|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: LGBT (Anglican) clergy: useful idiots?
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
A straight person living in a largely gay neighborhood and white person living in a largely black or brown neighborhood very quickly learn that their identity is very much bound up with their orientation and color.
I think you'd have to live in a gay/black/brown society, not just a neighbourhood, for that to be close to true.
I'm a white Brit, living in a community which is mostly white Americans, with a few Americans of color. So the thing that distinguishes me from most of my neighbours is my Britishness.
Now, Britishness is certainly part of my identity - it encapsulates a set of cultural assumptions and references that I have - but it's not any more part of my identity than it was when I was a white Brit living in Britain, surrounded by a whole bunch of other white Brits.
British forms a significant part of the way my neighbours see me, but not nearly such a large part of the way I see myself.
I imagine if I was living in a mostly black area, the situation would be similar. I'd be recognized and thought of as the white guy, but I wouldn't see "white" as a significant part of the way I see myself.
Put me in a universe where there's widespread discrimination against white folks, and I might find that I choose to identify more strongly with other people of pallor.
Assuming this is actually the case, you could very well be an exception.
And, being a white Brit still means you are white. So your neighbours don't likely see you as 'other' to the degree you think, and you aren't truly as other as an American black person would be in the same neighbourhood.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
I don't think it will be all that long before "evangelical" is no longer an automatic synonym for "traditional views on sexuality". I certainly hope not.
I go to an evangelical church, most of my Christian friends and acquaintances go to evangelical churches (not the same one, not even the same denomination, this is all over the show) and the vast majority of them* are completely unfazed by the whole sexuality thing, and only actually get aerated over the 'formal' position of some denominations/ministers/preachers/public statements.
ISTM that a lot of the noise on this, and a lot of the hard line pronouncements, is as I believe Eutychus alluded to elsewhere, precisely in reaction to a growing disconnect between the grass roots/congregations and The Powers That Be. When you have historically (and still, to my mind) conservative publications like Christianity printing various articles looking at the debate rather than pushing a single view, and giving room to different views not just to dismiss them, things are changing.
The problem, I suspect, is that as things do change the 'traditional' viewpoint will in many cases get louder, more entrenched, and (sadly, potentially) more vitriolic until we're some way past the tipping point where it's no longer the mainline position. And in a large and diverse institution laden down with tradition and all kinds of other gubbins like the CoE it's possible that the squabbling will go on much longer than it will in non-conformist evo circles.
None of which helps LGBTQ clergy right now, or speaks to their situation or classification as 'useful idiots' or otherwise, or course; nor does it in any way excuse the historic or current conduct of folks which has been and often continues to be appalling ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
*Admittedly a semi-self-selecting group
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Thanks, Snags. Your experience chimes exactly with my own. As was said upthread, this is at least as much about power games and the democratisation of, particularly, the Anglican Church as it is about biblical interpretation. The Powers That Be might do well to reflect that the "impregnable" Berlin Wall fell overnight.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So your neighbours don't likely see you as 'other' to the degree you think, and you aren't truly as other as an American black person would be in the same neighbourhood.
Oh, I have all the white male privilege and the rest of it, without doubt, and I blend in fairly well visually: if you saw me pushing a child on a swing at the playground, you wouldn't think there was anything odd until I opened my mouth - but that's not about my identity. That's about how other people see me, not about how I see me.
Quite specifically, I don't think I have any more cultural overlap with the white Americans around here than I do with the black Americans. (Actually, my closest black neighbours are long-time members of my church, and I have more in common with them than with many of my white neighbours, but that's a bit beside the point, I think.)
This ability to determine my own identity is another aspect of privilege, of course. The society that we have continually tries to put black people in the "black" box - you're not an actor, you're a black actor. These aren't kids, they're black kids. I imagine that the cumulative effect of all that has an effect on one's self-perception.
I don't think (extrapolating from my experience of being a Brit in the US) that merely living in a mostly-black neighbourhood would have that effect on me, because white would still be the wider societal default. I think you'd need to have a whole black-dominated society for that to happen.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I guess I opened this can of worms first but I never claimed AE were thoroughly Anglicans.
No, they are definitely interdenominational. At least two of the Patrons (Steve Chalke, Ruth Gouldbourne) are Baptists. Indeed, there is even a Baptist subsection (and there may be for other denominations).
Most Baptists wouldn't regard Steve Chalke and Ruth Gouldbourne as being evangelical. It seems peculiar that they are part of any grouping that has "Evangelical" in its name.
Both have broken ranks (and the BUGB guidelines for ministers) by their support for (and, in Chalke's case at least, participation in) SSM ceremonies.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Most Baptists wouldn't regard Steve Chalke and Ruth Gouldbourne as being evangelical. It seems peculiar that they are part of any grouping that has "Evangelical" in its name.
Both have broken ranks (and the BUGB guidelines for ministers) by their support for (and, in Chalke's case at least, participation in) SSM ceremonies.
So do I understand you correctly to be saying that if someone supports SSM they cannot by your (and allegedly “most Baptists’”) definition be Evangelical? Or is it just that they can’t be evangelical Baptists? Because the grouping in question ‘Accepting Evangelicals’ is composed by definition entirely of evangelicals who accept SSM.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Most Baptists wouldn't regard Steve Chalke and Ruth Gouldbourne as being evangelical. It seems peculiar that they are part of any grouping that has "Evangelical" in its name.
Both have broken ranks (and the BUGB guidelines for ministers) by their support for (and, in Chalke's case at least, participation in) SSM ceremonies.
So do I understand you correctly to be saying that if someone supports SSM they cannot by your (and allegedly “most Baptists’”) definition be Evangelical? Or is it just that they can’t be evangelical Baptists? Because the grouping in question ‘Accepting Evangelicals’ is composed by definition entirely of evangelicals who accept SSM.
To be fair, Gracie (and my reaction comes from the stratospherically high end of the CofE), that seems to be the case. SSM and gay sex seem to be the shibboleth, as soon as you mispronounce, the Evangelical Alliance, and most evangelical bodies will expel you, and most of your evo friends will suddenly denounce you as a false teacher. I've had quite a few evangelicals cry in my vicarage about this.
[ 23. February 2016, 16:10: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
To be fair, Gracie (and my reaction comes from the stratospherically high end of the CofE), that seems to be the case. SSM and gay sex seem to be the shibboleth, as soon as you mispronounce, the Evangelical Alliance, and most evangelical bodies will expel you, and most of your evo friends will suddenly denounce you as a false teacher. I've had quite a few evangelicals cry in my vicarage about this.
Oh, I have no doubt that what you’re saying is true, Joesaphat. It just seems very convenient to say that no Evangelicals are supportive of SSM or other gay relationships, when that is the very test you apply to determine whether or not someone is Evangelical or not. It’s a very circular argument.
I was more taking issue with Exclamation Mark’s apparent idea that non-Baptists could be Accepting Evangelicals but not Baptists.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Most Baptists wouldn't regard Steve Chalke and Ruth Gouldbourne as being evangelical.
Most of the ones I associate with (at a BUGB Baptist church) do. Well, definitely Chalke, I wouldn't know about Ruth Gouldbourne so much.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Most Baptists wouldn't regard Steve Chalke and Ruth Gouldbourne as being evangelical.
Most of the ones I associate with (at a BUGB Baptist church) do. Well, definitely Chalke, I wouldn't know about Ruth Gouldbourne so much.
I was a bit surprised at this blanket statement from EM too. I wonder which angle of the Bebington Quadrilateral they are alleged to have breached? Because, if it's the bit about the importance of Scripture, I think that, for Chalky anyway, he would see himself as being faithful to a thoroughly evangelical tradition of following what the text itself actually says, rather than a particular received interpretation of that text. One would almost think he was a Baptist, with all that commitment to the idea of soul competence.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
being faithful to a thoroughly evangelical tradition of following what the text itself actually says, rather than a particular received interpretation of that text.
In this sense, I aspire to be thoroughly evangelical and I wish those of like mind could somehow reclaim the word ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Good for you. So pleased to know someone goes to a church that examines male attendees to ensure they're not "wounded in the stones"; checks rigorously that church members keep kosher, and have a ritual bath-house.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Do you actually want a clarification of what I meant, which in the context of all my above posts is blindingly obviously not what you scathlingly imply, or should I just save time and aggravation all round by calling you straight to Hell?
--------------------
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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Call me to hell if you wish.
But as someone who has seen the damage that is still being done to good, faithful, people by others who, proclaiming their 'Christianity' act in the most un-Christian and uncharitable way, I have really lost patience with the whole business.
Frankly, the world is already full enough of mis-trust, intolerance, discrimination, suspicion and persecution without the people who go to church adding to the problem.
The CofE keeps apologising to LGBTI but I think most people to whom the apology is supposed to be directed would rather they stopped coming out with the 'sorry' word, rather changed their behaviour; in particular, dragged their minds above the waist and looked at people, not bodily function.
So yes, I was being facetious - apologies.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Frankly, the world is already full enough of mis-trust, intolerance, discrimination, suspicion and persecution without the people who go to church adding to the problem.
In which, by and large, apart from the last person to get called to Hell on this thread, this corner of the boards is one of the rare places where people with different and often opposing views manage, by dint of effort and restless nights, to overcome misconceptions and caricature and engage with each other respectfully on hugely divisive issues with a view to better understanding and - who knows? - changing attitudes.
Over the years that culture alone, personally, has taught me volumes, irrespective of the issues at stake, and I'm sure it's changed my RL behaviour.
On this thread, when several of us are by our own admission agonising here, and working hard to see past each other's pain and hangups, anything that looks like a drive-by insult is not likely to go down well.
--------------------
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
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
being faithful to a thoroughly evangelical tradition of following what the text itself actually says, rather than a particular received interpretation of that text.
In this sense, I aspire to be thoroughly evangelical and I wish those of like mind could somehow reclaim the word
This cannot be done. No one has direct access to the meaning of very ancient texts, you just belong to the evangelical hermeneutical tradition and it's as full of assumptions as any other.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
For starters: the assumption that biblical texts have a plain meaning that all can grasp.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Well I'm afraid all Protestant churches, and in particular the Evangelical stream, are infected with the conceit that asserts they can determine the meaning of the text by looking at it hard enough. Hence the multitude of interpretations and theologies, which to me prove that it is entirely possible to read it "plainly" in many different ways.
IMO the Anglican church does that as much as any other Protestant church.
But that's almost the nature of being a protesting religion - you take the thing you are protesting against, you reform it and you make a stand against the traditional ways and abuses as you see them. For some Protestant traditions, the same pattern has been repeated time after time after time.
And lest it sounds like I'm criticising, this is my tradition. I believe in religion where you think for yourself and come to your own conclusions.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Call me to hell if you wish.
But as someone who has seen the damage that is still being done to good, faithful, people by others who, proclaiming their 'Christianity' act in the most un-Christian and uncharitable way, I have really lost patience with the whole business.
Frankly, the world is already full enough of mis-trust, intolerance, discrimination, suspicion and persecution without the people who go to church adding to the problem.
The CofE keeps apologising to LGBTI but I think most people to whom the apology is supposed to be directed would rather they stopped coming out with the 'sorry' word, rather changed their behaviour; in particular, dragged their minds above the waist and looked at people, not bodily function.
So yes, I was being facetious - apologies.
To repeat the point I was making above somewhere: I think the problem is when the church (in particular the CofE but I think it also applies widely) is - to coin a phrase - lukewarm.
If it came out strongly in favour or against SSM, everyone would know where it stood and could act accordingly. But the long-held battle within the ranks between positions (who all see themselves as representing the "true" witness) has created an uneasy truce where the wider denom has been willing to accept the ministry of gay clergy as long as they shut up and get on with it. And I do think, in a way, that's different from other sections of the CofE at least - where being vocal about the importance and primacy of your pet theology has been tolerated and/or sometimes supported by the centre.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Rupert Murdoch is, to many people, one of the nastiest examples of humanity on the face of the planet. He presides over a media empire that thrives on spreading hatred, distrust and cynicism. The list of scandals associated with the behaviour of some of his employees in the UK alone is shocking. Some claim that he undermines democracy through his influence on politicians. He has been married and divorced several times.
Yesterday his fourth marriage was blessed by a CofE priest in a CofE church.
The CofE refuses to bless the relationships of gay people.
I think the CofE and I are finished.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
All 10 of the couple's children from previous relationships attended the blessing at St Bride's Fleet Street. Dear God.
I understand your anger. I think it is righteous anger over the church's hypocrisy.
I don't think there is much else I can say.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Before we rush to condemn the PP at St Brides, can we all remember that this was a first real marriage for Ms Hall, and it is to the credit of whichever one of them (or maybe both) that they chose to have a service of blessing.
But you are right that this blessing of a marriage of two people neither of whom are known to be in any way a regular worshipper throws into stark relief the fact that there will be other couples who worship (maybe even celebrate the eucharist) week after week but who are denied a blessing simply because their partner is of the same sex.
I'd dearly love to hear +Justin or +Ebor justify this.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Before we rush to condemn the PP at St Brides, can we all remember that this was a first real marriage for Ms Hall, and it is to the credit of whichever one of them (or maybe both) that they chose to have a service of blessing.
But you are right that this blessing of a marriage of two people neither of whom are known to be in any way a regular worshipper throws into stark relief the fact that there will be other couples who worship (maybe even celebrate the eucharist) week after week but who are denied a blessing simply because their partner is of the same sex.
I'd dearly love to hear +Justin or +Ebor justify this.
So would I; and all marriages are 'blessings' in the CofE or 'solemizations' as the prayer book put it. Officially, anyway, marriage is one of those five rites 'commonly called sacraments' but lacking a clear foundation in Scripture and being 'such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles'.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
Don't let the conservatives fool you with all their talks of an institution of marriage between Adam and Eve in paradise according to Jesus. That's not the 39 articles, it's the Council of Trent!
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Just for clarity, Ms Hall married Lucifer in a civil wedding. I assume what happened in St Bride's was a service of Blessing After Civil Marriage, available to all the hosts of Hell, as long as they're heterosexual.
Sorry, did I say "Lucifer"? I meant "Rupert" - my delete key is playing up today.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Just for clarity, Ms Hall married Lucifer in a civil wedding. I assume what happened in St Bride's was a service of Blessing After Civil Marriage, available to all the hosts of Hell, as long as they're heterosexual.
Sorry, did I say "Lucifer"? I meant "Rupert" - my delete key is playing up today.
But the blessing is all that makes the marriage a Christian marriage. The couple are the celebrants of the sacrament, not the priest.
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
But the blessing is all that makes the marriage a Christian marriage.
Not in the Church of England it isn't. Anglican priests are agents of the state and church. When an Anglican priest marries someone they're married in a way that isn't the case if an Imam, Baptist minister or A.N.Other says the words.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
When an Anglican priest marries someone they're married in a way that isn't the case if an Imam, Baptist minister or A.N.Other says the words.
In what way, exactly?
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
In what way, exactly?
Well in a legal sense. In the UK, one is only married if a state official marries you. In England and Wales, this has to be done in a properly registered building.
A CofE priest is an official of the state in that he is able to declare those coming to marriage without impediment to be married as a Registrar. In a general sense, leaders of other religions are not Registrars (well, unless they apply to be assistant Registrars. Just to be confusing).
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
In what way, exactly?
Well in a legal sense. In the UK, one is only married if a state official marries you. In England and Wales, this has to be done in a properly registered building.
A CofE priest is an official of the state in that he is able to declare those coming to marriage without impediment to be married as a Registrar. In a general sense, leaders of other religions are not Registrars (well, unless they apply to be assistant Registrars. Just to be confusing).
So how is my statement that a blessing is what makes a marriage a Christian marriage untrue? What the law says is neither here nor there. The priest is not the celebrant of the sacrament of marriage. The couple are. A marriage becomes a Christian marriage if it is blessed by a priest. That would be the case if the blessing took place in Hammersmith or Hindustan. The law of England cannot determine what is or isn't a Christian marriage.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
So how is my statement that a blessing is what makes a marriage a Christian marriage untrue? What the law says is neither here nor there. The priest is not the celebrant of the sacrament of marriage. The couple are. A marriage becomes a Christian marriage if it is blessed by a priest.
Just repeating your theological point of view does not make it true. Baptist ministers are not priests, but baptist marriages are still Christian marriages.
If you think they're not, please make an appointment to discuss with my wife.
quote:
That would be the case if the blessing took place in Hammersmith or Hindustan. The law of England cannot determine what is or isn't a Christian marriage.
No, but you can't just make theological statements and imply that everyone agrees. They don't agree.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
So how is my statement that a blessing is what makes a marriage a Christian marriage untrue? What the law says is neither here nor there. The priest is not the celebrant of the sacrament of marriage. The couple are. A marriage becomes a Christian marriage if it is blessed by a priest.
Just repeating your theological point of view does not make it true. Baptist ministers are not priests, but baptist marriages are still Christian marriages.
If you think they're not, please make an appointment to discuss with my wife.
quote:
That would be the case if the blessing took place in Hammersmith or Hindustan. The law of England cannot determine what is or isn't a Christian marriage.
No, but you can't just make theological statements and imply that everyone agrees. They don't agree.
Are we at cross purposes here?
Marriage is a universal institution. It is not specific to Christianity.
Non-Christians can contract a marriage.
So what makes a marriage a Christian marriage?
The question is arguable. Is a marriage a Christian marriage if both the parties are baptised? Some would hold that to be the case. What I am suggesting (and the view is not original to me) is that the blessing of the marriage by the church makes it a Christian marriage.
Now one can argue 'what is the church?' As far as I am concerned it makes no difference if the blessing is given by a cardinal of the Holy Roman Church or a Baptist minister. The legal status of CofE clergy (which is to do with registration, as far as I am aware) is neither here nor there.
Now I agree that the CofE, in its usual way, is keen to introduce ambiguity. Thus it will not marry the new Mr & Mrs Murdoch. But it will bless their union.
Now if we accept (and I think it is generally accepted) that the celebrants of marriage (if you hold marriage to be a sacrament, which I do) are the couple themselves (again I do not think this a view peculiar to me); then what is the difference between:
(i) A couple who marry each other in a church building, and then have that marriage blessed in the same building by a clergyperson; and
(ii) A couple who marry each other in a registry office or elsewhere, and then go the next day to a church and have that marriage blessed by a clergyperson?
And, to return to the original point, what is the message being given when a man can have his fourth marriage to a women (following three divorces, not the death of previous wives) to a woman blessed by the church; but could not have his one and only marriage to another man so blessed?
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Let us also remember that, in many countries, the only "legal" marriage is that celebrated in the Town Hall or Registry Office. A church service, whatever its theological significance and the beliefs around it, has no validity in the eyes of the State. Whether the Church decides to bless any particular pairing is entirely its own decision. I accept that there can be confusion within the Christian community concerning the moment at which the marriage is recognised by God, especially amongst those who see it as a sacrament; but that is a different issue; there is no ambiguity from the secular point of view.
[ 07. March 2016, 16:34: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Baptist ministers are not priests, but baptist marriages are still Christian marriages.
Indeed. Purely from the legal point of view, some Baptist ministers choose to be "Authorised Persons" and some do not - I have been/not been at different points in my ministry. At this point in time, the legal validity of weddings in our church is achieved by the presence of my wife, or the other lady who is an AP, or a Registrar from the local Council. The service is made "Christian" not by my presence as Minister, nor because it takes place in a church building, but by the words used within it.
[ 07. March 2016, 16:39: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think the problem is that without an understanding of the historic position within England, one is liable to get the wrong idea about the CofE and marriage. At one time, Anglican marriage was the only legal form of marriage.
The end result is that the CofE in England has a special position but also special residual responsibilities. So Anglican church marriage is not "Christian" marriage - because anyone of any religion can be married in an Anglican church if they are legally able to be married, providing they live in the parish. When society changed, the Anglican church was able to negotiate opt-outs, such as no automatic right to be married in an Anglican church if divorced.
That's different to any other religion in England. Nobody can force a Baptist church, Hindus, Muslims or anyone else to conduct their marriage. If you are living in the parish, you can insist that you get married in your local Anglican parish church - and the clergy have very few legal reasons to refuse.
One might hold a religious doctrine that a "Christian marriage" is x y or z, but the reality in the UK is that it is only a valid legal marriage when the person with the proper authority is present to officiate. No authority, no marriage. Period.
Where this gets complicated is when the state recognises something that the Anglican church does not. So if one is a homosexual couple, one cannot get married in an Anglican parish church where one would be able to if heterosexual (and not Christian in any sense of the term).
If nobody believed that this legal stuff was important, why would they worry about doing it the right way?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The service is made "Christian" not by my presence as Minister, nor because it takes place in a church building, but by the words used within it.
Well I don't know whether this is really true. The official state marriage system in England is at a Register office, a Parish CofE church, or by a State official in another state-registered building.
The "legal" part of the marriage is essentially the same in whatever building or context it is completed. Therefore a "Christian" marriage must be in the combination of words, the person saying them, the understanding given to them (ie whether they're a sacrament etc).
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
But the blessing is all that makes the marriage a Christian marriage.
Not in the Church of England it isn't. Anglican priests are agents of the state and church. When an Anglican priest marries someone they're married in a way that isn't the case if an Imam, Baptist minister or A.N.Other says the words.
A lovely confusion between Anglican and C of E; a confusion which runs through a lot of your posts. Priests of the Anglican Church of Australia conduct marriages which are valid here, s do RCC priests, Uniting Church ministers, Baptist pastors and a whole range of other people, lay and religious. They do so because they are all authorised celebrants under the Marriage Act 1961.
[ 07. March 2016, 19:44: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
A lovely confusion between Anglican and C of E; a confusion which runs through a lot of your posts. Priests of the Anglican Church of Australia conduct marriages which are valid here, s do RCC priests, Uniting Church ministers, Baptist pastors and a whole range of other people, lay and religious. They do so because they are all authorised celebrants under the Marriage Act 1961.
Not at all, as in the quoted section above, I was very clearly talking about Anglican priests in the CofE.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
So how is my statement that a blessing is what makes a marriage a Christian marriage untrue? What the law says is neither here nor there. The priest is not the celebrant of the sacrament of marriage. The couple are. A marriage becomes a Christian marriage if it is blessed by a priest.
Just repeating your theological point of view does not make it true. Baptist ministers are not priests, but baptist marriages are still Christian marriages.
If you think they're not, please make an appointment to discuss with my wife.
quote:
That would be the case if the blessing took place in Hammersmith or Hindustan. The law of England cannot determine what is or isn't a Christian marriage.
No, but you can't just make theological statements and imply that everyone agrees. They don't agree.
Are we at cross purposes here?
Marriage is a universal institution. It is not specific to Christianity.
Non-Christians can contract a marriage.
So what makes a marriage a Christian marriage?
The question is arguable. Is a marriage a Christian marriage if both the parties are baptised? Some would hold that to be the case. What I am suggesting (and the view is not original to me) is that the blessing of the marriage by the church makes it a Christian marriage.
Now one can argue 'what is the church?' As far as I am concerned it makes no difference if the blessing is given by a cardinal of the Holy Roman Church or a Baptist minister. The legal status of CofE clergy (which is to do with registration, as far as I am aware) is neither here nor there.
Now I agree that the CofE, in its usual way, is keen to introduce ambiguity. Thus it will not marry the new Mr & Mrs Murdoch. But it will bless their union.
Now if we accept (and I think it is generally accepted) that the celebrants of marriage (if you hold marriage to be a sacrament, which I do) are the couple themselves (again I do not think this a view peculiar to me); then what is the difference between:
(i) A couple who marry each other in a church building, and then have that marriage blessed in the same building by a clergyperson; and
(ii) A couple who marry each other in a registry office or elsewhere, and then go the next day to a church and have that marriage blessed by a clergyperson?
And, to return to the original point, what is the message being given when a man can have his fourth marriage to a women (following three divorces, not the death of previous wives) to a woman blessed by the church; but could not have his one and only marriage to another man so blessed?
Eeeeexactly: no difference at all, unless you're Eastern Orthodox and believe the nuptial blessing is constitutive of the sacrament and not the consent of the spouses.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Not sure if anyone here follows @Diverse_Church on Twitter, but today's poster put me in mind of this thread.
I don't know if it's encouraging, or just a sign of the naivety/hopefulness of youth in contrast to the weariness of age and long service/battering but it may be of interest.
Link to their feed for anyone who wants to check it out. You'll need to go to April 1st approx. noon UK time and work your way back up to get it in order.
For those who don't know Diverse Church is a community for young(ish) LGBT Christians, and every Friday a different member tweets their "story so far" on the @Diverse_Church account.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
We are useful idiots. Yesterday, Caroline Spelman, second Church whatsit commissioner countered claims by saying 'It is open to Church of England clergy to enter into civil partnerships, and many do so. The Church of England in England is moving forward.' and a lot of blah blah about the Anglican communion being very diverse and mostly African now so should be able to move at its own pace... except of course we have to promise not to have sex when entering a civil partnership. We have officially become a parliamentary fig leaf for liberalism.
[ 06. May 2016, 07:23: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
But doesn't all human life require compromise Josephat? And the C of E is finding its way forward, in a typically Anglican, let's-not-upset-anyone-we're-Englisg, sort of way. It is a million miles from the RC position of turn-a-blind-eye-but-if-they-get-into-trouble-crucify-them approach.
I recently came across this in which a clergy civil partner writes of the myth of the celibate civil partnership.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
But doesn't all human life require compromise Josephat? And the C of E is finding its way forward, in a typically Anglican, let's-not-upset-anyone-we're-Englisg, sort of way. It is a million miles from the RC position of turn-a-blind-eye-but-if-they-get-into-trouble-crucify-them approach.
I recently came across this in which a clergy civil partner writes of the myth of the celibate civil partnership.
that's exactly my point: the compromise is now an excuse for inertia. Don't bash us, we've got gay people among us who can live with all this (aka useful idiots), and we're not quite as bad as others, really, leave the dear old CofE alone, members of parliament.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
But doesn't all human life require compromise Josephat? And the C of E is finding its way forward, in a typically Anglican, let's-not-upset-anyone-we're-Englisg, sort of way. It is a million miles from the RC position of turn-a-blind-eye-but-if-they-get-into-trouble-crucify-them approach.
I recently came across this in which a clergy civil partner writes of the myth of the celibate civil partnership.
that's exactly my point: the compromise is now an excuse for inertia. Don't bash us, we've got gay people among us who can live with all this (aka useful idiots), and we're not quite as bad as others, really, leave the dear old CofE alone, members of parliament.
I understand what you are saying. But what is the answer? Or isn't there one?
Things are not going to speed up. The shared conversations will drag on. I would think everyone agrees that Issues in Human Sexuality is unsatisfactory - it reads like something from a different era (as it is).
So what to do? Continue as a useful idiot, or leave, as the OP suggested? And if leave, then for where?
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
But doesn't all human life require compromise Josephat? And the C of E is finding its way forward, in a typically Anglican, let's-not-upset-anyone-we're-Englisg, sort of way. It is a million miles from the RC position of turn-a-blind-eye-but-if-they-get-into-trouble-crucify-them approach.
I recently came across this in which a clergy civil partner writes of the myth of the celibate civil partnership.
that's exactly my point: the compromise is now an excuse for inertia. Don't bash us, we've got gay people among us who can live with all this (aka useful idiots), and we're not quite as bad as others, really, leave the dear old CofE alone, members of parliament.
I understand what you are saying. But what is the answer? Or isn't there one?
Things are not going to speed up. The shared conversations will drag on. I would think everyone agrees that Issues in Human Sexuality is unsatisfactory - it reads like something from a different era (as it is).
So what to do? Continue as a useful idiot, or leave, as the OP suggested? And if leave, then for where?
I don't think there's an answer. I carry on, it's the British thing to do. It all boils down to hope when you think about it. We live by hope in so many other situations. trick is to determine whether your very presence hinders progress or not. I cannot figure that one out.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Or you carry on without giving comfort to those busy patting themselves on the back for being in a church that has put up the posted declaring themselves an 'Affirming Church'.
So when my friend Michael introduced his daughter's wife to someone at his church, who promptly blanked them, he made a point of joining them for coffee, including them in the conversation, etc, etc, etc.
Too many churches put up the posted and that's it. There is no discussion, nothing is done if people blank or are rude to LGBTI visitors.
IMO it is cowardly of the rest of us to leave it to LGBTI churchgoers to cope with this nonsense: if we truly feel we're all children of God then you stand up for all your brothers and sisters, end of, because family should stick together.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Or you carry on without giving comfort to those busy patting themselves on the back for being in a church that has put up the posted declaring themselves an 'Affirming Church'.
So when my friend Michael introduced his daughter's wife to someone at his church, who promptly blanked them, he made a point of joining them for coffee, including them in the conversation, etc, etc, etc.
Too many churches put up the posted and that's it. There is no discussion, nothing is done if people blank or are rude to LGBTI visitors.
IMO it is cowardly of the rest of us to leave it to LGBTI churchgoers to cope with this nonsense: if we truly feel we're all children of God then you stand up for all your brothers and sisters, end of, because family should stick together.
It goes deeper: many, many very conservative churches call themselves inclusive but would not contemplate blessing your relationship, let alone marrying you, or allow you to be in any kind of leadership position. A sinner among others you may be, and all are included these churches will proclaim, but yours is a particular kind of sin that precludes everything but attendance.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
'Inclusive' has become a meaningless term in the church. Who's not inclusive?
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Joesaphat: 'Inclusive' has become a meaningless term in the church. Who's not inclusive?
Er, I can think of plenty of people in church who are not inclusive.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
