|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Oh yeah, Dr Beeching
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
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.
That struck me as well. The only thing I know about her sexual ethics is that she appears to approve of marriage. There's nothing I can see in the interview to suggest that Ms Beeching has ever done anything at all that a conservative Christian would consider to be a sexual sin.
On the one hand, I'm happy with that, because (a) her testimony is exactly as powerful whether she is, or wants to be, in a same-sex relationship or not, and (b) it's obviously none of my damned business.
But on the other hand, it's so depressing that Vicky Beeching is going to be condemned by these people for who she is, not what she's done, when that's a distinction that conservatives are usually so keen on saying that they make (and without which their position is stupid, incoherent and evil).
Why the hell couldn't the EA say something like: "Our position on sexual ethics generally and same-sex relationships in particular is pretty well known. We may well have some disagreement with Vicky Beeching about that, but we admire and applaud her honesty and courage, and are glad to affirm our fellowship with her in devotion to our Lord Jesus, whom we believe loves everyone." That wouldn't be a betrayal of their principles, would it?
--------------------
"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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
What I've read is that big churches are partly attractive because they allow people to 'hide' - smaller churches leaves a newcomer open to more scrutiny. I suppose it depends on how efficiently the big churches channel individuals into small groups that encourage uniformity.
I've also heard that some American megachurches have become so keen on targeting and reaching out to particular demographic groups that maintaining a strict line on particular theological issues is a secondary issue to getting people through the doors and keeping them interested. I don't know if that's happening in the handful of large British churches.
Really, though, I think Christians who are energised by this issue need to start planting a new bunch of churches that are suited to the developing culture of tolerance and acceptance. It's easier to plant a new church with new values than to struggle and strain to change the attitudes of an existing congregation. But yes, with time, the current 'mainstream' evangelical churches are likely to retreat from strict conservatism on sexual matters, as have most of the historical denominations, to varying degrees. It all depends on how long you want to wait.
[ 16. August 2014, 15:20: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE] Whatever happened to "I am verily persuaded that the Lord hath more truth and light yet to break forth from His holy Word"?
Most "conservative" theologians I know respect this view absolutely.
How would you see it BT if this "more truth and light" proved beyond all doubt God's condemnation of same sex activity?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Well, I would have to go along with it ... but, at present anyway, that would seem to be a regression to "old light and truth". The question, of course, is what Scripture can really prove "without doubt" - most of the time we are making the best, yet provisional, understandings that we can manage with our finite minds and limited intelligence.
Even the orthodox teachings about our Lord, which I absolutely accept (indeed, I shall be defending the traditional supernatural view of his miracles within tomorrow's sermon) are ultimately a matter of faith and trust, rather than "proof".
[ 16. August 2014, 17:23: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Not going to read the article because frankly I don't need that crap, but I am just baffled by other Christians referring to 'sinful lifestyle' when talking about Vicky Beeching's coming out. Like I could maybe understand it (though would still think it entirely wrong) if she was announcing a relationship with a woman, or that she was renouncing her faith because of her sexuality, but as far as we know her life is just the same as it was before, just with some extra freedom to talk about it. Since when did discussing one's sexuality equal a lifestyle? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
But then again, chastity before marriage is frequently misunderstood as asexuality before marriage - single Christians, especially single women, are not supposed to acknowledge the fact that they are sexual beings and have a sexual orientation.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Since when did discussing one's sexuality equal a lifestyle?
Since homophobia became the mark of a true Christian. Sometime in the 1980s.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
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.
Oh, I agree, although comparing any organisation favorably with the Church of England could be taken as damning with faint praise!
quote:
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.
With ya on establishment. It's suffocated the religious marketplace.
As others have noted, Beeching comes from a charismatic evangelical background (in interviews she said she used to attend a Vineyard church), but has now moved into liturgical worship in cathedrals.
It's to the Church of England's shame that, while there, she can't hear and experience the affirmation extended by other episcopal churches.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I don't remember reading anything at all in Vicky Beeching's interview about sex.
She's written several blog posts on LGBT theology and same sex marriage on her blog over the past 6 months, as well as speaking about the issues in person even before that.
Presumably Ed Shaw, before writing the EA's article, looked and some of what she'd said on the subject, just as I looked at some of what he's said on the subject elsewhere before writing my own summary of his anti-Beeching article in order to represent his views more completely and understand what he is trying to imply, rather than merely dealing with what is said explicitly in the article itself.
[ 16. August 2014, 22:15: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
The Living Out crew have gotta be pissed at their lack of impact. They were meant to be a game changer, but they've been ignored outside con-evo circles.
Time and again, they bellyache "Why not invite us on?" Answer, not only are people are wise to Uncle Toms, but their legalistic earnestness is ratings suicide.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE] Whatever happened to "I am verily persuaded that the Lord hath more truth and light yet to break forth from His holy Word"?
Most "conservative" theologians I know respect this view absolutely.
How would you see it BT if this "more truth and light" proved beyond all doubt God's condemnation of same sex activity?
If that were the case then God's idea of sexuality would be a minor issue. If God wanted to prove beyond doubt his condemnation of same sex activity, he would first have to prove beyond doubt his existence. So far he seems to be reluctant to do that.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
It's a really pleasant surprise to see such a vast majority of supportive comments on the various sites (Beechings twitter, her blog, the EA response article, another gay Christian who's come out in response etc). It's clear that the balance has changed - go back a few years and the majority of comments would have been negative.
It reminds me of this beautiful response (to this original ad), where the ratio of positive to negative feedback was ~10:1. When supporting and affirmative voices are ten times as numerous as the opposing and hurtful voices... it's game over.
I was, however, grieved by this comment on the EA response article, which while confusingly worded, boils down to "I have endured many many years in pain and suffering in grappling with my sexual orientation as an Evangelical, doing my absolute best to try to follow what I believe to be the Bible's anti-gay teachings. I feel angry at Beeching for claiming that the Bible isn't anti-gay, because that would make all the years of self-inflicted suffering I have experienced a mistake and worthless." I feel awful for that man and for what the church has done to him.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I was, however, grieved by this comment on the EA response article, which while confusingly worded, boils down to "I have endured many many years in pain and suffering in grappling with my sexual orientation as an Evangelical, doing my absolute best to try to follow what I believe to be the Bible's anti-gay teachings. I feel angry at Beeching for claiming that the Bible isn't anti-gay, because that would make all the years of self-inflicted suffering I have experienced a mistake and worthless." I feel awful for that man and for what the church has done to him.
But this is a problem many church leaders are facing, Starlight (frequently and inaccurately misrepresented by SSM advocates as "don't frighten the horses").
Even if leaders believe the time has come to take a firm position in favour of SSM, many are certainly faced with the knowledge that while doing so can embrace some who have felt excluded for so long, it will equally feel to others like a complete betrayal of a lifelong struggle to obey God.
If there is to be true, all-encompassing inclusiveness in a church, there needs to be a lot of compassion and pastoral care on all sides. In a local church one is dealing with people, in all our complex and contradictory humanity, not abstract ideas.
--------------------
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
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Even if leaders believe the time has come to take a firm position in favour of SSM, many are certainly faced with the knowledge that while doing so can embrace some who have felt excluded for so long, it will equally feel to others like a complete betrayal of a lifelong struggle to obey God.
I'm concerned that you think there's any kind of dilemma here. The church has screwed over some gay people in the past by encouraging/forcing them to "obey God" in a way that has hurt them and been deeply harmful to them. Now that the church has woken up to this and realized it was a harmful idea and not what God actually wants for their lives, continuing to encourage these people down that path of self-harm just because those people are used to that path is not a morally acceptable or compassionate pastoral response.
I understand that many of these people will have difficulty coming to terms with the fact that decades of their suffering was unnecessary and unjustified. I am sorry for them. They will probably be very angry and very upset, and justifiably so... like many many many other gay people are.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
The Church I served in West Africa faced a similar problem with polygamy. For years it had said that men who became Christians should "get rid" of their "surplus" wives. Many did so, causing grief but also virtue, as it was being done as an act of commitment to Christ.
But views changed and it was decided that polygamists who converted could keep their wives - although they could not take any new ones. This was felt to better mirror Biblical principles. I think this was right - but those who had taken the "harder line" in the past now felt somewhat betrayed.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
For years it had said that men who became Christians should "get rid" of their "surplus" wives. Many did so, causing grief but also virtue, as it was being done as an act of commitment to Christ.
What usually happened to the "surplus" wives after they had been "gotten rid of"?
This whole "My suffering must have been worthwhile" idea also reminds me of a recent discussion I was having with a friend about laws on breast-feeding in public. Younger women usually want to be able to breast-feed in public when they are out shopping with their children, as it can be complicatedly inconvenient to need to find a private area to do so when trying to manage other children. Yet the biggest opponents of such laws tend to be older women who take the "I wasn't allowed that convenience when I was young, so I think it's unfair your life is allowed to be so easy" line.
[ 17. August 2014, 08:17: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I heard the tail end of the interviews on the BBC R4 Sunday programme this morning, with someone referring to a group called Living Out - so I searched for it, only to find a book called "Living it Out" by two women with the same double barrelled surname, which had an opposite view of things. Which came first? I did get to find the LO group. Not impressed. More than not impressed - fuming.
I would like to ask the people who put forward the views they do a few questions.
1. Do you feel same sex attraction? If No, shut up, you have no relevant experience, and feeling attracted to someone else's spouse and controlling it isn't going to be the same. As Vicky said, you can still hope for a partner for you.
2. Are you living a celibate life successfully? If Yes, lucky old you. But you aren't normal. Most people need companionship and contact with other people. Somebody once commented that it isn't good for a human being to be alone. Someone then made a help meet for them. Not a helpmate to hand them their tools while doing DIY. But someone who could be described with the same word used in other places to describe the sort of helper God is. Who are you to deny that sort of relationship to someone who does not share your gift of being happy in a solitary life.
3 Are you living a celibate life unsuccessfully, unhappy with being alone, paying a "single supplement" which is the equivalent of paying for an invisible friend, paying for a home on your own, and commenting on TV programmes out loud to yourself, never having a hug when you feel down, or a kiss in happy moments, being made to sit n the children's table at family parties*, and go out from worship to take the children's activities. Then show some empathy. You know what it is like. Who are you to force someone else into that life when they have been given the opportunity to share their life with a soul mate?
These people are so convinced that they are right in the face of all the evidence. (And Vicky isn't even in a relationship, so what ae they on about? She is living as she is supposed to live, is she not? And, though I don't know her music, but I gather that hitherto, she has been regarded as a channel for the Holy Spirit.)
*On a programme about childlessness last week. Not my family! The woman concerned then said what lovely people her nephews and nieces were, but she felt infantilised - in her 50s.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I gather that hitherto, she has been regarded as a channel for the Holy Spirit.
But you've got to keep in mind the verse "by the minor details of their theology you will know them" which means that anyone who has wrong views on minor things that aren't in the EA's basis of faith, or in any historic creeds of the Church, is nonetheless a demonically possessed false teacher in sheep's clothing who needs to be thrown out of the church because those minor things are essential to the core of Christianity.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
Yes, looking at the comments by supporters of Living Out, I see one by Amy Orr-Ewing, definitely a heterosexually-married woman. I knew her in my teens. Her father is the C of E vicar who refused me communion at the rail in the early 1990s. It's a shame the attitude has passed down from one generation to another.
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
For years it had said that men who became Christians should "get rid" of their "surplus" wives. Many did so, causing grief but also virtue, as it was being done as an act of commitment to Christ.
What usually happened to the "surplus" wives after they had been "gotten rid of"?
That is a very good question, and one which actually served as a game-changer: divorced wives in West African society were, at that time, regarded as "shop-soiled goods". They could not get married again, they were regarded as a blot on their family, they might even end up in prostitution. The missionaries who had originally proposed the "hard-line" marriage position hadn't realised any of that.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The Church I served in West Africa faced a similar problem with polygamy. For years it had said that men who became Christians should "get rid" of their "surplus" wives. Many did so, causing grief but also virtue, as it was being done as an act of commitment to Christ.
But views changed and it was decided that polygamists who converted could keep their wives - although they could not take any new ones. This was felt to better mirror Biblical principles. I think this was right - but those who had taken the "harder line" in the past now felt somewhat betrayed.
Well you would, wouldn't you? These are relationships that in many cases must have involved real love and affection. The children of these abandoned wives are probably also resentful towards the church.
I think this is a problem that faces many denominations when they overturn a strict teaching for a more tolerant line. People who've denied themselves something desirable in order to be faithful to church teachings will inevitably feel cheated.
If the RCC decides that divorce and remarriage is okay, many elderly people who've struggled in their personal lives but remained true to the earlier teachings will feel that their sacrifice was for nothing. Some gay people who've denied themselves sexual relationships for many years in order to be right with God but are then suddenly told by their clergy that SSM is perfectly OK may feel the same way.
Strict denominations do lose members as a result of liberalising their teachings in this way. I suppose the feeling is that if the clergy were wrong on something like this, what else are they probably wrong about? I don't know if there's a solution to this problem. Maybe it's to keep the theory the same, but to modernise the practice.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Even if leaders believe the time has come to take a firm position in favour of SSM, many are certainly faced with the knowledge that while doing so can embrace some who have felt excluded for so long, it will equally feel to others like a complete betrayal of a lifelong struggle to obey God.
What would help would be if the church apologised and said to them "we're deeply sorry for having lied to you for most of your life".
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
For years it had said that men who became Christians should "get rid" of their "surplus" wives. Many did so, causing grief but also virtue, as it was being done as an act of commitment to Christ.
What usually happened to the "surplus" wives after they had been "gotten rid of"?
That is a very good question, and one which actually served as a game-changer: divorced wives in West African society were, at that time, regarded as "shop-soiled goods". They could not get married again, they were regarded as a blot on their family, they might even end up in prostitution. The missionaries who had originally proposed the "hard-line" marriage position hadn't realised any of that.
So where was the "virtue" in the original position? Not with the missionaries, this is certain. Nor with the men abandoning their wives.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
But that's not how the men saw it. They saw it as "giving up a wife/wives they loved, in order to align themselves with God's will".
I'm not trying to defend this line - just trying to explain how the men had felt it right to make a decision which was difficult for them. Unfortunately the wives' feelings and position don't seem to have come into it at all!
However I guess the same thing would have happened in reverse had the society been polyandrous. Indeed, one of the local tribes had followed this practice almost within living memory.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Comparing any organisation favorably with the Church of England could be taken as damning with faint praise!
We need to take into account the fact that many Methodists and URC are fairly old. They haven't grown up with gay church members clamouring to get married, and they probably don't come across that sort of activism very often now. In the vast majority of congregations I suspect it's not an issue of burning relevance. I also imagine that many Methodist churches are seeing a declining number of weddings nowadays anyway, so there's not much of a wedding focus. It would be interesting to see some stats, if there are any.
quote:
As others have noted, Beeching comes from a charismatic evangelical background (in interviews she said she used to attend a Vineyard church), but has now moved into liturgical worship in cathedrals.
It's to the Church of England's shame that, while there, she can't hear and experience the affirmation extended by other episcopal churches.
Ah. That's interesting. She may be moving in a general post-evangelical direction in general, then.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But that's not how the men saw it. They saw it as "giving up a wife/wives they loved, in order to align themselves with God's will".
I'm not trying to defend this line - just trying to explain how the men had felt it right to make a decision which was difficult for them. Unfortunately the wives' feelings and position don't seem to have come into it at all!
And this is where both they and the missionaries fail.
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
However I guess the same thing would have happened in reverse had the society been polyandrous.
Yeah, except no. The in the vast majority of polyandrous societies, men still run things. Polyandry is commonly a solution for the benefit of men.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
BT: quote:
I'm not trying to defend this line - just trying to explain how the men had felt it right to make a decision which was difficult for them. Unfortunately the wives' feelings and position don't seem to have come into it at all!
which just indicates that those men were still living in OT style: women were property, to be acquired or disposed as they saw fit. Jesus had something quite succinct to say about that, which the missionaries had obviously chosen to forget.
Divorce has consequences, and, in many societies, divorce means poverty and ostracism for the woman/women.
Were the missionaries actually preaching Christ or just some vague Salvationist thing?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I couldn't possibly say ... this was back in the 1950s! What I do know is that they came from a variety of Evangelical backgrounds, both British and American. And they took a highly literalist approach to Scripture.
I was only trying to use it as an illustration, not to start a tangent, you know ...
(BTW, I don't think Mudfrog will be very pleased by your "vague Salvationist thing"!)
[ 17. August 2014, 14:43: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I heard the tail end of the interviews on the BBC R4 Sunday programme this morning, with someone referring to a group called Living Out - so I searched for it, only to find a book called "Living it Out" by two women with the same double barrelled surname, which had an opposite view of things. Which came first? I did get to find the LO group. Not impressed. More than not impressed - fuming.[...]
I would be if I wasn't so inured to con-evo tactics.
Schadenfreude at their frustration helps offset things: the Living Out brigade have followed the media savvy con-evo playbook to the letter -- legalistic message wrapped in slick website and PR -- but it's gained no traction in the debate.
I hope the BBC and other broadcasters don't relent and put up "same-sex attracted" spokespeople. Using your victims as your messengers is apologetics 101. Indulging it is not impartial.
The power dynamic is that a straight majority has long oppressed a lesbian and gay minority. That should be reflected, not masked by a few collaborators.
[ 17. August 2014, 15:32: Message edited by: Byron ]
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
We need to take into account the fact that many Methodists and URC are fairly old. They haven't grown up with gay church members clamouring to get married, and they probably don't come across that sort of activism very often now. In the vast majority of congregations I suspect it's not an issue of burning relevance. I also imagine that many Methodist churches are seeing a declining number of weddings nowadays anyway, so there's not much of a wedding focus. It would be interesting to see some stats, if there are any.
Age may well be a factor, although the picture's mixed: the rise in support for equal marriage cuts across demographics, and much of the worst homophobia is found in school.
quote:
Ah. That's interesting. She may be moving in a general post-evangelical direction in general, then.
Perhaps, although her core theology looks solidly evangelical. Personally I think that's great: reform in the church will only come when evangelicals are on board, as happened with equal ordination.
That's why groups like the Evangelical Alliance are so desperately trying to hold the line. They can sense the ground shifting under 'em.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
the biggest opponents of such laws tend to be older women who take the "I wasn't allowed that convenience when I was young, so I think it's unfair your life is allowed to be so easy" line.
Starlight I'd hope you'd agree that someone's lifelong struggling with how to live out their sexuality is hardly on a par with whether someone was allowed to breastfeed their infants.
For the record, in 25 years of ministry I don't ever think I have explicitly preached against homosexuality or homosexual practice at all, and have been suspected by my peers of pro-gay leanings since at least 1995 (when a March for Jesus I had helped organise encountered a Gay Pride march on the city square and we explicitly stated we were not a counter-demonstration). I realise this may come as a surprise to some here.
I understand that is still a long way from active acceptance. Orfeo suggests apologising to the constituency involved. Certainly when I have made major theological shifts before I have, as appropriate, done my best to do precisely that for the individuals or constituencies involved.
But none of that can completely undo their genuine suffering, any more than overnight blanket acceptance would undo years of suffering on the part of the likes of Vicky Beeching. If gay couples were to trample on that in a stampede to embrace acceptance then it doesn't do much for the cause, in my view. There needs to be a collective recogition of everyone's suffering as a result of our various imperfections.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Comparing any organisation favorably with the Church of England could be taken as damning with faint praise!
We need to take into account the fact that many Methodists and URC are fairly old. They haven't grown up with gay church members clamouring to get married, and they probably don't come across that sort of activism very often now. In the vast majority of congregations I suspect it's not an issue of burning relevance. I also imagine that many Methodist churches are seeing a declining number of weddings nowadays anyway, so there's not much of a wedding focus. It would be interesting to see some stats, if there are any.
quote:
As others have noted, Beeching comes from a charismatic evangelical background (in interviews she said she used to attend a Vineyard church), but has now moved into liturgical worship in cathedrals.
It's to the Church of England's shame that, while there, she can't hear and experience the affirmation extended by other episcopal churches.
Ah. That's interesting. She may be moving in a general post-evangelical direction in general, then.
Except that Beeching identifies as 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 Penny S:
I heard the tail end of the interviews on the BBC R4 Sunday programme this morning, with someone referring to a group called Living Out - so I searched for it, only to find a book called "Living it Out" by two women with the same double barrelled surname, which had an opposite view of things. Which came first? I did get to find the LO group. Not impressed. More than not impressed - fuming.
I would like to ask the people who put forward the views they do a few questions.
1. Do you feel same sex attraction? If No, shut up, you have no relevant experience, and feeling attracted to someone else's spouse and controlling it isn't going to be the same. As Vicky said, you can still hope for a partner for you.
2. Are you living a celibate life successfully? If Yes, lucky old you. But you aren't normal. Most people need companionship and contact with other people. Somebody once commented that it isn't good for a human being to be alone. Someone then made a help meet for them. Not a helpmate to hand them their tools while doing DIY. But someone who could be described with the same word used in other places to describe the sort of helper God is. Who are you to deny that sort of relationship to someone who does not share your gift of being happy in a solitary life.
3 Are you living a celibate life unsuccessfully, unhappy with being alone, paying a "single supplement" which is the equivalent of paying for an invisible friend, paying for a home on your own, and commenting on TV programmes out loud to yourself, never having a hug when you feel down, or a kiss in happy moments, being made to sit n the children's table at family parties*, and go out from worship to take the children's activities. Then show some empathy. You know what it is like. Who are you to force someone else into that life when they have been given the opportunity to share their life with a soul mate?
These people are so convinced that they are right in the face of all the evidence. (And Vicky isn't even in a relationship, so what ae they on about? She is living as she is supposed to live, is she not? And, though I don't know her music, but I gather that hitherto, she has been regarded as a channel for the Holy Spirit.)
*On a programme about childlessness last week. Not my family! The woman concerned then said what lovely people her nephews and nieces were, but she felt infantilised - in her 50s.
Celibacy =/= not having companionship. Celibacy =/= being solitary. Many celibate people live in community with others, obviously monks/nuns/friars/sisters but also lay people. I agree that being called to celibacy is not that common, but it's not the picture of loneliness you're painting it as.
--------------------
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
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I have the impression that the sort of church making the arguments used in the arguments against Vicky do not go in for communal living.
And a person will still have to find the community they will fit into.
And don't you recognise when someone is having a bad day?
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Jade Constable
quote:
Beeching identifies as evangelical.
I didn't say she shouldn't.
I identify as a Methodist, although my formal worship now takes place more often in a liberal catholic CofE setting. That doesn't make me CofE (as the Ship has made very clear to me!), but it problematizes my claim to have a clear, single spiritual identity. More and more Christians are developing multiple allegiances and poles of attraction these days, and I've read on the Ship about evangelicals who've taken up monastic practices, and so on.
We live in interesting times. The 'evangelical' label is highly desirable, but it may soon become too elastic a term for those towards the more conservative end. They'll have to invent a new label quite quickly, before everyone insists on calling them fundamentalists!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I have the impression that the sort of church making the arguments used in the arguments against Vicky do not go in for communal living.
And a person will still have to find the community they will fit into.
And don't you recognise when someone is having a bad day?
It might be nice if you didn't call celibate people lonely, abnormal freaks though. It's not for you - that's fine. But it is right for some people and that doesn't make them weird or wrong. It seems ironic to criticise those making those arguments for their misunderstanding of sexuality, but then have a total misunderstanding of what celibacy involves. The kind of church making the arguments against Vicky is irrelevant here - it is you misunderstanding celibacy, not them.
And no, how can I know you're having a bad day if you don't say so? Psychic ability isn't a requirement of Ship membership. I'm sorry you're having a bad day, but it's no excuse for making inaccurate and hurtful comments about celibate people in the same breath as criticising people for making inaccurate and hurtful comments about gay people.
--------------------
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
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
It only takes one black swan to disprove the belief that all swans are white.
I am celibate. I didn't chose it, it was, little by little, thrust upon me. With one episode as the icing and the cherry on top when I met someone who was attracted to me (the real me, not my boobs in isolation), not married, and who then decided that he was called to be celibate.
I'm not going to attack people who are called to celibacy and are happy in it, of course not. But there are a number of women in my generation, which outnumbered the men of the same cohort who did not have the choice, in the same way as the women of WWI did not have the choice.
What I was attacking was the sort of person who decides, while not having to make that decision themselves, that people whose loves are of the same sex as themselves are not to have the consensual relationships that present themselves. Celibates who do not do that I have no argument with, as I have no argument with married people who do not do that.
Oh, and in my tirade I forgot the bit where everyone you used to go to parties with gets married and switches to couples dinner parties and one's social life shrinks almost to zero, and then all the female friends have babies and establish new social groups with the women they meet through the children and zero is reached. And the bit where all the activities in one's worshipping community are tied up with the children.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I tried to add this to the above, at the end of the second paragraph, but thought about it too much and ran out of time.
Being a natural celibate is not normal - that does not mean I mean to use abnormal as an insult. I used normal in a mathematical sense. I'm a bit literal like that. I did not at any point say freak, so you read that in to it. I also did not say that natural celibates are lonely. I think I have touched a sore point, so allowed you to read into what I wrote more than I intended, and if so, I'm sorry about that. (I realise that comes across a bit like those political apologies where the person does not apologise for the actual act, but only for the effect of it. Sorry about that, too.)
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The 'evangelical' label is highly desirable, but it may soon become too elastic a term for those towards the more conservative end.
It already is: there's a sense in which the conservative end is now "post" evangelical in an entirely different sense from the post modern emergent "post evangelical."
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
I made the mistake of reading some of the responses on facebook. Not unsurprising but saddening nonetheless.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Penny - sorry for the misunderstanding. What I picked up on the most was 'Most people need companionship and contact with other people.' That was what struck me as not understanding celibacy, since most Christians who are celibate surely have companionship and contact with other people through the church? I mean I am coming at it from the A-C angle so thinking primarily of religious and single consecrated life (though there are also more low church intentional communities), but even just celibate lay people will have companionship and contact with somebody surely? But then, I'm understanding those things as not necessarily being romantic or physical. I was reacting to an idea of celibacy being a life of loneliness, which suggested to me a lack of experience of celibacy in a religious context - but sorry for assuming.
Of course, celibacy is a calling and imposing it on people just because they are gay/bisexual is utterly wrong and contrary to the whole idea of a calling.
--------------------
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
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
I made the mistake of reading some of the responses on facebook. Not unsurprising but saddening nonetheless.
Here, I think the positives are more instructive.
Beeching's received support from across the theological spectrum, even from those who currently hold a traditional view. I say "currently" as many have said that her interview is causing them to rethink their beliefs.
A few evangelicals are desperately trying to argue that she's left the fold. They know that persuading the flock to ignore her is the only hope they've got.
This continues to have all the signs of a game changer. Beeching's as media-savvy as it gets: she's already networking LGBT Christians like crazy via Twitter. The old school focus on producing reports and persuading bishops is already looking obsolete. The church used it to control dissent; as shown by the bungling of its director of communications, it has no idea how to control this.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I assume that Arun Arora only creates "communication" but doesn't process it for himself.
Sounds like quite a lot of church spokesmen, and not just C of E ones, either.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I assume that Arun Arora only creates "communication" but doesn't process it for himself.
Sounds like quite a lot of church spokesmen, and not just C of E ones, either.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
He screwed the pooch, but TBF, Beeching's his worst nightmare: a fellow evangelical who's off-message and better at his job than he is. (Although on current showing, that'd be damning her media skill with faint praise.)
Neither managers like Arora, nor Christian gay-bashers, have a clue what to do about this. Unlike Jeffrey John or Gene Robinson, Beeching's got no past to use as a weapon; she's walked their path, and it almost destroyed her. She's a world away from the secretive, male Anglo-Catholic clubhouse. She was an evangelical superstar when this hit them out the blue. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
I wouldn't call it quite out of the blue. In some ways her coming out shouldn't really change how she is viewed - she already supported SSM so was completely off message as far as those who are now 'against' her are concerned. It's interesting that there didn't seem to be much debate about her stance on SSM before this, considering the reaction to Steve Chalke. Maybe it's because she is not in any official position of responsibility so wasn't deemed a danger. That certainly seems to be changing now.
What really got me about the article on the EA website was how he said how supported he was when he came out. Well of course he was, because he is toeing the line. Evangelicals love nothing more than someone battling temptation, 'not giving into the devil' etc.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The 'evangelical' label is highly desirable, but it may soon become too elastic a term for those towards the more conservative end.
It already is: there's a sense in which the conservative end is now "post" evangelical in an entirely different sense from the post modern emergent "post evangelical."
Sorry, I don't understand ... (I know what the "emergent" post-evangelical means).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
It's interesting that there didn't seem to be much debate about her stance on SSM before this, considering the reaction to Steve Chalke. Maybe it's because she is not in any official position of responsibility so wasn't deemed a danger.
And because she is a "Christian rock star" and - dare I say? - a woman?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The 'evangelical' label is highly desirable, but it may soon become too elastic a term for those towards the more conservative end.
It already is: there's a sense in which the conservative end is now "post" evangelical in an entirely different sense from the post modern emergent "post evangelical."
Sorry, I don't understand ... (I know what the "emergent" post-evangelical means).
I read it as the conservative end of the spectrum moving from evangelicalism to fundamentalism.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Jade, thanks for that generous reply.
There are all sorts of solutions around to the situation of enforced singleness - I must admit the invitation to the local weekly OAP lunch and Bingo didn't quite seem like one for me. Nor the idea that people who grew up with the Beatles will feel at home singing that it's a long way to Tipperary. Churches vary a lot, and what is on offer can depend on the existing demographic of the group.
That wasn't really what I was getting at - and I think it is worth reiterating. People should (Ugh) "check their privilege" before imposing restrictions on others that they do not have to observe themselves.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The 'evangelical' label is highly desirable, but it may soon become too elastic a term for those towards the more conservative end.
It already is: there's a sense in which the conservative end is now "post" evangelical in an entirely different sense from the post modern emergent "post evangelical."
Sorry, I don't understand ... (I know what the "emergent" post-evangelical means).
I read it as the conservative end of the spectrum moving from evangelicalism to fundamentalism.
You've got the move in the wrong direction - I'd actually see a liberalisation (but only up to a point).
It's more a disowning of labels than adopting another one - and in the debate we're in it's jolly easy to throw labels at each other. The hard part is to dialogue - and there are guilty individuals on both sides.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
