homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Dead Horses: Relative nastiness of CofE pressure groups (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Dead Horses: Relative nastiness of CofE pressure groups
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778

 - Posted      Profile for S. Bacchus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I must out myself as a member of Changing Attitudes. Broadly, I'm in full agreement with what it stands for as an organization, but I'm frustrated at the attitude man members seem to display such a negative attitude toward the Church of England that I wonder why they stay at all (most of the worst offenders don't seem to have a high view of the sacraments or the historic episcopate, and thus are exactly the sort I would imagine fitting comfortably into the MCC).

This led me to contemplate CofE pressure groups more broadly. I've said before that I find WATCH to be extremely nasty and vindictive. I now no longer read anything they put out as it's bad for my blood pressure.

In contrast, Forward in Faith seems to have become remarkably eirenic as of late. This is most obviously attributable to the fact that the more bellicose members (some of whom frankly were misogynists) have left the Church of England. It also seems to help that it's so largely a clerical organization. In my experience, amongst those who have stayed within the Church of England, lay opponents of the ordination of women tend to be nastier than their ordained counterparts. Forward in Faith, in part because it is so closely associated with the SSC and many of the Catholic Societies, seems to be much more than a pressure group.

Reform is very nasty and seems to be regarded as such by almost everybody, including many conservative evangelicals.

On the liberal side, the only group that seems represent more than disliking conservatives (or at least conservativism) is Affirming Catholicism (of which I'm a lapsed member), which probably wouldn't like to be seen as a pressure group, and which seems pretty thin on the ground.

Does the Modern Churchman's Union even still exist?

What are other people's impressions.

[ 14. June 2017, 21:06: Message edited by: Belisarius ]

--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.

Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Does the Modern Churchman's Union even still exist?

Ah, you mean the erstwhile "Churchmen's Union for the Advancement of Liberal Religious Thought".

P.S. I am not an Anglican so not qualified to judge these issues. But, as a general point, people often join campaigning groups because they feel deeply about an issue and may be hugely frustrated at the lack of change. This can lead to a somewhat narrowed vision and the use of unfortunate language. Whether Christian campaigning groups should be any different is a moot point - but there must come a point when the lack of movement in, and bland replies from, Church hierarchies leads to real anger and disillusionment.

[ 09. September 2013, 11:29: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
WATCH are indeed hideous: perhaps they think they can be because they're 'winning'? Nearly everything they put out evinces no charity whatever, and like you, I've ceased to read them unless absolutely necessary. They also seem only really to come out when the women's issue is being discussed at Synod &c. (or perhaps this is only when I read their stuff, though I do follow them on Tw***er).

In contrast, FiF (of which I am a member, so YMMV) is 'losing' and so has every interest in being conciliatory. Its statements tend to be more theologically-inclined than politically worded. It also exists on a far broader basis than WATCH, which really is a pressure group.

I've no experience of Reform, not being Evangelical or (mea culpa) really interested in what they have to say, but I was surprised that people think them so vile. As I say, I've not had much exposure to them.

Of course, were the commentariat at Thinking Anglicans to be counted as a pressure group, they would be by far the nastiest... [Disappointed]

--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Amos

Shipmate
# 44

 - Posted      Profile for Amos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I find that the societies and pressure groups with which I am in agreement are reasonable and eirenic and the others, with which I disagree, are shrill, narrow, and unChristian.

--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken

Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956

 - Posted      Profile for pererin   Email pererin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I find myself in the position of disagreeing with FiF, but respecting their sincerity and hoping that there is some way to keep those nice people in the Church.

As for WATCH, they seem to be advancing arguments with roots more in contemporary philosophy than in Christianity with a wanton disregard for Christian unity. I may agree with where they want to end up, but they are doing a very good job of being utterly revolting.

The risk is of course that Synod/Governing Body votes could take on an element of a reality TV show: these are our flawed friends versus vote those irritating gimboids off.

--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)

Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Reform does indeed appear intolerant and shrill. Their members all seem to have faces set into a permanent sneer.

Changing Attitudes has enough respect among the hierarchy to be taken seriously, though I think it fails to understand those who read scripture differently from them and I find certain of its spokespeople naive and shrill and, for that reason, though I approve of its aims, I will not join it.

Modern church still exists. I resigned from it years ago for itsb being too liberal but i think it has become more mainstream now.

Affirming Catholicism is my bolt hole, the group with whom I have most in common - but it is as intolerant as WATCH towards 'traditionalists'.

The Guild of Servants of the Sanctuary has become increasingly intolerant and even carried an islamophobic article in a recent magazine - I am (ashamed to be) a life member and have asked to resign but they neither answer my letters and emails, still send me stuff and tell me that I am still a member - a sort of 'once a catholic.' The only thing i can do to get out of it is to join the ordinariate or die - the latter will happen one day but the former is highly unlikely.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can see a lot of accusations here and so far little in the way of evidence, such as examples of quotes and links to material deemed to be offensive. It would be quite ironic for people complaining about 'nastiness' to indulge in evidence-free accusations and I'm sure nobody here intends that, so I expect the quotes, links and cites demonstrating the aforementioned 'nastiness' to appear very soon on this thread from the posters who have made those accusations.

You wouldn't want other posters to mistakenly conclude that those accusations are just nasty, would you?

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778

 - Posted      Profile for S. Bacchus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You ask for evidence? Okay. Let's look at responses to the Synod vote on women bishops:

WATCH


quote:
The draft Measure represented the furthest possible compromise for those in favour. It was not enough for those opposed. After all these years of discussion, debate, and drafting it is clear that that there is no legal settlement that can be devised that will allow women to be bishops whilst satisfying the demands of those opposed. We therefore have to ask whether it is wise to allow the entire church to be held to ransom by minority factions who resist a change that the Church of England has discerned and declared to be entirely consistent with its understanding of the Christian faith. These same voices have spoken out repeatedly against any of the compromise proposed by the Church, and supported widely, including by WATCH.
{Note that the WATCH Response (available here) is very long and that I've cut it; it does not, however, include any call for unity or prayerful reflection).

Forward in Faith (as a whole):

quote:
Forward in Faith recognises that the outcome of today's vote in the General Synod will bring disappointment and pain to many. However, we are not surprised that the legislation failed to command the necessary majorities, as it has been apparent for some time that it lacked any consensus across the whole of the Church of England.

As we have done for the last decade and more, Forward in Faith stands ready to offer a better way ahead, which might indeed command that wider consensus which this draft Measure so clearly lacked.

We ask now for a period of prayer and reflection on the part of the whole church, following today's events.

From the Bishops who are members of Forward in Faith:
quote:


The failure of the General Synod to agree on the legislation to allow for the ordaining of women bishops reflects Synod's lack of consensus over this matter. It has uncovered a stubborn unease, particularly among lay people, about the Measure that was presented.

Acutely aware of the profound anguish that will now be felt by so many, we believe that it is wise at this point to refrain from analysis of the past or speculation about what the future might hold.

These are testing times for the Church of England. We pray that we who, between us, have held different opinions on this great matter will be able to find in each other the wisdom and humility we shall need to build a common future.

Finally, the statement from Reform, which (although not as obnoxious as the initial statement from their spokesman that I can't track down) is pretty smug-sounding:
quote:
We thank God that the Church of England has avoided making a big mistake which would have led to real division and a less inclusive Church. The synod's decision shows respect for the issues of conscience involved. It has avoided putting significant minorities who, as faithful Anglicans, seek to follow the Bible's teaching, into an impossible position.

We now have a real opportunity to build on the Church's solid biblical foundations, reflecting together on the right way forward. The good news is that we are still together and able to witness to the saving power of Jesus Christ, which is the heart of our gospel, the basis of our unity, and the only hope for the future of church and nation.

Forward in Faith sounds, to this observer at least, like the only pressure group that was actually talking about unity and reconciliation at a difficult time for the national church. This seems, broadly, to have been echoed by its supporters at a grass-roots level, as in the case of this statement from the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham:

quote:
Many pilgrims to the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham will have noted with disappointment the outcome of the General Synod debate about the ordination of women as bishops and will wonder what this means for the future.

At this stage we believe that the outcome of the Synodical process remains far from certain. We shall be called to a process of further discussion in which honesty, charity, and steadfastness remain essential in our listening to each other as we seek to be obedient to our vocation as members of the Church of England.

May Mary, Mother of the Church, Our Lady of Walsingham, pray for us all.

Pusey House, I seem to remember, issued a similar statement. Broadly, the conservative Anglo-Catholics were seen to behave with impeccable manners and charity. The same cannot be said for many supporters of women bishops, as I noted in horror that even many of my own friends made comments that showed little or no charity (many of them along the lines of 'next time there shouldn't be any compromise with those misogynists). As a supported of the ordination of women (albeit one with deep concerns about the legislation as proposed), I did not feel I was in good company.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Conversation I had with some people some, oh, 25 years or more ago on a completely unrelated subject - contemporary worship songs, if I recall.

Me: It's not really my thing, as you can tell [points to long hair and Guns and Roses T-Shirt]
Them: Heavy Metal? You call that music?
Me: More so than most of the popular chart rubbish,n yes.
Them: Gosh! Isn't he rude!

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've been impressed by FiF over the past year or so - I think it helps that the spikier element have by and large gone. It's getting to the point where I actually feel I would be comfortable joining, so perhaps I shall in the future. I joined SSWSH but the the silence makes me think FiF is really the only game in town.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would suggest that the WATCH response reflects the frustration felt by many that the CofE agreed to allow female Bishops years ago, yet those who oppose it continue to try and wreck any attempt to implement that decision, and try to play the victim card to get sympathy from the majority who want to see reasonable, but not excessive, provision made for dissenters. If anything the WATCH statement is pretty restrained in the circumstances.

[Duplicate post deleted]

[ 09. September 2013, 19:53: Message edited by: TonyK ]

Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would suggest that the WATCH response reflects the frustration felt by many that the CofE agreed to allow female Bishops years ago, yet those who oppose it continue to try and wreck any attempt to implement that decision, and try to play the victim card to get sympathy from the majority who want to see reasonable, but not excessive, provision made for dissenters. If anything the WATCH statement is pretty restrained in the circumstances.

But equally, that's a very skewed interpretation of what happened "years ago" (a relatively few years, in fact) to suit WATCH's agenda. Which agenda is another reason their posts are tiresome.

--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I see nothing nasty about WATCH's response. It IS frustrating seeing the CoE held to ransom by extremist minority factions who do not represent what most clergy and laity want. It IS wrong to let the misogynists win. In any case, why does a group claiming to want 'unity' (ie forcing a compromise that benefits nobody) make them in the right? Justice is better than unity, and truth is better than niceness.

--------------------
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
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I see nothing nasty about WATCH's response. It IS frustrating seeing the CoE held to ransom by extremist minority factions who do not represent what most clergy and laity want. It IS wrong to let the misogynists win. In any case, why does a group claiming to want 'unity' (ie forcing a compromise that benefits nobody) make them in the right? Justice is better than unity, and truth is better than niceness.

Truth is also better the 'representativeness', and justice better than democracy. Why does an opinion being held by a majority (at this particular and wildly unrepresentative moment in time) make it right?

--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
I've said before that I find WATCH to be extremely nasty and vindictive. I now no longer read anything they put out as it's bad for my blood pressure.

And the best evidence you could find of this was that statement following the female bishops vote?

Forgive a non-Anglican for commenting on such matters but I think Amos has nailed it; your view on this WATCH group is being severely clouded by the fact that you strongly disagree with their theological position.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I see nothing nasty about WATCH's response.

There isn't. And unlike the FiF one it is more or less true as well.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778

 - Posted      Profile for S. Bacchus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

Forgive a non-Anglican for commenting on such matters but I think Amos has nailed it; your view on this WATCH group is being severely clouded by the fact that you strongly disagree with their theological position.

I don't strongly disagree with their position. I want to see women bishops in the Church of England. I just don't agree with their view (which seems to be the view of Jade Constable and Ken as well) that all those who are troubled by the idea of the idea should fuck off. You see, the problem is that I actually believe both in inclusion and in listening to people.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I see nothing nasty about WATCH's response.

There isn't. And unlike the FiF one it is more or less true as well.
What was mendacious about Forward in Faith's statement? There clearly IS real disunity in the Church of England (and yet great disunity in the Church Catholic) about the ordination of women, and that clearly is a cause for pain. The only bit about their statement that wasn't an objective fact was their request for unity. Do you find the idea of unity intrinsically odious, or only when it requires you to extend your theological worldview beyond the pinpoint of evangelical Anglicanism?
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778

 - Posted      Profile for S. Bacchus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, that last post did not model the eirenic tone for which I think we should strive in intra-church discourse. It's too late to edit it now, but please accept my apologies.

I accept that it IS frustrating for supporters of the ordination of women to feel that they're not making progress. It must also be frustrating, though, for the opponents to feel that they can't voice their objections without being labeled as extremists of misogynists. The fact is that the two largest Christian confessions in the world don't ordain women. That doesn't mean that they're necessarily right, but I do feel that it means that those who agree with their position or who feel that the Church of England (as a relatively tiny confession on a rocky island in the North Atlantic) shouldn't act alone, should not be labeled as crazed extremists, SO LONG AS they voice their concerns in a reasonable and eirenic manner.

It is a virtue of liberalism to always to allow for diversity of opinion; it is a virtue of intellectuals to never consider an argument from one side only; and it is a virtue of Christians to show infinite compassion to their enemies (real or imagined). Soi dissant liberal Christian intellectuals ought to remember those burdens.

--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.

Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778

 - Posted      Profile for S. Bacchus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If a triplicate post can be forgiven, in response to young Jade's claim that 'truth is better' than niceness, I can only respond with something my father told me as a young boy: 'in this world, you can be ever so smart or ever so nice ; I've tried smart and I recommend nice'. As a young teenager, I learned that he was misquoting an old Jimmy Stewart film. Now that I'm a grown man, I've realize that he was right. For too much of my life I've tried to be the damned know it all who knows what's best for every situation and for everybody. It didn't work out well. I recommend being nice. Even or especially to people we think are wrong. Well, maybe not to those advocating genocide or to lynch mobs. But it would be a grotesque distortion of reality to place +Baker or Dr Colin Podmore in that company. I've met them both and found them to be not only kind men but also to have a clear, sincere, and informed Christian faith of the kind that is all too rare in Church of England today. In a real sense, they are too good for church politicking.

--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.

Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956

 - Posted      Profile for pererin   Email pererin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Okay, seeing as some people are missing how WATCH's response is nasty, let's fisk them:

quote:
The draft Measure represented the furthest possible compromise for those in favour.
This is a lie. It was the furthest possible compromise for a certain sub-group of those in favour, namely those who objected to any meaningful provision for those against. The necessary corollary of this lie is that anyone who is in favour of the present Broad Church cannot be "in favour" of women bishops. Such disingenuous language-wrenching is all too typical of WATCH.

quote:
It was not enough for those opposed.
This is on one level a statement of the obvious: a compromise that failed to take one side's position seriously was doomed to fail.

But what WATCH are doing here is playing the blame game. And it's particularly disingenuous: they could have had women bishops, but they would rather have no women bishops than women bishops with strings attached.

So, on a third level, mind the flying toys.

quote:
After all these years of discussion, debate, and drafting it is clear that that there is no legal settlement that can be devised that will allow women to be bishops whilst satisfying the demands of those opposed.
This is a composite of two very nasty statements.

Firstly, it's essentially asking, "We've been boring on and on and on for ages; aren't you bored enough yet that you'll give us 50p to buy some pick 'n' mix with?" Yes, it's really that mature debate from WATCH.

Secondly, it's more blame game, using a very narrow and wrenched definition of "to be bishops". It's the 1984 "slavery is freedom" trick. With straightforward English definitions of the words in that sentence, it becomes a barefaced lie: it was their own demands for the nature of women bishops that has ensured that it did not happen.

quote:
We therefore have to ask whether it is wise to allow the entire church to be held to ransom by minority factions
Oh the irony. Perhaps they resent the opponents' infringing their monopoly.

quote:
who resist a change that the Church of England has discerned and declared to be entirely consistent with its understanding of the Christian faith.
Hold on a minute, have we suddenly acquired a Romish magisterium? And where does this phrase "entirely consistent" come from? The attribution that isn't given here is Christina Rees, a member of the General Synod and WATCH. Nice to know who WATCH think should be our Pope.

quote:
These same voices have spoken out repeatedly against any of the compromise proposed by the Church, and supported widely, including by WATCH.
You mean they responded to you again even after you took no notice of their arguments the first time and failed to make any changes to your non-compromise compromise? The temerity of them...

And running just below the surface is an insinuation, namely that those who disagree with WATCH should get out of the CofE. This amounts to, when all is said and done, a troubling modus operandi for gaming the General Synod: refusing to make any meaningful compromise with one's opponents, or even to take their position seriously, to the point that one loses the principal motion; then going away trying to threaten one's opponents off the Synod, so one's completely unmoderated motion can get an easier ride next time. This is not debate or discernment; this is putschism.

--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)

Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
It must also be frustrating, though, for the opponents to feel that they can't voice their objections without being labeled as extremists of misogynists.
This is simply the 'homophobe' debate all over again. People point out to purveyors of views which deny equality to women or gay people that they're sexist/ misogynist /homophobic etc. because er... they usually are.*

In the words of the Blessed Basil Fawlty, it's stating the 'Bleeding Obvious'. People who want to make a fuss over the word instead of addressing the behaviour behind it which is being called out as discriminatory are normally just putting up a smokescreen.

Claming that discrimination against women in the church isn't sexism or misogyny convinces nobody who hasn't already bought into ideas about catholic tradition which predispose them to excuse stuff because large churches have been doing it for hundreds of years.**

It's sort of a variant of the Emperor's new clothes where someone tries to get other people to put on a noxious old bin bag by explaining to them how lovely and fragrant it is -'But can't you see how lovely and fine and noble this discrimination against women is, because it uses words like 'prayerfully' and 'unity' and 'inclusion'? It's nice and special discrimination! Not like that cheap nasty stuff." The trouble is everyone else can see the ratty old bin bag for exactly what it is. How very rude of them to point that out! Why can't they just shut up and put the bin bag on like good polite little girls?

quote:
You see, the problem is that I actually believe both in inclusion and in listening to people
If I were an old fashioned Glasgow shipyard boss, I suppose I could say I believed in 'inclusion and listening' by allowing Rangers-supporting sectarians to have a say in how Catholics should be employed, and by agreeing with them that they should be allowed to exclude Catholics from any managerial or professional role in the yards. When you tolerate excluding people on discriminatory grounds, you dont magically get 'inclusion and listening', you get a nature reserve for nasty old prejudice which allows it to breed new generations and keep going. If you don't want sectarianianism in your shipyard, you have to tell people to knock it off. If you don't or won't, or have endless excuses for it, then you're an accessory to it, pure and simple.

--------------------

*And even if they aren't, it makes little difference since what they want turns out to be the same as the people who are out and proud of their misogyny/ homophobia/ whatever.

**Conservative evangelicals have a different tack - they usually go for variants of 'separate but equal'. It's another way of trying to pretend obvious and naked discrimination isn't discrimination.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:

Claming that discrimination against women in the church isn't sexism or misogyny convinces nobody who hasn't already bought into ideas about catholic tradition which predispose them to excuse stuff because large churches have been doing it for hundreds of years.

It is clearly completely sexist to claim that men can't have babies. Except that men are somewhat lacking in the uterus department.

This is, essentially, as I understand it*, the Catholic argument against women priests. It is a statement that priesthood, fundamentally, requires maleness in the same sense that biological motherhood requires a uterus.

I don't think that dismissing this opinion as "same old sexist intolerance" is fair.

*For the sake of full disclosure, this is not an opinion that I hold, so I apologise to those who do hold this opinion if I have misrepresented them, and invite them to correct me.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

This is, essentially, as I understand it*, the Catholic argument against women priests. It is a statement that priesthood, fundamentally, requires maleness in the same sense that biological motherhood requires a uterus.

I don't think that dismissing this opinion as "same old sexist intolerance" is fair.

There is nothing biological about it.

Men are incapable of having babies - it can't be done.

Women are capable of all priestly duties, whatever some people think. They may prevent women from taking these duties on, but they can't render them incapable, whatever convoluted excuses they use.

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:


I don't think that dismissing this opinion as "same old sexist intolerance" is fair.

I think it is, because it's an opinion with no evidential basis, on a par with gay people having great dress sense and black people having natural rhythm. Or indeed that women's brains will overheat if they're allowed to attend university or vote.

Incidentally it's absurd to claim WATCH are being intolerant for not wanting to erect further barriers and restrictions on the ordination of women. Nobody is talking about requiring a statement of approval of female Bishops, nor of requiring any parish that does not want one to have a female priest, nor of requiring any Bishop (excepting the ABC, probably) to participate in the consecration of a woman as a Bishop. That is tolerance of the opposing position - not trying to eradicate it. Tolerance does not extend to creating special structures to legitimise and perpetuate those views. Either those enclaves survive because they persuade people of the righteousness of their position or they wither away over time.

[ 10. September 2013, 06:53: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Amos

Shipmate
# 44

 - Posted      Profile for Amos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The argument against the ordination of women, as articulated in the time of Pope John Paul II was built on three pillars: tradition (the church has never done it), representation (Jesus was a man, so priests must be men), and the Bride/Bridegroom analogy within the Eucharist. This is effectively an argument for complementarity, but only exercised in respect to one party: the priest stands for the Bridegroom, who is Christ so he must be male. The congregation, receiving the sacrament, stands for the Bride, that is to say, the Church, so it must be exclusively female---oh, wait a minute! The dodginess of the representation element lies in its implication that the full humanity of Christ requires maleness, and that females are, in consequence, incomplete human beings.

[ 10. September 2013, 06:52: Message edited by: Amos ]

--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken

Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

Forgive a non-Anglican for commenting on such matters but I think Amos has nailed it; your view on this WATCH group is being severely clouded by the fact that you strongly disagree with their theological position.

I don't strongly disagree with their position. I want to see women bishops in the Church of England.
Oh, sorry! Apologies for my presumption.
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
If a triplicate post can be forgiven...

More content than my triplicate upthread. [Hot and Hormonal]
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It is clearly completely sexist to claim that men can't have babies. Except that men are somewhat lacking in the uterus department.

This is, essentially, as I understand it, the Catholic argument against women priests. It is a statement that priesthood, fundamentally, requires maleness in the same sense that biological motherhood requires a uterus.

Nicely put. I'd still call this view sexist, but I do see your point that it doesn't simply rest on an inferior view of women. Still, sexist is as sexist does, and the result is that approximately one half of humanity is excluded from a role on grounds which are not self-evident to many.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778

 - Posted      Profile for S. Bacchus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I shouldn't really have to articulate the reasons why some people (many people) are opposed to the ordination of women. Some have been mentioned. Whilst I don't agree with any of the arguments against, there is one that I must admit that I find very hard to dismiss outright: the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches do not ordain women, and for the the Church of England to do so greatly increases the division (or at least the visible division) between it and the churches with which it longs to be in union. This means that, whilst I do support the ordination of women, I cannot see it as an unmitigated good.

Louise tries to bring in the issue of homophobia, but this to me is a non-starter. Whatever one's views on the subject of LGBT people in the church (and I myself am a gay man and a Christian), it's simply not an order on the same scale. A gay bishop is still a bishop and any sacraments he celebrates are sacraments. He can still be a focus of sacramental unity (whatever people think of his personal life). Anyone who disagrees is opposed to both Augustine's treatise against the Donatists and the 39 Articles. For very many people, it is not clear whether a woman can be a bishop at all. Gay bishops cannot then, be said to pose the same ecclesiological issue as women bishops.

I find it worrisome, or more than worrisome, that people persist in talking about this issue as though it were a matter of equal rights. Nobody, male or female, has the right to be ordained.

This is a question that should instead be taken with a view of the Church in mind. I support the ordination of women because, on reflection, I think it will do more good than harm to the Church of England. But I can see why others would feel differently.

Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But everyone has (or should have) a right to test their calling and be considered for ordination.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Incidentally it's absurd to claim WATCH are being intolerant for not wanting to erect further barriers and restrictions on the ordination of women. Nobody is talking about requiring a statement of approval of female Bishops, nor of requiring any parish that does not want one to have a female priest, nor of requiring any Bishop (excepting the ABC, probably) to participate in the consecration of a woman as a Bishop. That is tolerance of the opposing position - not trying to eradicate it. Tolerance does not extend to creating special structures to legitimise and perpetuate those views. Either those enclaves survive because they persuade people of the righteousness of their position or they wither away over time.

They are trying to 'eradicate' 'traditionalists' because, without protection, an all-male line opf descent will no longer exist.

WATCH grudgingly allow a parish to have a male priest but not a male priest ordained by a male bishop.

For 'traditioinalists' the orders of the people WATCH allows will be invalid so their sacraments will be invalid - so WATCH is unchurching them.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Amos

Shipmate
# 44

 - Posted      Profile for Amos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Orthodox and the Roman Catholics are not going to be in communion with one another, much less the Anglican Communion any time soon. They will only accept that which they assimilate. I pray that the Church may be one, but that's a Church which includes, not only my own communion, but also Methodists, Baptists, Moravians, Amish, Wee Frees, Assemblies of God, Lutherans, the Coptic and Armenian churches, megachurches, store-front churches, house churches--and also the Church of Rome and the Orthodox churches. Their size and age does not give them priority in the eyes of Christ.

Why does demanding a male priest from an unbroken line of male bishops fuck up a church's theology of ministerial priesthood? Sarah Coakley probably explains it best:
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/11/23/3639111.htm

--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken

Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But everyone has (or should have) a right to test their calling and be considered for ordination.

Careful. That's straying dangerously close to this:

quote:
Here, I've got an idea! Suppose you agree that she can't actually be ordained, having a womb - which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans' - but that she can have the right to be considered for ordination.
[Devil]

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Big Grin] It would be symbolic of our fight against oppression!

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Given the way things are in certain quarters, it'd be symbolic of our struggle against reality [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778

 - Posted      Profile for S. Bacchus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Look, we could argue about the rights and wrongs of the ordination of women for ever. Indeed, the Church of England has done so now for nearly a century (albeit not particularly seriously except for the past 40 to 50 years).

The question is how we are willing to treat those with whom we disagree on the issue. Do we want to be in the same church as them? It's not clear to me that WATCH really do want to be in the same church as FinF, but it does seem pretty obvious that the current leadership of FinF wants very much to be in the same church as WATCH. There are good reasons for that, of course: FinF represents a minority and knows it, and minorities can't ignore majorities as easily as vice versa; furthermore, with the ordinariate (and even before it), I doubt there is a single member of FinF who hasn't considered leaving the Church of England. Many former members did leave. Those who have stayed seriously care about being part of a unified Church of England. Naturally, that reflects the way in which they operate.

--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.

Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
FinF may want to be in the same church as WATCH, but they don't want to be in the church that WATCH would like. I suspect the feeling is actually mutual. I do not want to be part of a church which is institutionally sexist and if it does indeed look like we'll never change that, conscience may compel me to leave. I don't think I'm unusual in this; there were a number of us on the PCC of my previous church who, when preparing the advert for a new rector and therefore having to consider considering resolutions A/B/C, stated that if the parish did opt in to institutional sexism by passing one of those resolutions, we'd have to find another parish.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
The question is how we are willing to treat those with whom we disagree on the issue. Do we want to be in the same church as them? It's not clear to me that WATCH really do want to be in the same church as FinF, but it does seem pretty obvious that the current leadership of FinF wants very much to be in the same church as WATCH.

This may well be so; I don't know remotely enough to say! I know your comment wasn't solely directed at me but, for my part, I was simply querying your description of WATCH as 'extremely nasty and vindictive'. This seemed like an over-reaction to me, that's all.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The Orthodox and the Roman Catholics are not going to be in communion with one another, much less the Anglican Communion any time soon. They will only accept that which they assimilate. I pray that the Church may be one, but that's a Church which includes, not only my own communion, but also Methodists, Baptists, Moravians, Amish, Wee Frees, Assemblies of God, Lutherans, the Coptic and Armenian churches, megachurches, store-front churches, house churches--and also the Church of Rome and the Orthodox churches. Their size and age does not give them priority in the eyes of Christ.

Why does demanding a male priest from an unbroken line of male bishops fuck up a church's theology of ministerial priesthood? Sarah Coakley probably explains it best:
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/11/23/3639111.htm

She does not - I have read it twice.

When she says
quote:
there is no such thing, in a theo-logic of any veracity, of a legitimately-ordained priest who is inherently banned from the episcopate by gender.
she is right - but FIF do NOT accept the validity of the priests to start with if they are women.

When she says
quote:
one cannot simultaneously hold what might be seen as a Donatist theology of taint in relation to women priests or bishops, and an Augustinian theology of objectively valid sacramental orders,
she is comparing apples to oranges.

FIF does not accept the notion of 'taint' but those individuals who do are talking about male bishops who ordain women and, thereby, are schismatic as far as the source of our orders are concerned.

Augustine's notion of valid authors was to do with accepted turncoat clergy during Donatism - they were all male.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
[I want to see women bishops in the Church of England. I just don't agree with their view (which seems to be the view of Jade Constable and Ken as well) that all those who are troubled by the idea of the idea should fuck off.

That isn't my view and it is insulting of you to pretend it is. If you wanted to know what my vioew on the subject is there are so many hundreds of posts on this website you can find them weasily. There's no point in boring everyione by repeating them

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[
FIF does not accept the notion of 'taint'

Except that they do, as demonstrated here over and over again.

Which is why its a dead horse.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[
FIF does not accept the notion of 'taint'

Except that they do, as demonstrated here over and over again.

Which is why its a dead horse.

I'd like to see some evidence of this.

--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Me too. Nowhere in the literature of FIF or Cost of Conscience is the word 'taint' used except to distance themselves from its use.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

This is, essentially, as I understand it*, the Catholic argument against women priests. It is a statement that priesthood, fundamentally, requires maleness in the same sense that biological motherhood requires a uterus.

I don't think that dismissing this opinion as "same old sexist intolerance" is fair.

There is nothing biological about it.

Men are incapable of having babies - it can't be done.

Women are capable of all priestly duties, whatever some people think. They may prevent women from taking these duties on, but they can't render them incapable, whatever convoluted excuses they use.

Incorrect. Trans men are fully men and also fully capable of having babies, if they have not had a hysterectomy.

--------------------
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      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
If a triplicate post can be forgiven, in response to young Jade's claim that 'truth is better' than niceness, I can only respond with something my father told me as a young boy: 'in this world, you can be ever so smart or ever so nice ; I've tried smart and I recommend nice'. As a young teenager, I learned that he was misquoting an old Jimmy Stewart film. Now that I'm a grown man, I've realize that he was right. For too much of my life I've tried to be the damned know it all who knows what's best for every situation and for everybody. It didn't work out well. I recommend being nice. Even or especially to people we think are wrong. Well, maybe not to those advocating genocide or to lynch mobs. But it would be a grotesque distortion of reality to place +Baker or Dr Colin Podmore in that company. I've met them both and found them to be not only kind men but also to have a clear, sincere, and informed Christian faith of the kind that is all too rare in Church of England today. In a real sense, they are too good for church politicking.

Bollocks. Smartness is not the same as truth, nor is church politicking. Perfectly nice people can be and are wrong, and their niceness doesn't mean we shouldn't tell the truth. How are we ever going to be a radical church and speak truth to power if we consider niceness to be more important than truth? It's not about being a know it all (I don't know it all and you can fuck off with your patronising tone), it's about wanting my church to actually look like a church and not dither about being nice to misogynists and homophobes.

--------------------
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
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778

 - Posted      Profile for S. Bacchus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
it's about wanting my church to actually look like a church and not dither about being nice to misogynists and homophobes.

So, by your definition (ignoring the use of 'misogynists', which is actually exactly the sort of vindictive nastiness I had in mind), the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox don't 'look like a church'? How curious.


As I have said (nearly ad nauseum, it seems), I personally support the ordination of women to all levels of ministry. But I'm not willing to say that all Christians who don't have, or don't wish to have, women bishops don't belong in the Church. Because, guess what, of those Christian bodies that have bishops the overwhelming majority do not have female bishops. Until not so long ago, none of them did. They may be wrong, but they're clearly part of the Church, and a very large part. We can try to change their minds, but it's not our place to tell them to fuck off.

--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.

Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
it's about wanting my church to actually look like a church and not dither about being nice to misogynists and homophobes.

So, by your definition (ignoring the use of 'misogynists', which is actually exactly the sort of vindictive nastiness I had in mind), the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox don't 'look like a church'? How curious.

As I have said (nearly ad nauseum, it seems), I personally support the ordination of women to all levels of ministry. But I'm not willing to say that all Christians who don't have, or don't wish to have, women bishops don't belong in the Church. Because, guess what, of those Christian bodies that have bishops the overwhelming majority do not have female bishops. Until not so long ago, none of them did. They may be wrong, but they're clearly part of the Church, and a very large part. We can try to change their minds, but it's not our place to tell them to fuck off.

But Jade clearly believes, as WATCH does, that it is their place to tell us to fuck off. Because, being magically enlightened after nearly two thousand years of evil misogynistic darkness, they and only they possess the truth, and in their donatistic fury to have a pure church they will stop at nothing to be rid of the traditores, charity be hanged...

--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Me too. Nowhere in the literature of FIF or Cost of Conscience is the word 'taint' used except to distance themselves from its use.

"Taint" and so on has often been discussed during the long history of this sad thread. Often in passing and by implication, and at least three times explicitly, at considerable length sometime around 2005.

And its pretty clear that what those people who think FiF has a "theory of taint" mean by saying that is exactly what a lot of FiFers do practice, even though they dislike and reject the word.

The rather repetitive discussion goes a bit like this:

Someone who thinks women can be ordained: "FiF has a theory of taint".

Aggrieved Anglo-Catholic: "No we don't! Not at all! In fact we believe A, Y , and Z!"

SWTTWCBO: "But that is exactly what I meant by 'taint'. You are just calling it by a different name".

[ 10. September 2013, 18:02: Message edited by: ken ]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688

 - Posted      Profile for Vade Mecum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Me too. Nowhere in the literature of FIF or Cost of Conscience is the word 'taint' used except to distance themselves from its use.

"Taint" and so on has often been discussed during the long history of this sad thread. Often in passing and by implication, and at least three times explicitly, at considerable length sometime around 2005.

And its pretty clear that what those people who think FiF has a "theory of taint" mean by saying that is exactly what a lot of FiFers do practice, even though they dislike and reject the word.

The rather repetitive discussion goes a bit like this:

Someone who thinks women can be ordained: "FiF has a theory of taint".

Aggrieved Anglo-Catholic: "No we don't! Not at all! In fact we believe A, Y , and Z!"

SWTTWCBO: "But that is exactly what I meant by 'taint'. You are just calling it by a different name".

So you point, circumstantially and in general, to an unofficial thread on SoF, and then concoct an hypothetical scenario, and then conclude that FiF has a theory of taint. Nice evidence, bro.

--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
So you point, circumstantially and in general, to an unofficial thread on SoF, and then concoct an hypothetical scenario, and then conclude that FiF has a theory of taint. Nice evidence, bro.

I'm saying that we've discussed all this at great length here already and that thead is where the discussion is.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956

 - Posted      Profile for pererin   Email pererin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Perhaps we need a list of crap non-arguments that completely fail to take seriously the position of people with whom we may disagree:
- "taint"
- you're all misogynists
- let's invent a higher level of church government
- all varieties of appeals to Rome (including the use of the Eastern Orthodox as an Un-Romishly Catholic proxy)

--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)

Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
The question is how we are willing to treat those with whom we disagree on the issue. Do we want to be in the same church as them? It's not clear to me that WATCH really do want to be in the same church as FinF, but it does seem pretty obvious that the current leadership of FinF wants very much to be in the same church as WATCH.

The problem is that it's not just a matter of intellectual disagreement over the issue. It's a matter of disagreement over what the institutional structure has to be, and if they're both in the same church only one of them can have the institutional structure they believe to be just and right and holy. Either they're both in a church in which bishops may be men or women on equal terms, or they're not.
The only way to satisfy both theologically would be to have two churches in schism from each other using the same administrative structure. And that wouldn't make any theological sense on either terms.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools