|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Oh yeah, Dr Beeching
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I think this tweet sums it all up ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) So pleased for Vicky.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Having just watched her take apart Scott "I categorically don't want Uganda to hang the gays" Lively, couldn't agree more. (Channel 4 News, available to watch on www.channel4.com )
Although it's a pity the interviewer looked to be insufficiently briefed on Uganda. It must have been pretty obvious that Lively would try to deny his role, but the interviewer had no comeback.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
She's LGBT, she's a Christian, what other qualifications are needed?
Well, she could be talented, knowledgeable, articulate, courageous, filled with the Holy Spirit and the love of Jesus, and ... oh, wait.
And you're quite sure she isn't? What evidence do you have?
I thought the implication was that she is all of those things.
I've reread the posts and realised I posted without due care. Sorry.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But evangelicalism isn't just about worship style, it's theology too. I don't see why LGBT Christians are supposed to join churches which have beliefs they disagree with. Why not help LGBT Christians to change churches from the inside?
Yet they obviously disagree theologically with their own churches on this particular issue. Changing churches 'from the inside' means changing churches' theology about sexuality, and hence changing their attitudes towards sexual morality in general. Everything we do and everything we are has a theological significance.
quote:
I think independent churches care far more about what other independent churches think of them than churches in more hierarchical denominations.
From what people say here, this is the impression I get, yes. It's strange, because I thought independence meant not caring about what others think, so long as you can plough your own furrow in freedom and good conscience. Maybe this was true in the past (e.g. at the birth of Pentecostalism), but clearly not now.
The problem evangelicalism (and many other types of Christianity) has, ISTM, is that its leaders traditionally expect to maintain strictness over their doctrines and values, while ministering to Christians who are, like most Westerners, increasingly autonomous in how they perceive their spirituality and the direction of their lives. It must be increasingly hard to reconcile firmness over official doctrines with allowing your church members total freedom in how they organise their personal lives.
This is how one study about gay Christians puts it: quote:
the self, rather than religious authority structures, steers the respondents’ journeys of spirituality and sexuality. This is evidence of the impact of the “detraditionalization” process on the late modern religious landscape, where the basis of religious faith and practice is primarily predicted on the self, rather than traditions and structures.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-5906.00111/abstract
Evangelicalism seems likely to grow more similar to other kinds of Protestant churches, in that it'll allow its members to make up their own minds about many theological issues, including the issue of sexuality.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Svitlana - yes, they may disagree with their churches over sexuality, but that's a small and fairly fluid aspect of theology. It's not like transubstantiation or sola scriptura or that all Christians should speak in tongues or other beliefs that are more defining of a more narrow group or denomination. A Christian who would prefer their church to think differently about sexuality but believes in transubstantiation and Eucharistic Adoration is not going to be comfortable worshipping in a Methodist church, for example. I know from my own experience and from others', being part of churches with very distinctive and strong theological identities, that tend to overwhelm other aspects of belief, make it much harder to know where to draw the line.
To make things more personal - I am unhappy with my church's official teaching on sexuality. The only reasonable alternative would be the RCC or maybe the Orthodox, neither of which are any better and I would regard them as worse from the sexuality point of view. I just couldn't go and join the Quakers or Methodists - it would be such a poor match for me and for the congregations of those churches.
[ 15. August 2014, 12:24: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose these are questions I ask myself rather than others, but if people like Vicky Beeching yearn for spiritually vibrant but tolerant churches, why aren't there more such churches?
I would class my church as something like that. We're overrun with kids, worship is modern songs etc, and we're evangelical.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose these are questions I ask myself rather than others, but if people like Vicky Beeching yearn for spiritually vibrant but tolerant churches, why aren't there more such churches?
I would class my church as something like that. We're overrun with kids, worship is modern songs etc, and we're evangelical.
You can be all those things and not inclusive - some of the least inclusive churches are all those things.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
Sorry, I was meaning being an inclusive church and those things!
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
It depends on how you define 'inclusive church'. A few years ago, I was part of an Elim pentecostal church. It was very inclusive, but there were a handful of individuals who weren't. When we had a trans person come along, they were well received. Yet the few who were put out by it made that person feel unwelcome and they left.
The leadership was welcoming, but they didn't want to be authoritarian, so didn't intervene or tell the small group (mostly one family, actually) to change their ways. Not directly, at least. There were a few weeks of sermons that seemed a bit pointed by way of inclusion, but that was all.
So for the majority, the church was very inclusive. But if you want it to be 'totally inclusive' that would mean excluding those who held different views, and hence it would no longer be inclusive. So I wonder if it really is possible.
One might look at Changing Attitudes churches as an example. They may look very welcoming to LGBTI members, but one could easily get the message from them that The Gospel (TM) is that "Jesus loves gay people" rather than have that as a corollary of anything a bit more orthodox like "Jesus is Lord" or a creedal expression of faith. So by way of their rhetoric they can be non-inclusive by putting off more socially conservative christians.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I know from my own experience and from others', being part of churches with very distinctive and strong theological identities, that tend to overwhelm other aspects of belief, make it much harder to know where to draw the line.
And this is the problem, isn't it? On the one hand we want them to be particular the things we're particular about, but we also want them to be obliging about - or at least indifferent towards - the intimate things that we see as none of their business.
But church life seems not to work that way. Churches don't see sexuality as a small thing - probably because society has always been fascinated by sex. Why would the Church as a whole have little to say about something that has driven our pscyhology and created family structure, tribes and nations since time began?
However, if the stable, straight nuclear family recedes considerably in importance, as seems likely to be the case in the West, churches might have less of a vested interest in promoting it as the most acceptable form of family life. As churches of all kinds get smaller and have to struggle harder to be heard, they might present fewer hurdles in this respect.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I know from my own experience and from others', being part of churches with very distinctive and strong theological identities, that tend to overwhelm other aspects of belief, make it much harder to know where to draw the line.
And this is the problem, isn't it? On the one hand we want them to be particular the things we're particular about, but we also want them to be obliging about - or at least indifferent towards - the intimate things that we see as none of their business.
But church life seems not to work that way. Churches don't see sexuality as a small thing - probably because society has always been fascinated by sex. Why would the Church as a whole have little to say about something that has driven our pscyhology and created family structure, tribes and nations since time began?
However, if the stable, straight nuclear family recedes considerably in importance, as seems likely to be the case in the West, churches might have less of a vested interest in promoting it as the most acceptable form of family life. As churches of all kinds get smaller and have to struggle harder to be heard, they might present fewer hurdles in this respect.
I don't expect or want churches to see sex as none of their business. Please don't use 'we' when I haven't said this. Neither do I see sexuality as a small thing - I said it's a small part of theology. It's a small part of the whole of theology, not small in itself and I don't expect the church to see it as such. I do expect churches to acknowledge that LGBT people will exist in their congregations and need supporting as people and individuals.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I've reread the posts and realised I posted without due care. Sorry.
No problem.
People like Vicky Beeching* restore my faith in the Church.
I've never been tempted to lose my faith in God or Christianity because of the gay issue, but I've been strongly tempted to despise the Church for the poisonous, hateful, homophobic and stupid lies that we all hear far too often from prominent Christians.
When I see someone who is infinitely more likely to be hurt by that than I am still holding on to a love of Christ, it is truly inspirational.
(*Gay Christians who are incredibly full of grace and integrity. They are quite a few on the Ship. Thank you to all of you).
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
TheAlethiophile, I kind of agree. No church can be all things to all men. My mother in law was very put out when they were doing a kids talk at church, and saying how the creation stories were about God's intentions, not a step by step guide, and evolution could well be how we came about. You could say we are not very inclusive to a creationist...
But to my mind being inclusive means not being judgmental. Whilst my mother in law may not feel comfortable with the teaching at my church, she would hopefully be respected for having a different opinion. Whereas the churches I went to growing up I would be made to feel like a heretic for doubting creationist views. To me inclusion is not about what the views on a particular subject are, but how those with a different viewpoint are treated.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Jade Constable
I think it was your reference to churches not knowing where to 'draw the line' that made me think of busy-bodies imposing their theology of sexuality and sexual morality where it isn't wanted. But I accept that there are many different ways that churches can deal with this general issue, and different ways in which they give support.
[ 15. August 2014, 14:01: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
So for the majority, the church was very inclusive. But if you want it to be 'totally inclusive' that would mean excluding those who held different views, and hence it would no longer be inclusive. So I wonder if it really is possible.
You don't have to exclude those people. Just make it clear that there are certain behaviors they are not to do. If they choose to exclude themselves (quit) over that, that's a different thing.
Otherwise you are saying that expecting people not to act like assholes is not being inclusive. Being inclusive of assholity is not a necessary part of being inclusive.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
That is terribly worded, even for what it's trying to achieve.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
And the Evangelical Alliance respond.
And I have responded on the site. Have saved the comment in case it gets moderated.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You don't have to exclude those people. Just make it clear that there are certain behaviours they are not to do. If they choose to exclude themselves (quit) over that, that's a different thing.
If that were employment, that could be seen as constructive dismissal. It's simply exclusion via a slightly less direct route. It's saying "put up or get out" instead of just "get out". quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Otherwise you are saying that expecting people not to act like assholes is not being inclusive. Being inclusive of assholity is not a necessary part of being inclusive.
I would say it is. I think it's far better for a twit to remain in church. After all, who gets to say who the twit is? I am happy to worship alongside creationists and will, from time to time, attempt to persuade them otherwise (likewise, they in return do the same to me) but I would hate it if the church said you must choose one way or the other. I think their twits and they think the same of me. Who's to arbitrate?
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
A report on BBC South East Today local news tonight.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
I am happy to worship alongside creationists and will, from time to time, attempt to persuade them otherwise (likewise, they in return do the same to me) but I would hate it if the church said you must choose one way or the other. I think their twits and they think the same of me. Who's to arbitrate?
The line to draw is when their behaviour involves abusing others. Creationists are for the most part harmless cranks, but homophobia and transphobia affect real people in quite severe ways, and should be loudly and firmly rejected. That's not to say we should reject the people expressing them, of course. Love the sinner and hate the sin is a phrase I recall hearing somewhere. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[...] Byron
Referring to the UK, what about the Methodists? What about the URC? They might not be big, flashy and fashionable, but they are generally more tolerant places, so it's odd to ignore them entirely. Maybe with a bit of effort from post-evangelical newcomers they could become livelier and more interesting places to be. It might be easier than trying to make evangelical churches change their theology about sexuality. But maybe not....
Neither the URC, nor the Methodists have voted to allow equal marriage. In England, no mainstream Christian church has taken an affirming stance: the closest are the Quakers and Unitarians.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Byron
That's true. But they're closer to that position than the CofE. And their leaders don't go around in public badmouthing the government for doing what the secular population agrees with.
I'm coming to the view that we get the churches we deserve. If British churchgoers want to have churches that celebrate SSMs, then they should have them. I'm not the most liberated person on this subject, but I do think it's very strange that despite the supposed diversity of British Christianity, and the utter minority status of fire and brimstone theology here, it's apparently not possible for an entire Christian denomination to be both 'mainstream' and totally committed to SSM.
I think the problem is Establishment. The CofE (which absorbs every Christian innovation eventually) thinks it has to tolerate all theologies and attitudes, while holding to an official more traditional line when pushed. The American Episcopalians don't have any such all-embracing ambitions; in a religious culture dominated by evangelicalism, they and a few others have carved out a liberal niche that gives them a distinct identity. If the CofE were entirely independent it might not feel (or at least look) so trapped. I'm wondering if there's some sort of 'Scandinavian solution' that could be applied here; that deserves more thought.
However, Ms Beeching doesn't want to join the Episcopalians, or the Swedish Lutherans, or whatever. What's her faith background, BTW? Baptist? Pentecostal? Which American evangelicals in particular support her? Perhaps she's cannily chosen this moment to come out because she knows that her American evangelical fanbase is changing, and likely to change further. I've certainly heard that American evangelicalism is very broad. The most conservative elements of it are probably not as significant as they used to be.
[ 16. August 2014, 00:57: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Creationists are for the most part harmless cranks
Not in the US, I'm afraid; please see the current creationism thread for more on that, specifically as it applies to school curricula and some active efforts to derail doing anything to stop climate change.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Byron
That's true. But they're closer to that position than the CofE. And their leaders don't go around in public badmouthing the government for doing what the secular population agrees with.
I'm coming to the view that we get the churches we deserve. If British churchgoers want to have churches that celebrate SSMs, then they should have them. I'm not the most liberated person on this subject, but I do think it's very strange that despite the supposed diversity of British Christianity, and the utter minority status of fire and brimstone theology here, it's apparently not possible for an entire Christian denomination to be both 'mainstream' and totally committed to SSM.
I think the problem is Establishment. The CofE (which absorbs every Christian innovation eventually) thinks it has to tolerate all theologies and attitudes, while holding to an official more traditional line when pushed. The American Episcopalians don't have any such all-embracing ambitions; in a religious culture dominated by evangelicalism, they and a few others have carved out a liberal niche that gives them a distinct identity. If the CofE were entirely independent it might not feel (or at least look) so trapped. I'm wondering if there's some sort of 'Scandinavian solution' that could be applied here; that deserves more thought.
However, Ms Beeching doesn't want to join the Episcopalians, or the Swedish Lutherans, or whatever. What's her faith background, BTW? Baptist? Pentecostal? Which American evangelicals in particular support her? Perhaps she's cannily chosen this moment to come out because she knows that her American evangelical fanbase is changing, and likely to change further. I've certainly heard that American evangelicalism is very broad. The most conservative elements of it are probably not as significant as they used to be.
Well obviously she's not going to join TEC or the Swedish Lutherans, because she is British and living in the UK where those are not options ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Her faith background is charismatic evangelical.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
And the Evangelical Alliance respond.
The link isn't working for me, though the title alone doesn't give me a great deal of hope for anything sensible....
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
And the Evangelical Alliance respond.
The link isn't working for me, though the title alone doesn't give me a great deal of hope for anything sensible....
The gist of it seems to be "real Christians pretend that they're just suffering from same-sex-attraction and it's fine so long as they don't actually do anything about it, why doesn't the media talk about us".
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
And the Evangelical Alliance respond.
The link isn't working for me, though the title alone doesn't give me a great deal of hope for anything sensible....
Google cached version here.
Summary: "She'll be tolerated if she feels really really bad about being gay and apologizes for it and preaches against it and stays celibate all her life and tells other gay people not to be gay. And how we read the bible is 100% totally right, and no one else's interpretation is relevant or valid. Also, we define morality and no one else's opinion on that matters either. She is immoral, we are moral, she is evil, we are good."
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Thanks for the cached version, the whole EA website seems to have gone down. My guess is that they be doing some frantic thinking, following this revelation and also Steve Chalke's change of heart.
[ 16. August 2014, 07:42: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I sincerely hope the server has simply and coincidentally fallen over.
If they've had second thoughts about the article, then it could be pulled - and hopefully a note posted to that effect.
Another alternative is that some pro-gay group has DoSed the website.
Neither would be very encouraging responses.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
The whole site has gone down. As a regular visitor to the site, it's not that uncommon. The general design is quite good, but it does seem prone to collapse from time to time.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think that Independent interview will turn out to be a game-changer. Truth expressed vulnerably and without malice has a powerful impact. May we never lose the wonder of that.
The (cached) EA response is really not very clever. Of course we cannot change the Bible but it is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that the "forever" meaning and application of ancient texts must be what "we" make of them.
Cue Jed Bartlet.
"Ignorant tight-assed" club members everywhere had better look out. To quote Desmond Tutu again. "You have already lost".
[ 16. August 2014, 08:38: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think that Independent interview will turn out to be a game-changer. Truth expressed vulnerably and without malice has a powerful impact. May we never lose the wonder of that.
Yes; as one of my Deacons said portentously many years ago, "The truth always edifies".
I have long thought that the basis of this whole issue - and the reasons why Christians so strongly disagree - is down to the way different groups do hermeneutics. There is a strong sense from the conservatives that the more "progressive" elements do not take the Bible seriously; this is simply not true. Contrariwise, the "progressives" will say that the conservatives (who claim to always read Scripture "objectively") fail to recognise that the Bible was not only written but is always read within certain contexts, both individual and societal.
A new hermeneutic is fundamentally (pun intended) challenging to the conservatives, who would prefer to fight hard to maintain the status quo. Whatever happened to "I am verily persuaded that the Lord hath more truth and light yet to break forth from His holy Word"?
I think you just might be able to sense where I stand in this debate - which is, of course, not just about hermeneutics but about Real People.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Thanks for the cached version, the whole EA website seems to have gone down. My guess is that they be doing some frantic thinking, following this revelation and also Steve Chalke's change of heart.
Yesterday the article also featured in full on the livingout site it mentions, here. At present the text has disappeared there, too, and been replaced by a hyperlink to the page that's down.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If British churchgoers want to have churches that celebrate SSMs, then they should have them. I'm not the most liberated person on this subject, but I do think it's very strange that despite the supposed diversity of British Christianity, and the utter minority status of fire and brimstone theology here, it's apparently not possible for an entire Christian denomination to be both 'mainstream' and totally committed to SSM.
I think that there have been quite a number of folk within the URC who thought that this was exactly where their denomination stood. However its failure to reach an agreeable consensus at last month's General Assembly (however prettily worded) shows that premise to have been false.
[ 16. August 2014, 08:58: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think that Independent interview will turn out to be a game-changer. Truth expressed vulnerably and without malice has a powerful impact.
I think it's a matter of continuing to try to break through the shell of ignorance and stupidity and get it through to evangelical leaders just how much harm they are doing to gay people. They seem ignorant, naive, stubborn, arrogant, and unwilling to listen to reason, but perhaps if they are told enough times how many gay people's lives they are ruining, in ways they have to listen to, they might actually start to think about their actions and find that one drop of empathy in their stone hearts and actually step back and realize "oh, we are actually being horrible nasty evil people who are deliberately doing our best to ruin gay people's lives and drive them to suicide... opps."
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think you just might be able to sense where I stand in this debate - which is, of course, not just about hermeneutics but about Real People.
I'm currently working my way through the Homosexuality and Christianity thread. This is a tangent to this thread, but in addition to the hermeneutical aspect you mention, you might like to consider a complementary analysis by Fr Gregory on page 21 of that thread, here, which makes a lot of sense to me.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Thank you - it makes a lot of sense to me, too!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Thanks for the cached version, the whole EA website seems to have gone down. My guess is that they be doing some frantic thinking, following this revelation and also Steve Chalke's change of heart.
Yesterday the article also featured in full on the livingout site it mentions, here. At present the text has disappeared there, too, and been replaced by a hyperlink to the page that's down.
PSA: The EA site is now back up. I have carefully compared the text of the piece before and after the hiatus and nothing has changed, so no conspiracy.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I have long thought that the basis of this whole issue - and the reasons why Christians so strongly disagree - is down to the way different groups do hermeneutics. There is a strong sense from the conservatives that the more "progressive" elements do not take the Bible seriously; this is simply not true. Contrariwise, the "progressives" will say that the conservatives (who claim to always read Scripture "objectively") fail to recognise that the Bible was not only written but is always read within certain contexts, both individual and societal.
A new hermeneutic is fundamentally (pun intended) challenging to the conservatives, who would prefer to fight hard to maintain the status quo. Whatever happened to "I am verily persuaded that the Lord hath more truth and light yet to break forth from His holy Word"?
And not just this issue. Discussing another Dead Horse, I have twice been told that I believe in (the secular idea of) equality while my interlocutor believes in Scripture. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Well obviously she's not going to join TEC or the Swedish Lutherans, because she is British and living in the UK where those are not options.
True. But to judge from the link her campaign seems to be aimed at American evangelicals rather than British ones. (I wonder how American evangelicals have taken to being coaxed and urged to change by a British woman. Maybe her Britishness has made the experience more palatable!)
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If British churchgoers want to have churches that celebrate SSMs, then they should have them. I'm not the most liberated person on this subject, but I do think it's very strange that despite the supposed diversity of British Christianity, and the utter minority status of fire and brimstone theology here, it's apparently not possible for an entire Christian denomination to be both 'mainstream' and totally committed to SSM.
I think that there have been quite a number of folk within the URC who thought that this was exactly where their denomination stood. However its failure to reach an agreeable consensus at last month's General Assembly (however prettily worded) shows that premise to have been false.
Interesting. I know that a recent Methodist President of Conference has stated that the way is open for SSMs to be formally permitted in the future, if and when the Church is ready. They're not the sorts of people who make bold moves that are likely to be controversial. But, like the URC, they're very compassionate and accepting, and heaping condemnation on people isn't what they do.
I'm rashly going to predict that being younger, more uniformly middle class and educated, and also closer to mainstream culture, charismatic evangelical 'denominations' will be quicker to move towards a wholesale acceptance of SSM than the Methodists or the URC. But in the meantime, the evangelicals have to make far more of a song and dance about the whole thing.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
I think it's telling that the EA article says "But tragically it is Vicky who is wrong on the morality of gay sexual relationships".
I don't remember reading anything at all in Vicky Beeching's interview about sex. All she discussed was her romantic feelings for other women. She isn't in a relationship - at least doesn't describe being in one. That sort of disparity does nothing to dispel my view that the EA are really rather over-interested in what other people do with their squishy bits.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
The interview around her coming out doesn't say anything, but she has been a supporter of same-sec marriage, so I assume they're just pulling it all in together.
It still reads as a very graceless article, though. Wouldn't have killed him to say "I disagree on ..." rather than "I am the gatekeeper of the One True Reading ...".
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm rashly going to predict that being younger, more uniformly middle class and educated, and also closer to mainstream culture, charismatic evangelical 'denominations' will be quicker to move towards a wholesale acceptance of SSM than the Methodists or the URC. But in the meantime, the evangelicals have to make far more of a song and dance about the whole thing.
Hmm, not sure about that - but we'll see! The URC is going to have some months of consultation with the aim of seeing if the denomination (nationally) is willing to allow churches (locally) to make their own decisions on SSM. To me it's a no-brainer, especially as I come from a "Congregationalist" position of church polity. URC congregations can already register their buildings for Civil Partnerships.
Where I do agree with you is that there is an age divide on this. Many (not all) younger Evangelicals just don't see this as a problem; that means that change will inevitably come as they succeed to national leadership positions in organisations such as the EA. Meanwhile, we have some younger Evangelicals leaving the churches because they can't agree with their hard-line policies on this matter.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It's fairly well established that the conservative train of thought tends to equate 'sexuality' with 'actual sex'. If she 'comes out' as a lesbian, they assume it must be because she's actually been having sex with a woman.
This is not, of course, the way that GLBT think about the same question.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Many (not all) younger Evangelicals just don't see this as a problem; that means that change will inevitably come as they succeed to national leadership positions in organisations such as the EA. Meanwhile, we have some younger Evangelicals leaving the churches because they can't agree with their hard-line policies on this matter.
Peter Brierley, the evangelical church statistician, agrees with you about the likely generational change.
As I implied regarding the Methodists and URC, even if their members don't all agree on SSM, they're relatively tolerant of diversity, so there's no 'hard-line', to rebel against. Also, they have fewer young people to 'lose'.
The irony is that evangelism and popularity must make charismatic evangelical churches quite vulnerable to pressures of this kind; the more outsiders are attracted to your church, the more they're likely to bring their outside values and perspectives with them. The drive to bring in and hold on to large numbers of youngsters who can't realistically be shielded from the changes in society must lead to theological changes in the church.
The small, cocooned congregation that's happy to remain that way must find it easier to maintain its theological boundaries than the biggest, liveliest megachurch.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'm not sure that's necessarily true, Svitlana, because the 'outsiders' don't all come in together as an organised group. They come in as individuals, in ones and twos.
And then if it's a large church they may well feel the pressure to conform - at least outwardly - to what they see around them.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
[ETA: x-post with Orfeo]
Actually, based on nothing other than intuition from general reading, I would expect the megachurch environment to find it easier to maintain a fairly hard line on any given issue, against the thrust of popular opinion. It always feels like there's much more of a consumer mentality with megachurch, so if people are coming it's because they're buying in to what's being offered, and will thus value whatever The Position is.
Contrast to your average MOTR Evangelical shack that gets a bit of transfer growth, a bit of conversion growth, and a reasonable degree of "grow your own" through long-term families, and IME (limited breadth, but decent depth) you tend to find that views on Dead Horses are largely, but not entirely, split on age grounds. There are a few outliers in each demographic, but essentially it feels like 55+ largely 'traditional' (it's OK to be gay, but don't make a fuss dear, and definitely don't have a sexual relationship); 35 - 55 a real mixed bag covering full acceptance and affirmation of SSM at one end, to the 55+ view at the other; under 35 more or less perfectly comfortable with Teh Gayz, and rolling their eyes when TPTB preach on the subject, as TPTB tend towards the conservative, or at least don't frighten the horses, position.
It's those smaller but largely vibrant local Evangelical churches that will see the rumblings and changes first, although it will still be CoE/big churches that make the headlines or herald the crumbling of the traditional position to what will be seen as a handful of die-hard extremists tilting at a ship that has sailed.
[ 16. August 2014, 13:56: Message edited by: Snags ]
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
If you think the big mega-churches are where it's going to play out first, look to see what happens at HTB. It's got a huge student constituency and if they change tack to keep their students coming then you're right. But I'm not convinced that that's going to happen.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
