW then?

---

quote:

---

...I'd say that as the institution of marriage falls out of favour with the general population, Christian marriage becomes increasingly *more* political.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
Ok.. so why do we have the OoW then?

That was (and is) a far bigger issue- the only difference is, there are less gays than women so they're easier to oppress

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
In many ways the real story here could be about the Rector painting himself as the little man standing up on behalf of a persecuted minority against a big bullying bishop than about gay marriage.

Perhaps this has been done to strengthen his position and to stop the bishop from ousting him for other reasons.

Aumbry

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
There are quite a few bishops who have backed their clergy, provided they stay within the guidelines - but I ain't going to name them.

---

Leo, as you seem to be invited to more of these services/parties than +Pete, would you like to estimate:

How many such civil partnership blessing services a year are taking place in total in the Church of England, and how many of them are reasonably public occasions, as opposed to essentially private blessings?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Perhaps Coiled Spring you sometimes appear perfectly normal at interviews. It can happen.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

The difference between gay blessings which are happening under the radar, and are essentially private events, was that the 'wedding' at St Bart's was 'political' and 'public'. The Church of England can put up with anomalies quite easily - there always have been priests who've behaved poorly and believed some extremely dotty things. The cost of discipline and the potential for scandal has meant that they are for the most part ignored and swept under the carpet. In other words, they have little or no impact on the position and teaching of the Church.

---

I think that we had better be precise in defining a 'gay blessing'. At the one event of this nature I have atteneded the officiating priest was keen to point out that it wasn't a blessing of a civil partnership but a service of thanksgiving. This distinction will doubtless seem like hairsplitting to some but for those of us who have a more catholic understanding of the bonds of matrimony the celebrants are the couple and the relationship is blessed by the priest who also, in England at least, acts as registrar on behalf of the state. So wedding is basically a blessing, a service of thanksgiving is not quite the same thing. This took place in what is undoubtedly one of leo's Civic Centres of Liberal Excellence - the church concerned has been offering 'gay weddings' since the 1970s so clearly someone was attempting to reconcile their oath of canonical obedience with a conviction that Jesus Wants Us To Be Nice To Gay People. Those who hold that there is a place for gay people in the Church of England, but that it just hasn't been dug yet, will doubtless find the whole thing deplorable but on the basis of my admittedly anecdotal experience I would be chary of claiming that there is a wholesale 'gay blessing' industry.

What I find annoying about the whole thing is that I am not allowed to bless two people who love each other and want to commit their lives to one another but if I were a naval chaplain I would be permitted, nay expected, to bless weapons of mass destruction. Oh, and I can bless pets with a clear conscience. I forbear from making the obvious remark.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Beyond that, I'm more or less where I was before it started. Though the thought occurs that of all the options we have before us, what if the CofE has stumbled into a place that is, or is close, to being tenable. Which is to say theologically justifiable and pastorally sensitive. And yet which might now be an area that is uninhabitable? That would be the stuff of classic tragedy.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Though the thought occurs that of all the options we have before us, what if the CofE has stumbled into a place that is, or is close, to being tenable. Which is to say theologically justifiable and pastorally sensitive. And yet which might now be an area that is uninhabitable? That would be the stuff of classic tragedy.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
There rightly should be some pastoral provision for gay men and lesbians. The obvious parallel which has been raised already on this thread is the ordination of women (an incomplete and dodgy parallel), in which there was a theological process rather than the anarchy we have at present. In that case there was a theological debate, and the ordination of women as deacons. Could we not do something similar with regard regard to human sexuality - a proper theological debate around the blessing of friendship

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Please understand I'm not advocating it myself. And I would be the first to admit that it looks like a classic fudge. It was only a "what-if" sort of thing. I suppose my main interest is to see what responses it draws, because any solution will need to withstand similar critiquing.

But what about Spawn's suggestion? I suppose the hardliners will reject that too...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
There rightly should be some pastoral provision for gay men and lesbians. The obvious parallel which has been raised already on this thread is the ordination of women (an incomplete and dodgy parallel), in which there was a theological process rather than the anarchy we have at present. In that case there was a theological debate, and the ordination of women as deacons. Could we not do something similar with regard regard to human sexuality - a proper theological debate around the blessing of friendship

---

But this is just what the anti-gay lobby have been resisting. That, and the pledge to 'listen to the experience of gay and lesbian people.'

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
There rightly should be some pastoral provision for gay men and lesbians. The obvious parallel which has been raised already on this thread is the ordination of women (an incomplete and dodgy parallel), in which there was a theological process rather than the anarchy we have at present. In that case there was a theological debate, and the ordination of women as deacons. Could we not do something similar with regard regard to human sexuality - a proper theological debate around the blessing of friendship

---

But this is just what the anti-gay lobby have been resisting. That, and the pledge to 'listen to the experience of gay and lesbian people.'

---

Not at all. People have disagreed with the claim that homosexual relationships are on a par with marriage, with the ordination of practising homosexuals and with same sex blessings. I'm not aware that any of the liberal groupings have seriously proposed a theological debate around friendship. Certainly, neither of the 1997, or 2007 private member's motion debates which were put forward with full consultation with activist groups such as LGCM directed the Church towards a study of this. The approach has been all or nothing, and the placing of facts on the ground, the outing of clergy, the invasion of pulpits, accusations of homophobia rather than serious theological debate.

---

It might be fairer to say that there has been serious theological debate, or at least discussion, but that it has tended to be intra-liberal or intra-evangelical. I think that Synod, the pages of the Church Times and the Church of England Newspaper et. al. has been more about rallying the faithful and megaphone diplomacy than it has serious theological reflection. I think the St. Andrews Day statement was the one attempt to kick off a serious debate and that pretty much fizzled out.

I think that the following ought to be addressed. Firstly General Synod is a pretty shite talking shop. As the C of E desperately needs a proper talking shop something ought to be done about this. Secondly recrimination is pointless. All of us are to some extent responsible for this mess and we ought to be more concerned with fixing it than apportioning blame. Thirdly we quite simply can't go on talking past each other. As a liberal it was quite a shock to discover that there was a serious conservative case on human sexuality. This is partly due to my theological naivety and arrogance and partly because conservatives do a pretty good job of hiding the fact. The same, muatatis mutandis can be said of liberals of course. If we are serious about extricating ourselves from this impasse we are going to have to get beyond the glib assumption that conservatism = fundamentalism and liberalism = baptising the pieties of the Grauniad editorial page and actually engage with the real other and not the abominable strawmen in our heads.

All this will require a real metanoia, a change on the part of all of us. It's not as if homosexuality is the most important issue confronting the Church. It is the issue that threatens to do to us what Europe did to the Tory party - i.e. convince most people that we are a bunch of sad obsessives with no real relevance to their lives. All of us from the most ferocious evangelical to the grooviest member of the Middle Aged Church Persons Union have, I trust, an interest in preventing that.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
I have some sympathy with this and Gildas' post. There rightly should be some pastoral provision for gay men and lesbians. The obvious parallel which has been raised already on this thread is the ordination of women (an incomplete and dodgy parallel), in which there was a theological process rather than the anarchy we have at present. In that case there was a theological debate, and the ordination of women as deacons. Could we not do something similar with regard regard to human sexuality - a proper theological debate around the blessing of friendship (I had some correspondence with the late Alan Bray, at one point, and think we could build theologically on his research, rather than Boswell's). Politically, liberals could view this as a stepping stone, while I and many others would regard it as probably as far as the Church can go.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
Similarly, the ordination of gay people is nowhere near as big an issue as the OoW: gay men are men.

---