 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gay clergy wedding at St Bart's, London
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
My hunch is simple: most people (even conservatives, fundamentalists and bigots) have wives and daughters and mothers and so on. The issue is hard to ignore. But it's easy to pretend gays don't exist. Because gays are a small minority, they make a convenient issue around which the conservatives can unite.
Exactly. And if one is strongly anti-gay, you're unlikely to know gay people -- or if you do, you won't realise that they are gay.
As I said the other day to two friends of mine, the church has has got more liberal on divorce & re-marriage because they happen to `people like us' whereas gays are not `people like us'. Except as both friends are gay, they precisely are people like us, it's just we don't want to know that, because it's easier to demonise them.
I'd still love to know why this case hit the media. I've heard of at least one very similar event in the past at a church in the same diocese and that didn't make the national media.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
The parallel with the OoW is not 'dodgy'. It is instructive on many levels.
The OoW is arguably a much more important issue than blessing gay weddings.
Well, here you've put 'arguably'. So there it is. I think the parallel is dodgy and in my opinion, women's ordination is secondary because it is a matter of church order, whilst marriage and human sexuality are primary matters because they relate to doctrine and biblical authority.
quote:
If you can make the journey to ordain women, then the gay issue is a piece of cake.
Well that's clearly not true, so what's the point in saying it.
quote:
You hold up the process that lead to the OoW as being the model to which we should conform the gay debate. Perhaps the CofE didn't indulge in illegal ordinations.. but do you not think that the 'illegal' ordinations in the US helped push the issue up the agenda? If something is believed to be right.. if the Spirit's in it, then it's difficult to put a lid on it. If the Windsor recommendations had existed 30 years ago we wouldn't have had the OoW.. we'd still be waiting.
No I don't think the Philadelphia ordinations helped anyone. In fact, they were detrimental in that they set out a pattern of unilaterialism and canonical disobedience in the the US which is haunting them today.
It's spurious to say that the Windsor recommendations would have halted women's ordination. There were decades of theological discussion about women's ordination in the Anglican Communion. The 1980s equivalent to the Windsor Commission, the Eames Commission, didn't result in a turning back of the clock on the consecration of women bishops, but helpfully set out some principles for interdependence and consultation which the US Church and New Westminster conveniently ignored over the homosexuality debate.
quote:
So why is it that we have the OoW? Why is it that we've managed to use our reason to re-understand Scripture and Tradition for this issue, but not gays?
This is plainly ignorant. Biblical and traditional arguments convinced many of us on the ordination of women. Furthermore an appeal to reason, is not an automatic pass for the ordination of practising homosexuals and same sex blessings. Traditionalists argue from reason, as well.
quote:
My hunch is simple: most people (even conservatives, fundamentalists and bigots) have wives and daughters and mothers and so on. The issue is hard to ignore. But it's easy to pretend gays don't exist. Because gays are a small minority, they make a convenient issue around which the conservatives can unite.
Well thanks for sharing your hunch. Do you really think conservatives have just been waiting for the gay issue to come along so that they could unite? Frankly, I can't see much unity among conservatives so either it hasnt worked, or we're all in actual fact, just reacting to a cultural juggernaut which we find is coming straight towards us.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
With the OoW issue, did they do the pretending thing I described earlier ? (Not sure of the church history on this.)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Audrey Ely
Shipmate
# 12665
|
Posted
I suspect the reason this event hit the media was because of the nature of the celebrant. He appears to court the press and they seem to love to dislike him. He is described today in one newspaper article as insolent...
quote:
As for the Church of England, it increasingly resembles a sect interested only in itself, and obsessed with the single issue of homosexuality. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, may not have the power of the Pope, but unless he and his fellow bishops exercise some authority over wayward priests who flout its rules, our national Church will continue to fall apart. A good start would be to sack the Rev Martin Dudley for his insolent disobedience - but don't hold your breath.
Posts: 1432 | From: Cambridgeshire, England | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Exactly. And if one is strongly anti-gay, you're unlikely to know gay people -- or if you do, you won't realise that they are gay.
I find the use of the term 'anti-gay' misleading to say the least. Believing that Christians are called to chastity and marriage, is not anti-gay. Furthermore, some gay men and lesbians also take this view. I'll think you'll find few of the conservative theologans and church leaders in Britain and America involved in this debate who do not know gay and lesbian people personally. But it's easy to demonise so-called conservatives isn't it?
quote:
I'd still love to know why this case hit the media. I've heard of at least one very similar event in the past at a church in the same diocese and that didn't make the national media.
Carys
It made the national headlines because activists (from the liberal side of the divide) phoned Sunday newspaper journalists last week and leaked the story, and the liturgy. I know this because I know the journalists in question.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
With the OoW issue, did they do the pretending thing I described earlier ? (Not sure of the church history on this.)
No, I can't recall anything of that kind. I think the women involved in the campaign had a great deal of respect for the priesthood because many of them felt called to it. Silly stunts like that would have been a sign of disrespect for something they valued and also would have been detrimental, in precisely the way the St Bart's event has been.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
Now that we've got not only gay marriage but the ordination of women thrown in as well, I think it's time for this thread to make its long-delayed trip to Dead Horses. Please feel free to continue the conversation in the corral.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
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
I'm not saying that it doesn't happen - it clearly does. I am saying that it's not as widespread as LGCM like to pretend. Where it is known that priests might be contemplating such action, a clear explanation of the meaning of canonical obedience will usually suffice. There are, of course, those clergy who are so insufferably arrogant that they think they are beyond the law.
Unlike the situation in Canada, where it's clearly an article of faith to make such liturgical provision...
Your last comment is an out and out misrepresentation of the facts. It shames me and all christians when a bishop of the church deliberate spreads falsehoods. Or, in the alternative, is so willfully ignorant of the facts, and so willing to let prejudice overtake judgement.
And I note that you continue not to answer my question about why Rowen and his brothers in the UK have never denied the allegations made by our primate or attempted to discipline the clergy who, apparently fairly widely, are indulging in such egregious canonical disobedience.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Whoa there! You've arrived in Dead Horses, not Hell!
This
quote:
Your last comment is an out and out misrepresentation of the facts. It shames me and all christians when a bishop of the church deliberate spreads falsehoods. Or, in the alternative, is so willfully ignorant of the facts, and so willing to let prejudice overtake judgement.
is a personal attack and so belongs in Hell. The same goes for anyone tempted to reply in that vein - take it to Hell, please or don't pursue it.
The rules are the same as Purgatory here.
Louise
Dead Horses Host
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Louise:
I accept your admonition, and am sorry that I lost my temper, and apologize for braking the commandment about personal attacks.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Exactly. And if one is strongly anti-gay, you're unlikely to know gay people -- or if you do, you won't realise that they are gay.
I find the use of the term 'anti-gay' misleading to say the least. Believing that Christians are called to chastity and marriage, is not anti-gay. Furthermore, some gay men and lesbians also take this view. I'll think you'll find few of the conservative theologans and church leaders in Britain and America involved in this debate who do not know gay and lesbian people personally. But it's easy to demonise so-called conservatives isn't it?
I used `strongly anti-gay' for a reason. Yes, it is possible to take a conservative line on this issue in a loving and compassionate manner. However, there is an awful lot of rhetoric from the conservative side that fails to recognise the humanity of gay and lesbian people and treats them as pariahs -- at the extreme end, witness the reports of the Nigerian bishop who said that `gays were not fit to live'. It is vitriolic comments like that which unfortunately tend to dominate the debate and cause a lot of hurt to gay and lesbian people, whether they are struggling to make sense of their sexuality and their faith or whether they've run a mile from the church because of what appears to be blanket condemnation of who they are. Gay and lesbian people are very much in the category of `sinners' in today's church with them being seen as polluting our purity -- but our Lord went about with the tax-collectors and sinners and upbraided the pharisees for their self-righteousness.
I used to tend towards the celibacy line myself, but in some ways that said more about my own sexuality than anything. I'm far less bothered about sex than most people seem to be and for years had lived a perfectly contented single life and I didn't see the problem with being celibate. But then, my current boyfriend broke down my barriers and we started going out and I've come to realise the delights of a close partnership. We don't believe in sex before marriage but that doesn't mean no physical contact at all and that is an important aspect of the relationship (when we are actually in the same place), but the talking and support we can give each other (over the phone most of the time) is probably more important. I cannot see why gay and lesbian people should be denied that companionship and support and it's none of my business precisely what the physical contact in their relationship is. A lesbian friend of mine's answer to the question `what do you get up to in bed?' is `snore mostly'!
quote:
quote:
I'd still love to know why this case hit the media. I've heard of at least one very similar event in the past at a church in the same diocese and that didn't make the national media.
Carys
It made the national headlines because activists (from the liberal side of the divide) phoned Sunday newspaper journalists last week and leaked the story, and the liturgy. I know this because I know the journalists in question.
Thank you. So it wasn't the couple or the vicar involved? But `friends' of theirs? I'm not convinced it has helped, but I can understand the frustration at the hypocrisy on this issue and why people might feel that it is better to be open and honest about what is going on.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
Spawn said: Well, here you've put 'arguably'. So there it is. I think the parallel is dodgy and in my opinion, women's ordination is secondary because it is a matter of church order, whilst marriage and human sexuality are primary matters because they relate to doctrine and biblical authority
What a curious distinction.
How on earth can 'church order' *not* be about doctrine and biblical authority? It was to Calvin and Luther.. it is to Rome and Constantinople. It is to the CofE.
And if 'sexuality' *is* a first order issue, then it necessarily follows that the OoW is to.. gender and sexuality are intricately linked.
ISTM, that your distinction is a convenient one. It simply allows you to continue a prejudice
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
It would be a pity if vigorous debate spilled over into the position-taking and extremism that all too often besets this subject. When I logged out yesterday evening to go to choir practice, I had the feeling that we had the start of some glimmerings of a way forward. I'm not so sure now. Perhaps better if I withdraw from the debate.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
What a curious distinction.
How on earth can 'church order' *not* be about doctrine and biblical authority? It was to Calvin and Luther.. it is to Rome and Constantinople. It is to the CofE.
And if 'sexuality' *is* a first order issue, then it necessarily follows that the OoW is to.. gender and sexuality are intricately linked.
ISTM, that your distinction is a convenient one. It simply allows you to continue a prejudice
You've evidently lived a sheltered life, if you think this is a curious distinction. I've expressed it in short hand, but it's a view commonly-held among evangelicals, which is why even conservative evangelicals who argue the headship line, have not passed the full panoply of resolutions, because they do not regard it as a communion-breaking issue.
You don't seem to have responded to other points I made. But I won't be drawn on the comment about prejudice, which I think was inappropriate and needlessly offensive.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Finally, Honest Ron Bacardi, I hope you don't bow out of this debate. I, for one, always gain from your insights.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
My life has been far from sheltered actually.
The distinction doesn't become less curious just because some conservative evangelicals maintain it.. my experience is that it's usually quite the opposite.
It' debates like this that remind me why I grew out of evangelicalism.
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
That's very kind of you, Spawn. I'm not flouncing off (!) and am still watching. It's just that I feel that there is a point when we go back round over the same old ground, and the temptation is to mark out the same old territory, like tomcats pissing on things. Hence Dead Horses of course, and I have to say I admire Louise's & TonyK's fortitude. I'll cheerfully join back in if it looks like getting over this sort of hump.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
My life has been far from sheltered actually.
The distinction doesn't become less curious just because some conservative evangelicals maintain it.. my experience is that it's usually quite the opposite.
It' debates like this that remind me why I grew out of evangelicalism.
This highlights the fact that Catholics and Evangelicals, whilst both being part of the Anglican Communion, argue from very different basic assumptions and this means that they talk past each fairly frequently.
This also happens in the gay debate, where conseratives talk about biblical authority (evanglicals) or tradition (catholics), while liberals talk about justice and compassion for the people who find themselves to be gay. Because we're arguing from such different points, the debate doesn't happen.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
bonabri
Shipmate
# 304
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Louise:
I accept your admonition, and am sorry that I lost my temper, and apologize for braking the commandment about personal attacks.
John
A delightful example of how a gentleman or lady responds to an admonition. Thank you for the example, it was much needed given recent rantings.
Posts: 274 | From: Brighton and Hove, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
Carys: you're right.
Meal culpa- I sould know better.
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
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.
I think that there are two problems here. The first is that these due processes are exactly the sorts of things that the Churches in the US and Canada have been engaging in, and the response has not been to debate with them - it has been to try to throw them out of the Communion. At the moment, effort is being spent shutting down debate, not facilitating it.
The second problem is that many 'liberals' are in no great mood to debate with many 'conservatives' - we've been lied to too often. Even those minor compromises made by conservative leaders have been ignored with impunity. Gay clergy not discriminated against if sexually abstinent? Nope. Lay members not required to be sexually abstinent? Nope. Gay and lesbian Christians listened to? Not a single voice involved in any stage of the Windsor Process, not a single solitary one. An end to boundary-crossing and 'sheep-stealing'? you must be joking!
Surely you can see why unilateral action looks attractive to many when those who are making promises to us can barely refrain from laughing out loud as we do?
Finally, the analogy with OoW - imperfect though it is - is still instructive. Specifically, it suggests that we'll probably have to wait another eighty years for anything to improve. Which hardly seems an attractive option. However, it is an instructive analogy in another way - at the end of all of the debate, the C. of E. simply decided that she didn't know whether women could be ordained or not, and leaves it up to individual parishes to decide. I think that this will probably end up as the only workable solution to this issue - let those churches which wish to have SSBs pass a resolution to let them do so, and leave them to get on with it.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I think that there are two problems here. The first is that these due processes are exactly the sorts of things that the Churches in the US and Canada have been engaging in, and the response has not been to debate with them - it has been to try to throw them out of the Communion. At the moment, effort is being spent shutting down debate, not facilitating it.
If it was the case that the US and Canada have engaged in due process and had been open about that all the time, I don't think we'd be in quite the same mess we are now. It seems to me, that what has been done has been done partly by stealth, partly by placing facts on the ground, and without due regard for order or process.
In the US, for example, there was no permissive resolution in General Covention ruling on the principle of ordaining practising homosexuals. It just happened and then the Righter Judgement (which itself declined to enter an opinion on the wider issues) was taken as the green light for further ordinations. Similarly, on same sex blessings General Convention hasn't to my knowledge even passed a resolution giving local option - it's just happened.
In Canada's case things are a bit more ambivalent, because there has been a national discussion, and a great deal of careful theological work done by the bishops and the General Synod. It's clear however, that local option has been ruled out, yet this is precisely what New Westminster, and potentially other dioceses, are engaging in.
quote:
The second problem is that many 'liberals' are in no great mood to debate with many 'conservatives' - we've been lied to too often. Even those minor compromises made by conservative leaders have been ignored with impunity. Gay clergy not discriminated against if sexually abstinent? Nope. Lay members not required to be sexually abstinent? Nope. Gay and lesbian Christians listened to? Not a single voice involved in any stage of the Windsor Process, not a single solitary one. An end to boundary-crossing and 'sheep-stealing'? you must be joking!
Yes, I think it's true to say that there is enough dishonety to go round on all sides in this current debate. That is not to say, I agree with all the coments you have made in this paragraph.
quote:
Finally, the analogy with OoW - imperfect though it is - is still instructive. Specifically, it suggests that we'll probably have to wait another eighty years for anything to improve. Which hardly seems an attractive option. However, it is an instructive analogy in another way - at the end of all of the debate, the C. of E. simply decided that she didn't know whether women could be ordained or not, and leaves it up to individual parishes to decide. I think that this will probably end up as the only workable solution to this issue - let those churches which wish to have SSBs pass a resolution to let them do so, and leave them to get on with it.
That's simply not true. The C of E permitted the ordination of women after 20 years of debate (which from the very first debate tackled the theological issues). It wasn't left up to individual parishes to decide, and I don't know where you get this impression. At most it could be said that it was left up to individual parishes to opt out by passing resolutions adopting extended oversight. But ordination of women could not be said to be a matter of local option.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Low Treason
Shipmate
# 11924
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I'd still love to know why this case hit the media. I've heard of at least one very similar event in the past at a church in the same diocese and that didn't make the national media.
Carys
As would I. The suggestion seems almost to be that the whole thing was a huge publicity stunt set up by a media-crazed Rector of St Bartholemew the Great. Evidence (ie the length of time between the event and the fan being switched on) suggests otherwise. If I were Fr's Cowell and Lord, I would be scrutinising my list of 'friends' very closely!
On the other hand, if one wishes to remain discreet then perhaps a slightly less ostentatious celebration might be in order?
What saddens me is the fact the ancient code of conduct in the CofE remains; 'Do What You Like As Long As You Don't Get Found Out'. Hypocrisy becomes a virtue and honesty and open-ness a vice.
One can only hope that this dismal scenario might provoke some of the long awaited debate dj_ordinaire has mentioned, although I'm not holding my breath...
--------------------
He brought me to the banqueting house, and His banner over me was love.
Posts: 1914 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I used `strongly anti-gay' for a reason. Yes, it is possible to take a conservative line on this issue in a loving and compassionate manner. However, there is an awful lot of rhetoric from the conservative side that fails to recognise the humanity of gay and lesbian people and treats them as pariahs -- at the extreme end, witness the reports of the Nigerian bishop who said that `gays were not fit to live'.
The problem is that in the circles I move in, I hear people use your argument rather more than it is worth. A cheap way to dismiss people with Spawn's views is to say that they are naive and don't know any gay people. This doesn't actually deal with any of the points they put forward. It's also largely untrue. Is it too damaging to my friends (and you) to accept that rational people in full possession of the facts can still disagree? Can you only maintain your position by pretending you're the only informed people, rather than facing the issue head on?
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
In the US, for example, there was no permissive resolution in General Covention ruling on the principle of ordaining practising homosexuals.
That's how American polity works - absence of a ban is the same thing as permission - and is another point that gets lost in cross-pond communication (witness ++Rowan's inflated estimation of the US bishops' power).
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
In the US, for example, there was no permissive resolution in General Covention ruling on the principle of ordaining practising homosexuals.
That's how American polity works - absence of a ban is the same thing as permission - and is another point that gets lost in cross-pond communication (witness ++Rowan's inflated estimation of the US bishops' power).
Well that may be true, there's something wrong with the polity then, because it effectively precludes theological decision-making in the Church about theological issues.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I used `strongly anti-gay' for a reason. Yes, it is possible to take a conservative line on this issue in a loving and compassionate manner. However, there is an awful lot of rhetoric from the conservative side that fails to recognise the humanity of gay and lesbian people and treats them as pariahs -- at the extreme end, witness the reports of the Nigerian bishop who said that `gays were not fit to live'.
The problem is that in the circles I move in, I hear people use your argument rather more than it is worth. A cheap way to dismiss people with Spawn's views is to say that they are naive and don't know any gay people. This doesn't actually deal with any of the points they put forward. It's also largely untrue. Is it too damaging to my friends (and you) to accept that rational people in full possession of the facts can still disagree? Can you only maintain your position by pretending you're the only informed people, rather than facing the issue head on?
I hope I am not using it as a cheap argument and I do accept that rational people in full possession of the facts can still disagree. But is it too much to ask that the `compassionate conservatives' (for want of a better term) to distance themselves clearly from the hateful comments of some of those supposedly on their side?
The trouble with any debate is that there is a tendency for those who shout loudest, who tend to be those with the most extreme views, to get most of the attention. How can we move to having a sensible, rational and compassionate debate on this issue? Preferably without saying that the other lot aren't Christians?
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
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
Nonsense. The difference is that the opponents of ordaining women think it is a theological issue. The opponents of acceptance of homosexual partnerships think it is a moral issue. So the whole basis of argument is different.
The issues are distinct and there are people on opposite sides on both of them. You can be pro-women and anti gay or you can be pro-gay and anti-women. Within the Church of England the attempt to confuse the two has often looked like a deliberate political move by one party or another to try assemble coalitions. Most obviously by FiF and their friends to try to get some of the conservative evangelicals on their side, but also perhaps by some liberals to paint all their opponents with the same brush.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
That the OoW is a theological issue, and that 'gays' are a moral issue, is exactly why I (and many others) would consider the former to be the Bigger Issue.
And if a church can change it's mind on a theological issue, then it can change its mind on a moral issue, too (as it has on divorce).
I understand that the CofE has been engaged with the issue of the OoW for a long time- it had to be: the burden of proof has to lie with those who want change because there is so much in Scripture and Tradition that poses problems for the OoW.
It may be the same with the gay issue.. but I don't think it is. Scripture says a lot less about gay relationships than it does about women leading Christian communities.
People really wanted to engage with the issue of the OoW- they wanted to invesitgate and spend the time and energy on it. I believe that if the church had the same attitude as this with regards the gay issue we'd have got a lot further by now. But as I've said, the real issue is that gays just aren't seen to be important enough.
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
b quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
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
Nonsense. The difference is that the opponents of ordaining women think it is a theological issue. The opponents of acceptance of homosexual partnerships think it is a moral issue. So the whole basis of argument is different.
There's a lot of truth in this post, of course. But surely all these issues are theological? You could quite easily say that that ordination of women was ecclesiological, which doesn't make it any less of a theological issue, and similarly, you can't straightforwardly separate ethics from theology.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
I understand that the CofE has been engaged with the issue of the OoW for a long time- it had to be: the burden of proof has to lie with those who want change because there is so much in Scripture and Tradition that poses problems for the OoW.
It may be the same with the gay issue.. but I don't think it is. Scripture says a lot less about gay relationships than it does about women leading Christian communities.
I find this an odd argument since it seems to presuppose that if we only all got on with it and had a proper discussion, there could only be one inevitable outcome: acceptance of gay relationships. The same applies to the question about whether Scripture and tradition really oppose women's ordination as if the goal of the debate is to get round bits of Scripture which are 'obviously' opposed to it. Surely the goal of the debate is to work out what Scripture actually says/the more authentic tradition actually is - something that can hardly be determined in advance!
Carys: you are dead right. It is frustrating, sickening, that some of the self-appointed conservative spokespeople have often not spoken out against homophobic and violent comments from certain quarters for fear of alienating their powerful allies. But I don't think it is a uniform picture: note some of the Goddard to Goddard stuff on Fulcrum, for example, or the responses on conservative blogs last September (such as Stand Firm and Peter Ould) to reported comments by Bishop Isaac Orama which were highly offensive and vicious, although in the end these comments were I think subsequently found to be misreported.
We (conservatives) have still got a long way to go though.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
b quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
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
Nonsense. The difference is that the opponents of ordaining women think it is a theological issue. The opponents of acceptance of homosexual partnerships think it is a moral issue. So the whole basis of argument is different.
There's a lot of truth in this post, of course. But surely all these issues are theological? You could quite easily say that that ordination of women was ecclesiological, which doesn't make it any less of a theological issue, and similarly, you can't straightforwardly separate ethics from theology.
No, but it does mean that if many people see homosexuality as an ethical question, it means that it is possible to see one's opponents as behaving in an immoral manner. Those who didn't want women to be ordained may have thought their opponents confused and wrong-headed and maybe heretical, but immoral?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
quote:
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
I understand that the CofE has been engaged with the issue of the OoW for a long time- it had to be: the burden of proof has to lie with those who want change because there is so much in Scripture and Tradition that poses problems for the OoW.
It may be the same with the gay issue.. but I don't think it is. Scripture says a lot less about gay relationships than it does about women leading Christian communities.
I find this an odd argument since it seems to presuppose that if we only all got on with it and had a proper discussion, there could only be one inevitable outcome: acceptance of gay relationships.
I think that's where many of us are at. We're not going to go backwards. All the common objections have been refuted six ways to Sunday, and the rebuttals to those refutations are hardly satisfactory. (I have yet to encounter a conservative apologia of comparable sophistication to, say, Fr Haller's "Sex Articles). But people will continue to oppose it because they want to.
But I don't travel in "reasserter" circles. Do many people labour under the impression that there is going to be a dramatic turn-around?
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
leo - just as a matter of interest for me and no other reason -
- it depends I guess on what counts as a city, but say 50 cities in England, each having somewhere that does say 20 of these a year - i.e. 1000/yr in England? Does that sound reasonable?
50 cities yes.
20 annually in each - no. The parish I mentioned that did more blessing s than weddings did so in one particular year because:
1) it is in an area where there are lots of old people who are mostly already married and students who are more likely to marry in one of their 'home' churches
2) many non-students live together and don't believe in or see the point of marriage
3) people flocked to it from other areas which didn't offer blessings
4) many of those is 3 had wanted one for a long time and news spread so there was a backlog.
It is hard to know the figures because I doubt if there would be an entry in the official service register.
In the year I am thinking of as the 'bumper' year, I attended a blessing complete with 'nuptial' mass with 200 congregation where the doors were locked after the bride and bride had entered - all very secretive.
--------------------
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
Ah - OK, thanks, leo. Sounds like a quarter of that figure or less, then, perhaps.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
I think that's where many of us are at. We're not going to go backwards. All the common objections have been refuted six ways to Sunday, and the rebuttals to those refutations are hardly satisfactory. (I have yet to encounter a conservative apologia of comparable sophistication to, say, Fr Haller's "Sex Articles). But people will continue to oppose it because they want to.
But I don't travel in "reasserter" circles. Do many people labour under the impression that there is going to be a dramatic turn-around?
No. 'We' know that in wider society everyone and their dogs disagree with us. That is presumably one of the reasons why 'we' dig ourselves in so deeply: fear.
At the same time, it's intriguing to me that you see the debate as essentially having moved on so decisively. In my circles it seems that exegetically and theologically the case for acceptance of gay relationships is actually quite weak and nobody has done the spade work necessary to refute scholars like Robert Gagnon whose exegetical case is (in my view) nigh on watertight (which is more than could be said for several of his other views). Having said that I have not read Haller's articles so I shall go and do so.
So what seems to have happened is that both sides think they have watertight cases. This means that they can only assume that their opponents disagree with them on highly spurious and immoral grounds. 'You' think 'we' are just nasty homophobes and 'we' think 'you' are just cultural accommodators. I am not familiar with Tobias Haller (though I have read the excellent but ultimately unsatisfactory work of Eugene Rogers) and if you think that our 'side' is not sophisticated then you are not familiar, perhaps, with our big guns (Oliver O'Donovan and Bernd Wannenwetsch spring to mind but then they are my doctoral supervisors so I am biased). In fact there are sophisticated thinkers on both sides just as there are people who have come to their conclusions in good conscience.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
'You' think 'we' are just nasty homophobes and 'we' think 'you' are just cultural accommodators.
Actually, speaking for myself, I think something rather different. I find that the meagre Scriptural witness of the subject is unanimously "con." What I can't understand is why anyone would argue for that witness. (We don't, for instance, excommunicate insurance salespersons or court clerks). Who benefits if the traditional stance is vindicated? The authors of the Bible? A heavy cost for gay people then.
Things become fuzzier because a) gay sex is at best a private sin, the moral equivalent of a victimless crime, and b) it's never quite clear what the objection is to. It apparently isn't tied to specific acts, since one never encounters similar restrictions on heterosexual intercourse. Is it the very combination (or lack thereof) of genders? It all seems so abstract.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
quote:
In the year I am thinking of as the 'bumper' year, I attended a blessing complete with 'nuptial' mass with 200 congregation where the doors were locked after the bride and bride had entered - all very secretive.
If the happy couple with 200 witnesses needed to do it all behind closed doors, it beggars the question what are they afraid of. If they honestly believe what is happening then surely an open door policy should be in place and doors open with light coming in. Also what sort of church shuts it`s doors in this day and age.
Just for future information if Christ knocked on the church door would He be allowed in. Today, man`s law protects gays so the world approves.
It does seem interesting that it is easy to sort out a bishop who gets his leg over then a couple of gay priests getting married in church.
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
But surely all these issues are theological?
Well, God created everything, so its theology all the way down. But you know what I meant.
The two questions really aren't commensurate and there is no obvious reason why your position on one should be a big clue as to your position on the other.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Sean D:
quote:
In my circles it seems that exegetically and theologically the case for acceptance of gay relationships is actually quite weak and nobody has done the spade work necessary to refute scholars like Robert Gagnon whose exegetical case is (in my view) nigh on watertight (which is more than could be said for several of his other views). Having said that I have not read Haller's articles so I shall go and do so.
As we're now in the Nags Derby I will say that whilst I haven't read Gagnon (despite Faithful Sheepdog's exhortations - suffice it to say the list of books I ought to read to complete my doctorate seems to grow longer as things move towards completion and when I finish the wretched thing I propose to settle down with the collected novels of David Peace), my understanding is that Gagnon claims that homosexual relations in the first century AD or thereabouts were more or less the same sort of thing we are talking about now. If this is the case then virtually every classical scholar I have read with a view on the subject is entirely mistaken. Given that, to put it politely, Gagnon appears to have a bit of a bee in his bonnet on the subject that doesn't really inspire me to add him to my collection of books I intend to get round to reading at some point. Quite simply I don't think that St. Paul was talking about permanent, faithful and stable gay relationships because such things were virtually unheard of in antiquity. If you can find an actual classical scholar who thinks differently, then let me know, but if I'm right his exhaustive scholarship has missed the elephant in the room.
--------------------
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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Quite simply I don't think that St. Paul was talking about permanent, faithful and stable gay relationships because such things were virtually unheard of in antiquity. If you can find an actual classical scholar who thinks differently, then let me know, but if I'm right his exhaustive scholarship has missed the elephant in the room.
Why would that be, if homosexuality is inherent? If being gay is like being straight, then one would expect the same need for monogamous relationships to exist in gay people in antiquity as well. Or does one question the need for monogamous relationships among straight people?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Actually, speaking for myself, I think something rather different. I find that the meagre Scriptural witness of the subject is unanimously "con." What I can't understand is why anyone would argue for that witness. (We don't, for instance, excommunicate insurance salespersons or court clerks). Who benefits if the traditional stance is vindicated? The authors of the Bible? A heavy cost for gay people then.
Well I have some pretty old fashioned views on usury actually. So I try to be consistent.
More importantly, 'argue for' is a bit of a problematic phrase for me since it's not my job or anyone else's to 'argue for' what the Bible says. That's rather like misguided attempts to 'defend' the Bible, as if the poor little Bible needs our help. So it's not about trying to vindicate the writers of the Bible! Rather, it is trying to be consistent to my hermeneutic. I believe that Scripture faithfully and inspiredly attests to God's revelation of himself in Jesus Christ. I don't see how I can take all that good stuff and ignore the harder stuff any more than I can ignore the bits about giving away my possessions to the poor. So 'by God's grace live faithfully to' would be more helpful since it puts me in my proper place. That's not intended to sound pious but to underline the point that the traditional understanding of Christian ethics is that it is our job to hear and obey God's commands because God, in his love and care for us, shows us the best way to live, in accordance with our created nature.
That last phrase indicates something about why I think the Bible points towards marriage as the place for sexual expression. But some conservatives try to go further than the Bible in giving details of exactly why and how this is (which the second half of your post invites me to do). I don't think I can be drawn on that, because I don't think the Bible goes into details in this case. But if I am right, then in fact it is not my understanding but yours which asks gay people to pay a high cost since if I am right I am inviting them to live in the way that God has made them.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
my understanding is that Gagnon claims that homosexual relations in the first century AD or thereabouts were more or less the same sort of thing we are talking about now.
If this is out and out what he says then clearly he is dwelling at the top of the magic faraway tree. I would have to revisit it to check. My understanding though is that he is more nuanced than that and argues that something like homosexual orientation (perhaps better called 'preference') was understood by some writers e.g. Plato to affect some people (though not necessarily all people who enjoyed sex with people of the same sex), and that therefore it is plausible that Paul's comments in Romans 1 refer not only to the disordered character of same-sex sexual activity but also to same-sex sexual desire - which in turn is necessary to rebut the argument (Boswell's I think) that Paul only thought he was referring to straight people (because everyone is straight) who like a bit of same sex sex on the side.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Thank you, Sean. In which case I think the position is defensible but almost certainly mistaken. Perhaps I'll have to have a look when I've finished 'The Damned United'.
--------------------
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
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
my understanding is that Gagnon claims that homosexual relations in the first century AD or thereabouts were more or less the same sort of thing we are talking about now.
If this is out and out what he says then clearly he is dwelling at the top of the magic faraway tree. I would have to revisit it to check. My understanding though is that he is more nuanced than that and argues that something like homosexual orientation (perhaps better called 'preference') was understood by some writers e.g. Plato to affect some people (though not necessarily all people who enjoyed sex with people of the same sex), and that therefore it is plausible that Paul's comments in Romans 1 refer not only to the disordered character of same-sex sexual activity but also to same-sex sexual desire - which in turn is necessary to rebut the argument (Boswell's I think) that Paul only thought he was referring to straight people (because everyone is straight) who like a bit of same sex sex on the side.
According to my memory, he also attacks the theory that Paul was only referring to temple prostitution and pederasty citing texts which refer to adult homosexual relationships etc.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Just checking, but am I correct in thinking that there are no prohibitions on lesbian relationships in the bible ? For example did Paul comment on it ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Romans 1.25-27 reads:
quote:
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Just checking, but am I correct in thinking that there are no prohibitions on lesbian relationships in the bible ? For example did Paul comment on it ?
Have a look at this, from James Alison, if you're in the mood.
(Anyway, it's a pretty bad argument that one ambiguous passage in the Bible amounts to a "prohibition." Besides, Romans 1 - and Romans 2, which nobody ever seems to have read, but which is definitely relevant - addresses the issue of idolatry, not homosexuality.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Here's the relevant section from that article, for people who might not want to go through the whole thing:
quote:
Before actually reading the text I'd like to make two points as a build up. If any of us is faced with the following verse from Romans 1, it seems to have an obvious and clear meaning:
quote:
For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural... (Romans 1:26)
A quick show of hands in any English-speaking country nowadays would probably agree to the following statement: “This quite clearly refers to lesbianism. That is the obvious meaning of the words. To deny that this refers to lesbianism is the sort of thing that you would expect from a clever-clogs biblical exegete with an ideological axe to grind.” Well, all I'd like to say at this point is that we have several commentaries on these words dating from the centuries between the writing of this text and the preaching of St John Chrysostom at the end of the fourth century. None of them read the passage as referring to lesbianism. Both St Augustine and Clement of Alexandria interpreted it straightforwardly as meaning women having anal intercourse with members of the other sex. Chrysostom was in fact the first Church Father of whom we have record to read the passage as having anything to do with lesbianism.
Now, my first point is this: irrespective of who is closer to the mark as to what St Paul was referring to, one thing is irrefutable: what modern readers claim to be “the obvious meaning of the text” was not obvious to Saint Augustine, who has for many centuries enjoyed the status of being a particularly authoritative reader of Scripture. Therefore there can be no claim that there has been an uninterrupted witness to the text being read as having to do with lesbianism. There hasn't. It has been perfectly normal for long stretches of time to read this passage in the Catholic Church without seeing St Paul as saying anything to do with lesbianism. This means that no Catholic is under any obligation to read this passage as having something to do with lesbianism. Furthermore, it is a perfectly respectable position for a Catholic to take that there is no reference to lesbianism in Holy Scripture, given that the only candidate for a reference is one whose “obvious meaning” was taken, for several hundred years, to be something quite else.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
quote:
They locked the doors to keep out any newspaper reporters that might be lurking around and, thereby, to keep the priest out of trouble.
But if what they were doing was being blessed by God, why behind closed doors?
Seems strange that if God was involved it is important to fling the doors wide allow light in.
As far as Rectum Marty Dudley conduct, he is part of the problem with the church. There seems to be many who practise a ministry of self promotion which is not being discouraged.
I believe (?) that Matey Richard of London has sent out a letter to clergy and lay readers explaining his views and church policy etc. Anybody seen it yet, is aother holy fudge?
[ 21. June 2008, 07:27: Message edited by: the coiled spring ]
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
