quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The Pilling Report, last November, called for a 2 year listening process of the Church of England to the experiences of LGBs.

On the Andrew Marr programme in June, Archbishop Welby said that we were 'in the middle' of aw2 year listening process.

Come to think of it, Lambeth 1998 (Resolution 1:10) committed itself to listening etc.

Has anyone heard of any listening going on?

I haven't.

Am wondering whether it is yet another empty promise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
The church doesn't need to listen; it needs to change, or die.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The Pilling Report, last November, called for a 2 year listening process of the Church of England to the experiences of LGBs.

On the Andrew Marr programme in June, Archbishop Welby said that we were 'in the middle' of aw2 year listening process.

Come to think of it, Lambeth 1998 (Resolution 1:10) committed itself to listening etc.

Has anyone heard of any listening going on?

I haven't.

Am wondering whether it is yet another empty promise.

---

Ahem, LGBT people. There is at least one trans person involved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Last I heard, they're gonna use (bishop appointed) panels.

The whole enterprise is bankrupt. Offering to "listen" to LGBT people implicitly disempowers them. We get to decide what happens to you.

No. Discrimination is wrong. For those enforcing homophobic policies to presume to have the authority to tell lesbian and gay people how to live their lives is arrogance of epic proportions.

The church doesn't need to listen; it needs to change, or die.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Discrimination is wrong. For those enforcing homophobic policies to presume to have the authority to tell lesbian and gay people how to live their lives is arrogance of epic proportions.

The church doesn't need to listen; it needs to change, or die.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Last I heard, they're gonna use (bishop appointed) panels.

---

quote:

---

Any implication that a process of
facilitated conversation is the equivalent of kicking the issues into the long grass and therefore need not be pursued with a sense of urgency, is to be resisted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]I've lost any confidence I once had in bishops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

A conversation is simply post modern speak for what we used to call an argument. Doesn't get you anywhere - action does. Make the call, decide the road you're travelling, accept that others won't join you and will go their own way. Get on with being missional.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bad man:
No-one is taken in by "we are just thinking about it" delaying tactics any more. The Church of England now has a stinking reputation for Christian homophobia. And there will be consequences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Thank you. I'd looked at Changing Attitudes and Thinking Anglicans' websites but couldn't find the relevant information.

I was expecting each diocese to do something.

The process as outlined seems remote and an excuse to listen and then ignore.

I've lost any confidence I once had in bishops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
What's happening is that we're about to enter a two year period of facilitated conversations in the CofE. The College of Bishops will next week be taken through the process as we meet together over three days, trialling the material that's been produced. It'll then be used in the Dioceses. No definite process has yet been agreed at diocesan level. We'll see how it goes. Personally, I'm not optimistic for the process, but am willing to give it a go.

---

• an apology for the tone and content of the "guidance" on equal marriage
• a personal apology and license for Jeremy Pemberton
• a personal apology to Jeffrey John, signed by all serving bishops who put their name to the 2003 letter, combined with a promise to fast-track him to a diocesan post, and a bishop's salary backdated to '03
• a guarantee that Issues ... and its "discipline" will be suspended for the duration of the conversations

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
What's happening is that we're about to enter a two year period of facilitated conversations in the CofE. The College of Bishops will next week be taken through the process as we meet together over three days, trialling the material that's been produced. It'll then be used in the Dioceses. No definite process has yet been agreed at diocesan level. We'll see how it goes. Personally, I'm not optimistic for the process, but am willing to give it a go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
About to enter a two year period?
I thought you were halfway through a two year period that started last November? Of course if nothing is produced, it's hard to tell the difference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Personally, I'm not optimistic for the process, but am willing to give it a go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Personally, I'm not optimistic for the process, but am willing to give it a go.

---

If the process were something you were optimistic about, what would you like to come out of it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Since SSM is now the law of the land, and appears to have no significant public opposition, the church can only guarantee its irrelevance by clinging to openly homophobic attitudes.

And I am using "irrelevance" in its proper sense: the "church" will have no purpose in society if it does not recognise where the general population is. Not having that recognition means that the next generation will not understand what the church is talking about, let alone wish to take part.

---

quote:

---

We have to face the fact that the vast majority of people under 35 not only think that what we're saying is incomprehensible but also think that we're plain wrong and wicked and equate it to racism and other forms of gross and atrocious injustice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[...] [The church] must not change because other people won't like what it says.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The Pilling Report, last November, called for a 2 year listening process of the Church of England to the experiences of LGBs.

On the Andrew Marr programme in June, Archbishop Welby said that we were 'in the middle' of aw2 year listening process.

Come to think of it, Lambeth 1998 (Resolution 1:10) committed itself to listening etc.

Has anyone heard of any listening going on?

I haven't.

Am wondering whether it is yet another empty promise.

---

Ahem, LGBT people. There is at least one trans person involved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The Pilling Report, last November, called for a 2 year listening process of the Church of England to the experiences of LGBs.

On the Andrew Marr programme in June, Archbishop Welby said that we were 'in the middle' of aw2 year listening process.

Come to think of it, Lambeth 1998 (Resolution 1:10) committed itself to listening etc.

Has anyone heard of any listening going on?

I haven't.

Am wondering whether it is yet another empty promise.

---

Ahem, LGBT people. There is at least one trans person involved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[...] [The church] must not change because other people won't like what it says.

---

No, it must change because it's wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by crunt:
After all, we're all in it together and even though the S people do not suffer the discrimination that LGBT people experience, I feel it is more helpful for us to stop separating people by their sexual orientation - because ultimately it shouldn't matter if you are straight, lesbian, gay, bi or trans. We're all people, so if we are talking about sexuality, let's talk about SLGBT!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by crunt:

I always wonder why we leave out the S from LGBT. After all, we're all in it together and even though the S people do not suffer the discrimination that LGBT people experience, I feel it is more helpful for us to stop separating people by their sexual orientation - because ultimately it shouldn't matter if you are straight, lesbian, gay, bi or trans. We're all people, so if we are talking about sexuality, let's talk about SLGBT!

---

There's already been quite a few centuries focused on talking about straight people. But worse luck for straight people, The Bishops have already selected representatives for straights and it's .... the Bishops themselves.


 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[...] [The church] must not change because other people won't like what it says.

---

No, it must change because it's wrong.

Anglicanism is supposed to be a broad church, but in England, it imposes a narrow, legalistic reading of the Bible on all its LGBT members.

It doesn't even play by its own rules: the mask fell when Jeffrey John was appointed Bishop of Reading, only to be driven from office by a tsunami of homophobia, despite the fact that he was celibate, and Issues ... promised that no intrusive questions would be asked.

Multiple bishops disgraced themselves and their office by demanding that he "repent" of being in a loving sexual relationship with his partner. Their shameful conduct brought them no sanction. No organization that treats people like that can claim to be anything other than institutionally homophobic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
At the time, John's position was contra to the accepted Anglican understanding of such things. Even though some of the Anglican hierarchy knew and approved (at the highest levels), it didn't change the fact - John was acting in a way that was seen as wrong both from the pov of statute and in the opinion of a significant constituency in the churches.

---

quote:

---

More fool him for believing that Rowan Williams would stand by him. His (RW's) traitorous behaviour on this was perhaps his worst hour in the process of a generally ignominious tenure.

The die has always been cast once the church differentiated between "acceptable" behaviour for "lay" people and that for "ordained" people. Sadly the principle of the lesson wasn't learned as we've seen with the whole Oow and Women as Bishops fiasco.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
[QUOTE]

1. Except he wasn't. At all. His relationship was by then celibate.

2. LGBT Anglicans paid the price for his "gracious restraint."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Just an explanation as to why the facilitated conversations haven't started yet. The House of Bishops didn't find Pilling to be an adequate basis for the conversations. We have therefore commissioned David Porter to start the process based on different theological and pastoral material. Pilling is not on the table. The new material is what the Bishops will be trialling.

And the question about why "listening" hasn't worked is pretty easily answered. It was taken by those who are arguing for change to be a one-way process. The listening in the new conversations has to be two-way, without any presupposition that we are moving inexorably towards a defined goal. Two-way stuff will be the only way we can make progress.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Just an explanation as to why the facilitated conversations haven't started yet. The House of Bishops didn't find Pilling to be an adequate basis for the conversations. We have therefore commissioned David Porter to start the process based on different theological and pastoral material. Pilling is not on the table. The new material is what the Bishops will be trialling.

And the question about why "listening" hasn't worked is pretty easily answered. It was taken by those who are arguing for change to be a one-way process. The listening in the new conversations has to be two-way, without any presupposition that we are moving inexorably towards a defined goal. Two-way stuff will be the only way we can make progress.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
1. Celibacy wasn't the breaking point under "issues" IIRC all same sex partnership whether celibate or not were proscribed. JJ made no secret of the fact either that he'd once been sexually active within that relationship and in some eyes his failure to repent of that damned him more.

He was damned in the eyes of the pro same sex relationship camp because he revealed the hypocrisy of the don't ask: don't tell position. He lost the support of those he knew as friends because he blew their cover on this issue exposing more hypocrisy: what many said in private they repudiated in public. It's happened in other denominations too.

---

quote:

---

2. Gracious restraint = rampant hypocrisy and self interest. JJ rocked the boat and paid the price: I don't agree with his views on same sex relationships but I admire his stand against the self interest, hypocrisy and power games seemingly rampant in the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Two-way stuff will be the only way we can make progress.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Being "only" a discussion document means it had no standing under canon law, hence the status quo was retained. JJ was therefore wrong to admit to being in a same sex relationship albeit celibate (although we have no way of knowing that it was or wasn't: JJ had, after all, been in a proscribed relationship for many years).

JJ was at fault as such in admitting it publicly: the hierarchy who exercised DADT were at fault for duplicity against canon law and those who brought JJ down were at fault for insensitivity and possibly breach of trust. No one wins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Just an explanation as to why the facilitated conversations haven't started yet. The House of Bishops didn't find Pilling to be an adequate basis for the conversations. We have therefore commissioned David Porter to start the process based on different theological and pastoral material. Pilling is not on the table. The new material is what the Bishops will be trialling.

And the question about why "listening" hasn't worked is pretty easily answered. It was taken by those who are arguing for change to be a one-way process. The listening in the new conversations has to be two-way, without any presupposition that we are moving inexorably towards a defined goal. Two-way stuff will be the only way we can make progress.

---

LGBT Anglicans know the traditional position better than anyone. They've listened more than enough. What needs to change is the demand that they suppress their sexuality for life.

Would you be willing to abstain from sharing any physical affection with your wife until the church makes up its mind? That's what you're asking lesbian and gay people to do, after all.

(As you felt it proper to quiz Jeffrey John about his sex life, I know you don't consider such personal comments out-of-bounds. Out of interest, have you ever apologized to him for your part in driving him from his post?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The Newspaper article you quote, surprisingly for the odious Jonathan Petre, cites accurately what I said. It was his teaching that I was questioning. I made no statement about his personal life. I think he's a fine theologian. But his teaching is not consonant with scripture, canons, or the tradition of the Church.

---

quote:

---

But I'm not prepared to make this into a Jeffrey John discussion. People wanted to know what the next stage is in relation to the facilitated conversations. Which is what I've outlined. The derision on the thread does tend to indicate that we have a pretty fundamental non meeting of minds, and that the process will be well-nigh impossible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
pete173, what could come out of a properly 2-way process? What is it expected that people (on both sides) might learn from the other side that they don't know already? Or what decisions do you expect might flow from the listening? Or is there some other type of result you think might arise from an ideal two-way listening process, besides simply hearing what the other side thinks?

I've been listening for years. I feel like I've heard all the civil arguments of good-will and honestly trying to uphold the faith already. The only time I hear new things these days from the other side from me are when someone comes out with something that astonishes me with its contempt and dismissal. So what meeting of minds can occur, if it hasn't already occurred? (I won't deny that my own side can also be contemptual and dismissive; of course both sides, I presume, feel they're justified and trying to uphold Christian values, and that their contempt is justified.)

---

Says it all.

Pete173 says that conversations about sexuality must proceed "without any presupposition that we are moving inexorably towards a defined goal." Problem is, LGBT Anglicans and their allies have a clear and fixed goal: the end of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Does Pete173 believe there's any realistic prospect that a majority of LGBT Anglicans will agree to suppress their sexuality for life? If not, if this process isn't yet another delaying tactic (see previous guarantees of "listening" in 1991, 1998, 2003 ...), what's the point?

Right now, it's all hopelessly vague.
 

---

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
I'm surprised that you're asking me whether the facilitated conversations or the listening process are worthwhile. The impression we've been given is that the process is seen as a way forward by many of those advocating change. Personally, I have little or no investment in them, and even less optimism that they will bring an end to the impasse in the Church of England.

It was however the use of this kind of process in relation to the issue of women bishops that brought about a breakthrough on that deadlocked debate, and I did encounter many members of Synod who felt that through facilitated conversations they had for the first time come to understand and appreciate the positions of their opponents. So that's why I think that, as a Church, we have to give it a go.

Such conversations and debates have, admittedly, been going on in the CofE since at least the 1970s - and our familiarity with the arguments and the pastoral issues on both sides of the divide does mean that we can all probably write compellingly in defence of the position espoused by our opponents.

I don't think that a negotiated two integrities model will work on this issue - the divergence over both hermeneutical and canonical understanding and liturgical practice (lex orandi, lex credendi) makes it far less easy to solve than the ordination of women.
 

---

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Where does liturgical practice, in particular lex orandi lex credendi, come into this?

The only thing I can think of is the obvious liturgical practice that would be desired by one side: performing same sex marriages. But that obviously approves of same sex marriages, whereas I understand lex orandi lex credendi to be about more subtle features of liturgy.

[ 06. September 2014, 17:28: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
 

---

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Sorry, I forgot to preface that with: Thanks for your explanation, pete173.
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
I'm surprised that you're asking me whether the facilitated conversations or the listening process are worthwhile. The impression we've been given is that the process is seen as a way forward by many of those advocating change. Personally, I have little or no investment in them, and even less optimism that they will bring an end to the impasse in the Church of England.

It was however the use of this kind of process in relation to the issue of women bishops that brought about a breakthrough on that deadlocked debate, and I did encounter many members of Synod who felt that through facilitated conversations they had for the first time come to understand and appreciate the positions of their opponents. So that's why I think that, as a Church, we have to give it a go.

---

quote:

---

Such conversations and debates have, admittedly, been going on in the CofE since at least the 1970s - and our familiarity with the arguments and the pastoral issues on both sides of the divide does mean that we can all probably write compellingly in defence of the position espoused by our opponents.

I don't think that a negotiated two integrities model will work on this issue - the divergence over both hermeneutical and canonical understanding and liturgical practice (lex orandi, lex credendi) makes it far less easy to solve than the ordination of women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
To buttress the above, ExclamationMark, here's the 2003 letter, signed by the bishops who condemned John's appointment.

It explicitly cites Issues ... -- "We have been repeatedly assured that the House of Bishops' position stated in Issues in Human Sexuality has not changed" -- and claims to welcome celibate same-sex relationships -- "By his own admission he has been in a same-sex relationship for twenty years. We value, of course, the gift of same-sex friendship and if this relationship is one of companionship and sexual abstinence, then, we rejoice."

Care to withdraw your claim about canon law in light of this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
[QUOTE]Would you accept there exists no realistic chance of persuading a majority of LGBT Anglicans to never express their sexual orientation in a loving relationship?

That being so, barring a viable third option, either the church agrees to disagree (which the affirming camp is willing to do:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Well it does seem to be supported by Pete173 (see above).

Also, I'd add my concern around tradition (as well as the now familiar scriptural considerations). For Anglicans, I'm told that tradition is a key issue: what tradition is there in the church that permits same sex partnerships?

---

quote:

---

Tradition per se has no positive or negative significance. There are good traditions, bad traditions pilloried in such famous literary stories as Franz Kafka's In the Penal Colony and Shirley Jackson's The Lottery, bad traditions that are historical realities such as cannibalism, foot-binding, and suttee, and traditions that from a public-policy standpoint are neither good nor bad (such as trick-or-treating on Halloween). Tradition per se therefore cannot be a lawful ground for discrimination — regardless of the age of the tradition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The Church of England's understanding is that any liturgy of the church must express the doctrine of the church. A liturgy for the blessing of gay marriage - or indeed a liturgy for the marriage of gay people in church (assuming the Government removed the "lock") would by definition change the doctrine of the CofE.

Similarly, any change to our understanding of marriage would require canon B30 to be amended.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Well it does seem to be supported by Pete173 (see above).

Also, I'd add my concern around tradition (as well as the now familiar scriptural considerations). For Anglicans, I'm told that tradition is a key issue: what tradition is there in the church that permits same sex partnerships?

---

If you mean gay relationships, none. (I don't buy Boswell's claims.) Just like there was no tradition of ordaining women or remarrying divorcees.

Or, come to that, no tradition of married women being equal partners with their husbands. The abolition of coverture was at least as radical as opening marriage to same-sex couples.

As Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said in his ruling to strike down bans on equal marriage:-

quote:

---

Tradition per se has no positive or negative significance. There are good traditions, bad traditions pilloried in such famous literary stories as Franz Kafka's In the Penal Colony and Shirley Jackson's The Lottery, bad traditions that are historical realities such as cannibalism, foot-binding, and suttee, and traditions that from a public-policy standpoint are neither good nor bad (such as trick-or-treating on Halloween). Tradition per se therefore cannot be a lawful ground for discrimination — regardless of the age of the tradition.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
If you can come up with a hermeneutic to set aside the clear teaching of scripture and tradition on ordaining women, you can come up with a hermeneutic to open marriage to lesbian and gay people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
In that case, one third of the whole foundation of Anglicanism is incorrect or, at least, inadmissible. Break up the Anglican communion anyone?

I'd have to come back on that court judgement, reflecting that it's given in an American court not an english one which establishes canon law. The mileage may vary with the ocean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
There is so much wrong with this statement, it takes the breath away. I thought you must have been using over-heated rhetoric, but this is twice that you have spoken of setting aside scripture. Perhaps I really don't understand you.

Is that really what you think those who have been working for the ordination of women and equal standing of gay people in the church have set about doing? Setting aside scripture so that anti-biblical practice can find a place in the church?

If you do then you are in a league with the ACNA, folk in North America who feel that their real complaint against ECUSA and against these innovations is the repudiation of authority, not primarily the innovations themselves.

What the proponents of ordination of women, and those who advocate an equal place in the church for gays, have been doing working to understand scripture and the tradition so that the innovations can be seen to be consonant with scripture and tradition.

There can be no casting aside. See the knee-jerk nonsense that was written on a recent Purgator thread concerning repudiation of stories of OT killing.

The Christian view cannot countenance a cut-n-paste approach to the Bible.

---

quote:

---

This is an issue of biblical authority. Despite much well-intentioned theological fancy footwork to the contrary, it is difficult to see the Bible as expressing anything else but disapproval of homosexual activity. The only alternatives are to try to cleave to patterns of life and assumptions set out in the Bible, or to say that in this, as in much else, the Bible is simply wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Even if the Bible is revelation...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
[cross-posted.]

I read Byron differently, TSA. There's a name for this rhetorical tactic, I'm sure, but I can't think what it is.

---

Bluntness.

quote:

---

Anyway, I read him to be saying: "The way you lot talk about tradition and scripture, one would expect you to be in the camp that thinks ordination of women is against tradition and scripture. But somehow you found a way to convince yourselves that ordination of women is OK. So quit pretending your current position that equal treatment of LGBT people is against tradition and scripture prevents you from acting, because if you wanted to you could convince yourself that equal treatment is OK even in the face of one side's set of arguments that it's against tradition and scripture, just as you did with the ordination of women."

Byron, now I'm curious to know how you meant it, now that The Silent Acolyte has shown me there's a diametrically opposite way to interpret what you're saying, even though he and I are both reading the same words.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Even if the Bible is revelation...

---

So, tell us plainly. Is it? Or, is it not?

---

As I've not appointed myself God's mouthpiece, I've really no idea.

D'you claim to have the inside skinny?
 

---

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
There's been a fairly long string of these changes: divine right of kings, charging of interest, slavery, coverture. In the hermeneutical struggles leading up to the Church coming to terms with them, scripture and tradition haven't needed to be set aside.

There is no reason to think that women's orders or equality of treatment for gay people will prove to be any different.

Since you've now told us plainly that the bible is not revelation, there doesn't seem to be much point in carrying on the discussion. Saying the "bible is simply wrong" is, simply, the lazy man's way out.

I'd rather shelter with the those who oppose women's orders and suppress gays than with those who have no confidence is God's revelation in the bible and tradition and who need to have all the apparent inconsistencies and mysteries resolved in our lifetime. Both of these innovations are less than a generation or two old. I can afford to wait while the Church gets this right.
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
There's been a fairly long string of these changes: divine right of kings, charging of interest, slavery, coverture. In the hermeneutical struggles leading up to the Church coming to terms with them, scripture and tradition haven't needed to be set aside.

There is no reason to think that women's orders or equality of treatment for gay people will prove to be any different.

---

quote:

---

Since you've now told us plainly that the bible is not revelation, ...

---

quote:

---

... there doesn't seem to be much point in carrying on the discussion. Saying the "bible is simply wrong" is, simply, the lazy man's way out.

---

quote:

---

I'd rather shelter with the those who oppose women's orders and suppress gays than with those who have no confidence is God's revelation in the bible and tradition and who need to have all the apparent inconsistencies and mysteries resolved in our lifetime. Both of these innovations are less than a generation or two old. I can afford to wait while the Church gets this right.

---

We each of us have our own priorities.
 

---

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
I am rather surprised that no real attention has been given to pete173's explanation of why the two year process is already running about a year behind schedule.

First of all, doesn't anyone else think that it is gobsmackingly complacent of the HoB to delay this and show no sign of understanding the urgency of addressing this properly? The original two years in the Pilling Report was always rather extravagant in my mind. But now we're looking at three years at the least before anything begins to emerge.

Pete - don't you and the other bishops understand that you really don't have the time to fart around like this?

Secondly, the reason given for the delay is that "new material" had to be produced as Pilling wasn't acceptable. Doesn't that sound remarkably like refusing to do anything until you get an answer you like? Effectively, the whole delay over waiting for Pilling to produce his report has been a massive waste of time. For so long, the C of E refused to address this matter, on the grounds that "Pilling is producing his report and it would be wrong to jump the gun. Wait for Pilling to publish his report."

All along, the HoB have appeared, time after time, to be trying to kick this issue into the long grass. "Let's have a report. Let's have two years of 'listening'. Let's get some more material and THEN have two years of listening."

Why don't the HoB get it?
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I am rather surprised that no real attention has been given to pete173's explanation of why the two year process is already running about a year behind schedule.

First of all, doesn't anyone else think that it is gobsmackingly complacent of the HoB to delay this and show no sign of understanding the urgency of addressing this properly? The original two years in the Pilling Report was always rather extravagant in my mind. But now we're looking at three years at the least before anything begins to emerge.

Pete - don't you and the other bishops understand that you really don't have the time to fart around like this?

Secondly, the reason given for the delay is that "new material" had to be produced as Pilling wasn't acceptable. Doesn't that sound remarkably like refusing to do anything until you get an answer you like? Effectively, the whole delay over waiting for Pilling to produce his report has been a massive waste of time. For so long, the C of E refused to address this matter, on the grounds that "Pilling is producing his report and it would be wrong to jump the gun. Wait for Pilling to publish his report."

All along, the HoB have appeared, time after time, to be trying to kick this issue into the long grass. "Let's have a report. Let's have two years of 'listening'. Let's get some more material and THEN have two years of listening."

Why don't the HoB get it?

---

quote:

---

Byron, as paraphrased by AR:
But somehow you found a way to convince yourselves that ordination of women is OK. So quit pretending your current position that equal treatment of LGBT people is against tradition and scripture prevents you from acting, because if you wanted to you could convince yourself that equal treatment is OK even in the face of one side's set of arguments that it's against tradition and scripture, just as you did with the ordination of women."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[...] So if you want to use the ordination of women as your timescale, I'd say gay priests have another generation or so of waiting before they are officially allowed relationships. [...]

---

quote:

---

We have to face the fact that the vast majority of people under 35 not only think that what we're saying is incomprehensible but also think that we're plain wrong and wicked and equate it to racism and other forms of gross and atrocious injustice.

---

• The smallest number of bishops are those who wholeheartedly, without reservation, recognise not only that LGBT people are the people they are because God made them that way - and maybe God made them that way because he WANTS them to be LGB or T?
• The medium sized group can (ought ?) to be subdivided: this is the group which doesn't think that LGBT people should have equal status within the church - the difference within the group is that the smaller section at least has the balls to admit what they think, the hugely greater group just vacillates and fence sits.
• The largest group is made up of traditional "he's a good, safe, committee man" bishops: they're not sure what they think and they're going to make damn certain no one else is sure either. They'd like to think that LGBT can be equal in the sight of God but they're not sure, and they're especially not sure about them being clergy, or being able to be married. So they'll stick to their tried and trusted formula which is (metaphorically) putting their fingers in their ears and chanting "la la la" to drown out the insistent pleas from others to actually nail their colours to the mast. So they'll drone on about being 'supportive' and 'being alongside' LGBT people, etc, its pretty meaningless.

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
[...] The largest group is made up of traditional "he's a good, safe, committee man" bishops: they're not sure what they think and they're going to make damn certain no one else is sure either. [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The Newspaper article you quote, surprisingly for the odious Jonathan Petre, cites accurately what I said. It was his teaching that I was questioning. I made no statement about his personal life. I think he's a fine theologian. But his teaching is not consonant with scripture, canons, or the tradition of the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
I'm sure the pro-women hermeneutics are made in good faith, but the Greek didn't change after 2,000 years. Society changed, and an interpretive framework used to reconcile scripture with that change.

Interpretation of any text, let alone an ancient text in a dead language, is an active, two-way process. We don't passively receive meaning: we inject as much as we take. We must. Nature of texts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
These two passages are saying two different things. The first says that there is a single correct and clear meaning of the text, and the text is wrong. Any hermeneutic effort to reinterpret the clear meaning is well-meaning but misguided. The second paragraph says the meaning of the text is relative to the society in which it is being interpreted, and therefore the hermeneutic efforts of the pro-women camp are sound at least in principle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The Newspaper article you quote, surprisingly for the odious Jonathan Petre, cites accurately what I said. It was his teaching that I was questioning. I made no statement about his personal life. I think he's a fine theologian. But his teaching is not consonant with scripture, canons, or the tradition of the Church.

---

I don't doubt that your concern was and is for the teaching of the Church, not the private life of one potential bishop. But could it seriously be suggested that a hypothetical candidate for bishop, with exactly the same views and teaching of Jeffrey John, but who happened to be straight and married, would have faced anything like the same opposition?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

Does Pete173 believe there's any realistic prospect that a majority of LGBT Anglicans will agree to suppress their sexuality for life?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
That's the question. All the flannel about being relevant to the younger generation and so on lends urgency to the decision, but it cannot and must not obscure the fundamental issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

That's the question. All the flannel about being relevant to the younger generation and so on lends urgency to the decision, but it cannot and must not obscure the fundamental issue.

And like pete173, I don't see how you can possibly end up with a "two integrities" model here. This is an all-or-nothing choice, and the fact is that a significant number of people on the losing side are likely to walk. That's unfortunate, but I don't see a way of avoiding it.

---

quote:

---

As to the question "why are we in this process?" - the answer is that I'm not sure. But a bit like the OOW discussions, this is the only ball in play at present, so I guess we have to go with it. Those arguing for change are, I recognise, impatient. But the impatience is based on the presupposition that the Church must acquiesce in what Government has done and that it's pellucidly clear that we should introduce blessings and marriages into the CofE. But that's not where the whole Church is. So you have to win hearts and minds and achieve legislative and liturgical change (which of course go together). The conversations are prior to this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
... But the impatience is based on the presupposition that the Church must acquiesce in what Government has done ...

---

quote:

---

Those arguing for change are, I recognise, impatient. But the impatience is based on the presupposition that the Church must acquiesce in what Government has done...

---

quote:

---

I'm sure the pro-women hermeneutics are made in good faith, but the Greek didn't change after 2,000 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
I believe that LGBT people should be held to the same standards in their sexual relationships as straight people. To me, that means the option of getting married should be open to them as well. It should also mean that they are subject to the same sanctions as others who are guilty of sexual sins. How many churches do you know who throw people out for fornication? How many PCCs are in the habit of cross-examining straight clergy on their sex lives?

---

Actually when I was exploring ordination in the Diocese of Southwark 20-odd years ago it was made clear to me by my DDO that if I were to move in with my then-girlfriend it would not be well received. But I knew of at least two gay men who were cohabiting (not with each other) who were accepted for training,, and subsequently ordained, there around that time. For all that I am pleased that those men were ordained, I felt, and still feel, that Southwark, in its ever-so-nicely-liberal way, was being rather hypocritical.

[ 08. September 2014, 11:50: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I suppose the justification, if they had been pushed to one, would have been that at that time if I had wanted to live with my girlfriend we could have got married but gay couples could not. Now that marriage is available to all- indeed, I'd say ever since civil partnerships came in- it is no longer possible to say that. So the Church's discipline can be more honestly and evenly and effectively applied. This is why SSM strengthens marriage.
 

---

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Yes, funny how that works, isn't it. I shared a house with my Other Half (for economic reasons) before we got married, but nobody except an atheist friend actually believed we weren't having sex until after the wedding*...

Albertus, presumably the 'no cohabiting' rule was to maintain plausible deniability? Or did the DDO insist on chaperoning all your meetings with your girlfriend?

*Note to younger readers: all our contemporaries thought we were weird, too.**

** there are two ways of construing the statement "nobody believed we weren't having sex until after the wedding" - think about it, and then ask yourself whether forbidding same-sex marriage is promoting or discouraging "homosexual acts"...

[ 08. September 2014, 12:03: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Plausible deniability sums it up, I think! Although as it happens we did both have rather old-fashioned (even then) views about saving some things until marriage was at least in prospect as a possibility.

Small tangent: I knew a couple who were cohabiting and wished to present themselves as merely flatsharing (to the DSS, not the church). Aha, said the DSS, you must be ochabiting, you've even got the same surname! No, they said, those are our birth surnames, it's just a coincidence that they're the same (which was perfectly true). Sorry, our mistake, said the DSS- so they got away with it!

[ 08. September 2014, 12:14: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Yes, funny how that works, isn't it. I shared a house with my Other Half (for economic reasons) before we got married, but nobody except an atheist friend actually believed we weren't having sex until after the wedding*...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
I'm not going to engage with Oscar's permanently angry rants at me, I'm afraid.

---

quote:

---

Those arguing for change are, I recognise, impatient. But the impatience is based on the presupposition that the Church must acquiesce in what Government has done and that it's pellucidly clear that we should introduce blessings and marriages into the CofE. But that's not where the whole Church is. So you have to win hearts and minds and achieve legislative and liturgical change (which of course go together). The conversations are prior to this.

---

quote:

---

The thing is, if you want to commit fornication you don't have to be living together. All that living apart does is maintain Plausible Deniability, as I said earlier.
If it's the kind of thing that matters to you, then fine.

---

I'll let you into a little secret - most people living together and who have a sexual relationship without 'benefit of the clergy' (sometimes not even a civil marriage) don't, on the whole, see themselves as 'committing fornication': rather they tend to feel they're making love. Yes, you can call it plausible deniability - its been going on between adult children and their parents for decades - but a more honest description would be the old 'don't ask, don't tell' (hypocrisy may be too harsh?).

quote:

---

Personally I think whether or not the organist is a good musician is rather more important than the exact nature of his relationship with his fiancée...

---

quote:

---

...but if he shares your beliefs on the Sanctity of Marriage and says he isn't sleeping with his fiancée, why would you refuse to accept his assurance? If we are called to be counter-cultural, shouldn't we be challenging the assumption that two people living in the same house will inevitably end up having sex?

---

quote:

---

I'll let you into a little secret - most people living together and who have a sexual relationship without 'benefit of the clergy' (sometimes not even a civil marriage) don't, on the whole, see themselves as 'committing fornication': rather they tend to feel they're making love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[qb] Who asked for this two year facile conversation anyhow? Pete seems to think it's futile and I haven't heard of a gay Anglican (at least on the ship) who wants yet another indefinite delay.

---

I think that most church people change their mind on this issue when they see it as being about people', not merely an 'issue'.

If the HOB listened to the personal testimonies of gay Christians, their struggles with the Bible etc., then I believe they'd realise how much serious harm the 'traditional teaching' has done and hear scripture as it is understood by the marginalised.

As it is, most bishops seem to know very little of differing interpretations of scripture because of the briefings they have received so far. 'Issues' and 'Pilling' were highly selective (and downright dishonest) in their citing of 'evidence'.

So the reason why LGBTs want to be listened to is because the 1998 Lambeth Confernce agreed to listen but this didn't happen and it's now 16 years on - and the bishops are going to listen to str8 people too - as if their voices haven't predominated for decades.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
I once expressed a strongly-pro-gay opinion (on the basis of learning to live with the mere existence of GLBTs) in a Leter to the Editor of the monthly Diocesan paper in this province. The next month, there was smug letter from a senior cleric on the topic of the clergy being remiss in not instructing their parishioners properly, to which I replied that, after 40 years of schoolteaching, I rather expected answers to relate to the question, not to engage in personal attack.

The result? No more letters to be accepted by said paper. Problem solved, obviously
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The House of Bishops didn't find Pilling to be an adequate basis for the conversations...... Pilling is not on the table.

---

quote:

---

...and the bishops are going to listen to str8 people too - as if their voices haven't predominated for decades.

---

quote:

---

I believe the trajectory in the Report will undermine the discipleship and pastoral care of many faithful Christians

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The House of Bishops didn't find Pilling to be an adequate basis for the conversations...... Pilling is not on the table.

---

So why was Pilling commissioned in the first place, if it was to be ditched?

Was Pilling not given enough guidance as to what was wanted?

Is Pilling being ditched for something even more conservative?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I rather think that you have this backwards. You are presenting the argument as: "LGBT Anglicans exist. Either Anglicanism changes to permit them to live their lives fully, with integrity, or they go elsewhere. You choose."

That's all fine and pragmatic, and may well be an accurate representation of what might happen, but it's not the question that the church should be addressing.

The question is, fundamentally, is gay OK with God? If the answer is yes, then it follows that the church should bless same-sex relationships, celebrate with gay priests who want to marry, and so on.

If, on the other hand, gay is not OK, then the church must not endorse it. The church should not bless a gay relationship any more than it should bless an adulterous one, or a bank robbery enterprise, or any other sinful undertaking. It would then follow that priests who are willful and unrepentant sinners should be subject to discipline.

That's the question. All the flannel about being relevant to the younger generation and so on lends urgency to the decision, but it cannot and must not obscure the fundamental issue.

And like pete173, I don't see how you can possibly end up with a "two integrities" model here. This is an all-or-nothing choice, and the fact is that a significant number of people on the losing side are likely to walk. That's unfortunate, but I don't see a way of avoiding it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
I'm not going to engage with Oscar's permanently angry rants at me, I'm afraid.

As to the question "why are we in this process?" - the answer is that I'm not sure. But a bit like the OOW discussions, this is the only ball in play at present, so I guess we have to go with it. Those arguing for change are, I recognise, impatient. But the impatience is based on the presupposition that the Church must acquiesce in what Government has done and that it's pellucidly clear that we should introduce blessings and marriages into the CofE. But that's not where the whole Church is. So you have to win hearts and minds and achieve legislative and liturgical change (which of course go together). The conversations are prior to this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
We have therefore commissioned David Porter to start the process based on different theological and pastoral material. stuff will be the only way we can make progress.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE] 1. ....how much serious harm the 'traditional teaching' has done

2. ..... and hear scripture as it is understood by the marginalised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]I think that most church people change their mind on this issue when they see it as being about people', not merely an 'issue'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[...] as a whole i agree with most of your views, especially on social justice, politics etc.

---

quote:

---

the LGBTI agenda

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The "agenda" is set out very clearly
in a letter sent to all bishops. [...]

---

quote:

---

I can't understand at all how a person can fight heroically for secular gay rights, while vigorously opposing them in the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
The technical term for this is the socialist education protocol (Latin rara flavum hypocritum) - or don't-do-as-I-do-do-as-I-say, so-called from the fine principles shown by (amongst others) Claude Cockburn and Peter Shore in being vociferous opponents of 'elitism' and champions of comprehensives for all whilst buying for their own children the finest private education that money could buy - Glenalmond in the case of Cockburn's sons and North London Collegiate in the case of Shore's daughters.

Of course, its lovely to have gay friends, and they're so helpful with design ideas when you move house and kind and caring when things are bad at work - and don't even think about having a same-sex relationship with my son or daughter.

---

@ the Latin!

Self-interested hypocrisy's no mystery, but pete173's position isn't that. Its legalistic distinctions between secular and religious equality do cohere: I'm just baffled how anyone could come to draw them, since a desire for equality springs from valuing the worth of all people, solidarity that doesn't tend to stop at the church gates.

I'm especially baffled how someone of the left, someone with a passion for justice, someone who fought alongside gay people in the homophobic '80s, could help to drive a gay man who followed church rules from his office. Jeffrey John would've had every reason to expect pete173's support. Yet from this thread, it sounds like he doesn't think the campaign against John did anything wrong!
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
I can't understand at all how a person can fight heroically for secular gay rights, while vigorously opposing them in the church.

---

quote:

---

Erratum
The Bishop of Birkenhead has asked for the words in brackets on page 163, first paragraph of Section 5 of Appendix 3 '(and argued, e.g. by Richard Burridge)'
to be disregarded from the online document, and apologizes unreservedly for any misrepresentation of Professor's Burridge's views caused by their inclusion.

---

 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Could you understand why, for example, someone could "fight heroically" for the freedom of religion, whilst also ensuring that the church kept a firm grip on orthodoxy and orthopraxis? I don't find that contradictory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The "agenda" is set out very clearly
in a letter sent to all bishops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

Equality, by contrast, extends across theological boundaries. At heart, it's about treating one another with compassion and respect.

---

I don't think this can be right. I treat my neighbour's cat with compassion and respect. I expect other people to treat the cat with compassion and respect. I don't think we're equal.
(It's a cat. Obviously it's superior! </obCatJoke>)

I think you're right about the consequences of an actual belief in equality, rather than the "compassion and respect" you describe here, but I don't think that's the only reason to be a passionate supporter of secular gay rights.

I don't think it's possible for a rational person to hold a deep and fundamental opinion of equality between homosexual and heterosexual relationships whilst thinking that homosexual ones are sinful. If you think that X is all right and proper in the eyes of God, but Y is a sin, you cannot possibly think that X and Y are equal.

On the other hand, if you start from a principle of liberty rather than equality, it makes perfect sense for you to think "Y is sinful, but people should be allowed to choose to do Y. (The Salvation Army requires its members to be teetotal. I haven't noticed them campaigning for prohibition recently.)
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I've reached a point where I just want the CofE to make up its mind. It either needs to give LGBTI members full membership, with the same expectation of sexual conduct as everyone else, or it can say it doesn't want us at all. I for one would be more than happy to walk out the door and brush the dust from my feet if that was the deal, because 30 years of this crap has exhausted me - 30 years of being told, "Oh we love you very much and want you in the Church... but can we just beat you up a bit every now and then? "
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Amen to that.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Amen x 2.

And if I hear the tired old Love the sinner, hate the sin just once more I'll

Do you really want to be nauseated? a gay mate was assured by a cleric that this attitude was fine and didn't just apply to him but 'its the same with other sinners - people who rape and murder: we do our best to love them all.

So, for this cleric the equation is simple:
gay <> rape <> murder.
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
When will somebody in a pointy hat, not obviously a maverick, get up and say, in so many words, 'being gay is not a sin: having sex with someone of your own sex is not a sin in circumstances where it would not be a sin if it were with a person of the opposite sex'. I don't think even ++Barry Cambrensis has said this in so many words, though I'm pretty sure he believes it and would I suspect not deny it if asked outright.
In fact, here's a challenge for you, Pete. Do you believe this? If so, will you say it in so many words? If you don't believe it, will you explain why not?
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Frankly the Church of England would do well to look at the Church in Wales - they might learn something.

For a start, they might learn how to be properly charitable when speaking about SSM; they might also get some theological insights.

Or to quote the Archbishop (++Barry Cambrensis)

quote:

---

“The State allowed the possibility of divorce and re-marriage for a long time before we did as a Church. Not only do we now bless such unions, we actually re-marry divorced people in our churches.

In the past, if a cleric divorced and re-married, that person could no longer continue in the ordained ministry in Wales, whereas now that is no longer a bar to continuing in ministry.

“So our views have evolved and changed on a subject which Jesus pronounced very clearly. He had nothing to say about same-sex relationships.

Will we, as a Church, eventually adopt the same approach as far as same-sex relationships are concerned, as we have done about re-marriage after divorce, or is gay marriage in a different category from the re-marriage of divorced people?

Whatever our viewpoints, I hope that our discussions can be charitable.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
When will somebody in a pointy hat, not obviously a maverick, get up and say, in so many words, 'being gay is not a sin: having sex with someone of your own sex is not a sin in circumstances where it would not be a sin if it were with a person of the opposite sex'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
I'm not going to engage with Oscar's permanently angry rants at me, I'm afraid.

As to the question "why are we in this process?" - the answer is that I'm not sure. But a bit like the OOW discussions, this is the only ball in play at present, so I guess we have to go with it. Those arguing for change are, I recognise, impatient. But the impatience is based on the presupposition that the Church must acquiesce in what Government has done and that it's pellucidly clear that we should introduce blessings and marriages into the CofE. But that's not where the whole Church is. So you have to win hearts and minds and achieve legislative and liturgical change (which of course go together). The conversations are prior to this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE] 1. ....how much serious harm the 'traditional teaching' has done

2. ..... and hear scripture as it is understood by the marginalised.

---

1. The Anglican church prides itself that its basis of belief and practice is tied to tradition. Are you saying that the whole basis of Anglicanism is flawed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
But don't take my word for it - get in touch with Colin Coward and ask him if he thinks he represents all of the LGBTI community.h, not just on their own behalf but on behalf of their now ex-partners, is an understatement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think this can be right. I treat my neighbour's cat with compassion and respect. I expect other people to treat the cat with compassion and respect. I don't think we're equal.
(It's a cat. Obviously it's superior! </obCatJoke>)

I think you're right about the consequences of an actual belief in equality, rather than the "compassion and respect" you describe here, but I don't think that's the only reason to be a passionate supporter of secular gay rights.

I don't think it's possible for a rational person to hold a deep and fundamental opinion of equality between homosexual and heterosexual relationships whilst thinking that homosexual ones are sinful. If you think that X is all right and proper in the eyes of God, but Y is a sin, you cannot possibly think that X and Y are equal.

On the other hand, if you start from a principle of liberty rather than equality, it makes perfect sense for you to think "Y is sinful, but people should be allowed to choose to do Y. (The Salvation Army requires its members to be teetotal. I haven't noticed them campaigning for prohibition recently.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
When will somebody in a pointy hat, not obviously a maverick, get up and say, in so many words, 'being gay is not a sin: having sex with someone of your own sex is not a sin in circumstances where it would not be a sin if it were with a person of the opposite sex'.

---

A bishop once told me the truth about this. He was a soon-to-retire bishop, so I guess he was probably a bit demob-happy. What he said was, "Look, I would love to say I'm in favour of equality for gay people in the Church. I am in favour of it. But if I said so publicly, then the four biggest evangelical churches in my diocese would stop paying their parish share tomorrow, and the diocese would be bankrupt in six months. So I can't."

I think it was the truth, because of course he thought that by telling me that I would despise him. Actually, I admired him. I think it's the only time a bishop has ever told me the truth on this issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

A person can support equal treatment out of tolerance, but few do, as it presupposes inequality, with the tolerated subordinate to the tolerator.

---

quote:

---

...vague ideals of fairness...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Byron:

quote:

---

...vague ideals of fairness...

---

There is nothing vague about a sense of fair play, as anyone in charge of distributing biscuits to a group of toddlers could tell you. In fact there is even some evidence that chimpanzees value fairness too - so perhaps it is hardwired into us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
I'm not going to engage with Oscar's permanently angry rants at me, I'm afraid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Those arguing for change are, I recognise, impatient. But the impatience is based on the presupposition that the Church must acquiesce in what Government has done and that it's pellucidly clear that we should introduce blessings and marriages into the CofE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The first reading at mass his evening was
nor homosexuals, ……. will inherit the kingdom of God.…

I wonder how many took this at face value - gays go to hell, not heaven.

Wouldn't it be good if bishops, as supreme pastors and teachers of the Church, explained that it depends what translation you read.

---

Why don't they just ban the translations you don't like and be done with it?
 

---

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
The use of the word "agenda" has clearly annoyed people. For which I apologise. In political circles, "agenda" does not have the pejorative connotations which it clearly has for some here. For me, it's a wholly positive thing. "This is my list of things that need to be addressed and may well need to be changed." When I run with an agenda, it's an agenda for what needs to be done in order to achieve a goal.

We clearly talk across a linguistic divide. I want campaigning groups to have an agenda. It helps me know what I'm being asked to address. If the word doesn't help you, find an alternative that you would prefer.
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
Apology accepted.

It's important to say that it's less a particular word, than the lack of awareness indicated by its use. Far more important that using or not "agenda" is having empathy with LGBT people, empathy reflected in actions.

The most important apology you could make wouldn't be to us, but, if you haven't already, to Jeffrey John. Followed, if he was willing, with the two of you sharing a platform to look for a way forward in which all Anglicans are included on equal terms.

Acts of solidarity and reconciliation like that would be the best way to signal a desire for change.
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
In other news, some woman is pregnant. Why should I care? I don't know the woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
....that it depends what translation you read.

---

quote:

---

The first reading at mass his evening was nor homosexuals, ……. will inherit the kingdom of God.…

---

quote:

---

We clearly talk across a linguistic divide. I want campaigning groups to have an agenda. It helps me know what I'm being asked to address. If the word doesn't help you, find an alternative that you would prefer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
You still haven't given me an alternative nomenclature for the "agenda" you dislike. Like it or not, campaigning for change in the Church is political. And, for all the requests for apologies (which as I said earlier I'm not about to engage with), it will actually be about what you want to achieve. If you want the Church to perform same sex marriages, it requires primary legislation. If you want a change in Canon B30, it requires an amending canon. If you want liturgies for blessings, it requires liturgical provision through General Synod. That, I take it, is your agenda for change. Or whatever word you prefer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
As I've not appointed myself God's mouthpiece, I've really no idea.

---

Byron, forgive me for any confusion here, but somehow from some other Purgatory thread, I thought you were an atheist, unless I'm just easily confused...
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Pete - don't you and the other bishops understand that you really don't have the time to fart around like this?

---

Um... why don't they? Shouldn't they take as much time as is needed? We're not talking about people being denied the ability to visit loved ones in the hospital under the law, we're talking about church doctrine and practice, aren't we?
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Or are you saying, Pete, that you have checked the teachings of all prospective bishops and have publicly objected to every one whose teachings you find lacking?

(Which of course raises the question: who the fuck are YOU to make such judgements?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
I agree with you about the 'two integrities' approach though; it didn't work with the ordination of women, merely prolonged the agony, as the fiasco over women bishops has shown.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
We are, as a general rule, able to disagree about ethical issues without making acceptance of one position or another some sort of acid test of Biblical orthodoxy. Remarriage after divorce is an excellent example, where some Christians hold it to be possible and in some cases worthy, and others that it is either impossible or sinful. The CofE manages that by permitting a free exercise of conscience. It does pretend, or need to pretend, that the Church speaks with one voice on the subject.

That would, quite obviously, work for gay marriage as well. We could import the whole theoretical structure without any substantial change, and let priests celebrate gay weddings if they were willing to do so, and to decline to do so if not. We know it's workable, because we've done it already.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
the Great Schism's going on for it's 1,000th birthday

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
While Paul may have taken on a fledgling sect and through sheer determination, bloodymindedness and hard work turned it into an empire-wide embryonic new faith, he was not Christ, he never met Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
In other news, some woman is pregnant. Why should I care? I don't know the woman.

---

From the same stable as "Car parked in garage" and "Doors to Manual?"

As a news item it's on a par with "pig bites man" - try "man bites pig" now that's news!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
I think you need to distinguish between the ravings of ultra-conservative Christian nutters like Dobson in the USA and the discussion/debate/campaign/listening in the CofE on this side of the pond. The two are not the same. To my knowledge, the terminology to which you object, citing a Wikipedia article, has never been part of the discourse in the UK. We have huge semantic difficulties in identifying what it is we are talking about, simply because both sides of the debate have ruined the vocabulary for the other. I'll stick with "agenda for change", because that's a perfectly legitimate political term for people formulating a list of gravamina and issues that people think need to be addressed. We won't be helped if we can't talk to each other because the vocabulary is tainted by the misuse of others.

---

quote:

---

We won't be helped if we can't talk to each other because the vocabulary is tainted by the misuse of others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist: While Paul may have taken on a fledgling sect and through sheer determination, bloodymindedness and hard work turned it into an empire-wide embryonic new faith, he was not Christ, he never met Jesus.

quote:

---

Apart from the Road to Damascus.

---

---

quote:

---

FWIW, and setting aside the question of offence for a moment, 'agenda for change' suggests something different to me than 'listening process'. On the one hand it suggests that you're planning to do something, which is good; but on the other, that you are only planning to consider a limited range of pre-determined issues and anything that isn't on the 'agenda for change' won't be considered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
If the HoB were trying to find a way to permanently alienate a large group of people they couldn't come up with a better approach.

---

Let's not forget that the people alienated are not just LGBT people, but also their parents, brothers and sisters, children, co-workers, friends and allies.

That's a lot of people.

Pilling recognised that this is a survival issue for the Church of England - although it used code words like "missiological challenge" - meaning that fewer and fewer people think we as a Church are worth listening to any more on anything, because we have discredited ourselves with well-publicised institutional discrimination, which has now been raised to an article of faith in far too many quarters. If pete173's dismissive comments on even such a niggardly concession as a process of listening are representative of the bishops - which I hope they aren't - they do not recognise that the listening process is, now, just as important for the Church as it is for LGBT people.

Wake up - the people we say we will listen to, one day, when we're ready, have largely moved on. The listening process is for our benefit as a church because it's a lifeline. If we don't grasp it, we drown. This isn't a special interest "LGBT agenda" discussion, pete173. It's about making disciples - or failing to.
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Spot on.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
bad man

What a misnomer - you are a good man

No, I don't forget the families and friends of LGBT members of the church, in fact I'm particularly concerned for the (mostly) ex-partners of those who married having been told/ advised to when they discussed their orientation with clergy.

In fact I'd say that this group, above all, deserve not only to be listened to but are owed, big time, by clergy in general and the HoB in particular for the very specific pain and upset they have suffered.

I'm thinking of one woman whose ex-partner was advised to 'marry himself straight' by a DDO who was ostracised by an entire parish when her marriage broke up - and she, noble soul that she is, didn't 'tell' because (as she puts it) 'it wasn't for me to out him to his parents and the parish'. Years later when she raised the subject with the by now ex-DDO his response was along the lines that there must have been something wrong with her for the 'marrying straight' strategy not to have worked.

A better /worse example of hubris, arrogance and uncharitableness is hard to imagine. And, of course, he went on to achieve very great seniority within the CofE hierarchy.
 

---

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
I think you need to distinguish between the ravings of ultra-conservative Christian nutters like Dobson in the USA and the discussion/debate/campaign/listening in the CofE on this side of the pond. The two are not the same. To my knowledge, the terminology to which you object, citing a Wikipedia article, has never been part of the discourse in the UK.

---

quote:

---

From the Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
...
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
...
But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
I think you need to distinguish between the ravings of ultra-conservative Christian nutters like Dobson in the USA and the discussion/debate/campaign/listening in the CofE on this side of the pond. The two are not the same. To my knowledge, the terminology to which you object, citing a Wikipedia article, has never been part of the discourse in the UK. We have huge semantic difficulties in identifying what it is we are talking about, simply because both sides of the debate have ruined the vocabulary for the other. I'll stick with "agenda for change", because that's a perfectly legitimate political term for people formulating a list of gravamina and issues that people think need to be addressed. We won't be helped if we can't talk to each other because the vocabulary is tainted by the misuse of others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist: While Paul may have taken on a fledgling sect and through sheer determination, bloodymindedness and hard work turned it into an empire-wide embryonic new faith, he was not Christ, he never met Jesus.

quote:

---

Apart from the Road to Damascus.

---

---

We've only his word for that - there are no independent witnesses.

If today I said I'd had a vision of, oooh, Julius Caesar, persisted in saying it and then started to transform my life around said self-reported vision I'd be wheeled in front of mental health professionals PDQ - and quite right too because it would likely be simple hallucination or a symptom of something.

We choose to/ want to believe that Paul 'saw' Jesus because otherwise what we're left with is someone having a mid-life, mid-career crisis who looked at an indecisive new sect and saw in it his potential salvation: new career, new life, chance to be a big fish in a small pond, etc.

---

quote:

---

...We have huge semantic difficulties in identifying what it is we are talking about, simply because both sides of the debate have ruined the vocabulary for the other. I'll stick with "agenda for change", because that's a perfectly legitimate political term for people formulating a list of gravamina and issues that people think need to be addressed. We won't be helped if we can't talk to each other because the vocabulary is tainted by the misuse of others.

---

quote:

---

...issues that people think need to be addressed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
What's really sad is that seem to believe this grudging, foot-dragging approach will somehow make splits/ schisms less likely and will keep conservatives 'on side'. Fact is, most theological conservatives view them as being spineless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
I think you need to distinguish between the ravings of ultra-conservative Christian nutters like Dobson in the USA and the discussion/debate/campaign/listening in the CofE on this side of the pond. The two are not the same. To my knowledge, the terminology to which you object, citing a Wikipedia article, has never been part of the discourse in the UK. We have huge semantic difficulties in identifying what it is we are talking about, simply because both sides of the debate have ruined the vocabulary for the other. I'll stick with "agenda for change", because that's a perfectly legitimate political term for people formulating a list of gravamina and issues that people think need to be addressed. We won't be helped if we can't talk to each other because the vocabulary is tainted by the misuse of others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The first reading at mass his evening was
nor homosexuals, ……. will inherit the kingdom of God.…

I wonder how many took this at face value - gays go to hell, not heaven.

Wouldn't it be good if bishops, as supreme pastors and teachers of the Church, explained that it depends what translation you read.

---

Why don't they just ban the translations you don't like and be done with it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
....that it depends what translation you read.

---

.... which depends on the perspective of the translator.

Throwing out the bits we don't agree on in your church are we Leo? perhaps you ought to ask your own Bishop to take the stance you suggest

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
a list of gravamina and issues that people think need to be addressed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
At first glance I thought this might be something drafted for inclusion in one of the funnier corners of Private Eye.

Your use of 'gravamina' sums up in a single word the depth of the problem: why use such an arcane legal term bishop?

At law it is usual for the plaintiff (petitioner or complainant if you prefer) to draft the complaint, not the defendant.

In seeking to have change effected regarding the church and its acceptance of LGBT people, it is LGBT people who are the plaintiffs, not the people who are seeking to resist or refuse such change.

...

But then the clue is buried in your post, isn't it?

quote:

---

...issues that people think need to be addressed.

---

You've finally said it: you don't think the 'issue' or 'agenda' needs to be addressed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
We clearly talk across a linguistic divide. I want campaigning groups to have an agenda. It helps me know what I'm being asked to address. If the word doesn't help you, find an alternative that you would prefer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
We choose to/ want to believe that Paul 'saw' Jesus because otherwise

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[...] Why is it that so many of us can see that the view on both sides of the debate is this: if we don't get our way, then we're off. [...]

---

That isn't the affirming position.

Our-way-or-the-highway would be, "Church equalizes marriage, then dismisses any priest/minister who refuses to wed same-sex couples."

I've never seen that demanded. What is advocated is an end to a bastardized reading of Issues ... (questions are most certainly asked), and the introduction of two integrities, with individual rectors and congregations allowed to exercise their conscience.

To understand the scale of the compromise LGBT Anglicans are willing to offer, imagine John Sentamu agreeing to appoint "alternative oversight" to congregations who believe in the Curse of Ham.

Of course, Sentamu would never be asked to do any such thing, which just goes to illustrate how far the church has yet to travel.
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
In fact, of you are talking about celebrating SSMs, there are already conscience clauses for clergy in respect of remarriage of divorcees and I think marriage to a deceased spouse's sibling: IIRC no cleric is obliged to marry a couple under such circumstances, but s/he must make the parish church available if they can find a cleric who will marry them. that would be the model to adopt. It's not even alternative oversight.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I just wonder what Stephen Verney would have made of all this
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Oh yes, I'd forgotten about him. The late Anthony Crockett (+ Bangor) and I think the new Bishop of Hereford are/ were also either divorced and remarried or are/were married to divorcees- and isn't Nick Holtam (+ Salisbury) who has supported SSM too?
BTW, has +Pete ever had anything to say about his episcopal brother of Edmonton, whose domestic arrangements appear to be much the samee as those of Jeffery John?
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Over many years on this SHip, Pete has steadfastly refused to admit that any clergy in the CofE are gay or have partners. He has been repeatedly challenged to show what action he has taken to discipline those under him who are gay or have partners and simply fell silent every time, I suspect because to enact discipline he would have to admit the problem.

John
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh yes, I'd forgotten about him. The late Anthony Crockett (+ Bangor) and I think the new Bishop of Hereford are/ were also either divorced and remarried or are/were married to divorcees- and isn't Nick Holtam (+ Salisbury) who has supported SSM too?
BTW, has +Pete ever had anything to say about his episcopal brother of Edmonton, whose domestic arrangements appear to be much the samee as those of Jeffery John?

---

Good question. I just read the Wiki on Peter Wheatley. It sounds exactly like Jeffrey John's situation- a gay clergyman living celibately with his partner. Is the difference that Wheatley has said that gay sex is sinful? (And has he actually said that explicitly, anyway?) I especially think that it's rich that he discriminates against female clergy. What a piece of work.
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
BTW, has +Pete ever had anything to say about his episcopal brother of Edmonton, whose domestic arrangements appear to be much the samee as those of Jeffery John?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE] A pastoral listening to LGBTs who have been damaged by the church's 'traditional' teaching - I am thinking of a suicide and a self-harmer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]

1. Rome has good guidance about why we need to preach and explain rather than excise holy writ.

2. Trouble is, we don't usually preach at a 7pm low mass on a weekday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
BTW, has +Pete ever had anything to say about his episcopal brother of Edmonton, whose domestic arrangements appear to be much the samee as those of Jeffery John?

---

Oh he lives in St Albans too? That's not close to Edmonton but I suppose one might commute

---

 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by leo:
[qb] [QUOTE]

1. Rome has good guidance about why we need to preach and explain rather than excise holy writ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE] A pastoral listening to LGBTs who have been damaged by the church's 'traditional' teaching - I am thinking of a suicide and a self-harmer.

---

True and very sad. It all goes to demonstrate that there's no pastoral listening to anyone who's been damaged by the church whatever their sexuality: damaged people across the board get the impression that they are a disposable commodity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
What's really sad is that seem to believe this grudging, foot-dragging approach will somehow make splits/ schisms less likely and will keep conservatives 'on side'. Fact is, most theological conservatives view them as being spineless.

---

This one certainly does and knows of many likewise in the CofE who believe the main thing. Why is it that so many of us can see that the view on both sides of the debate is this: if we don't get our way, then we're off.

---

• We don't want your oversight - no the bishop is not welcome.
• We will preach creationism and no, we won't accept the possibility of an alternative viewpoint.
• We will hold to a doctrine of 'headship' so no, the female Area Dean is not welcome either - in fact we'll refuse to speak to her.
• We will continue to refuse marriage to those couples living in our parish of whom we diapprove.
• We will continue to perform weddings using a form of service we have devised, regardless of the fact that it doesn't fulfil the requirements of the relevant Canons.
• We will continue to actively preach against LGBT people and anyone else of whose lifestyle we disapprove.
• We will carry on with our HR policies which flagrantly ignore the provisions of the law of the land.

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The first reading at mass his evening was
nor homosexuals, ……. will inherit the kingdom of God.…

I wonder how many took this at face value - gays go to hell, not heaven.

Wouldn't it be good if bishops, as supreme pastors and teachers of the Church, explained that it depends what translation you read.

---

Why don't they just ban the translations you don't like and be done with it?

---

Because, for convenience, we use the missal which had all the readings set out over a two year cycle together with the psalms and collects.

So we're struck with the translation already printed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Hi Leo sorry for tone of original comment (bit harsh)
Thinking about it, would it have been possible to do the reading from an alt translation and introducing it with comment along the lines of "the Epistle will be read from the X version this evening instead of the version printed in your service book as it brings out the meaning far more accurately"?

---

quote:

---

I would like to think, btw, that if I had been Fr Cain of West Hampstead my response would have been 'At least I've made an honest man of him, my Lord Bishop...'

---

How many years is it since my old friend Eric James 'came out' live on television? And we still have the House of Bishops carrying on the noble CofE tradition of trying to be all-things-to-all-men, causing pain to thousands but carrying on with their goal of legislative correctness at all costs.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Eric was a man of great integrity and I feel privileged to have known him.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Amen to that, leo.
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Whatever happened to pastoral care?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]It is quite likely that the priest didn't look at the passage or think about if beforehand - indeed, it the epistle is usually read by a lay person but she didn't turn up that day so the priest would have picked it up after the collect when he realised she wasn't there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:


1. And while at first glance .....

2. In short, they want the umbrella - more realistically they want the building, house and paid salary -

3. but they hold the hierarchy and most of their supposedly fellow CofE members in contempt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Whatever side one may take about disestablishment, currently the C of be claims to be the conscience of the nation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]It is quite likely that the priest didn't look at the passage or think about if beforehand - indeed, it the epistle is usually read by a lay person but she didn't turn up that day so the priest would have picked it up after the collect when he realised she wasn't there.

---

Er, they are set readings - doesn't the priest prepare properly by reading the scriptural setting for that day's service?????

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE] 1. No - the lectionary sets the reradings.

2. A priest should prepare for Sundays when preaching. But this was a Tuesday. Do you expect a minister to look up 6* readings and 3 psalms in advance?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]It is quite likely that the priest didn't look at the passage or think about if beforehand - indeed, it the epistle is usually read by a lay person but she didn't turn up that day so the priest would have picked it up after the collect when he realised she wasn't there.

---

Er, they are set readings - doesn't the priest prepare properly by reading the scriptural setting for that day's service?????

---

No - the lectionary sets the reradings.

A priest should prepare for Sundays when preaching.

But this was a Tuesday. Do you expect a minister to look up 6* readings and 3 psalms in advance?

* Morning Prayer - 2 readings plus a psalm
Evening Prayer - 2 readings plus a psalm
The eucharist - 2 readings plus a psalm

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
If you're just going to mouth the readings then what's the point?

---

Why would reading them at the time one is reading them aloud, rather than reading them twice in the same day/week, be "mouthing the readings"??
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Don't think I would if I were saying the office by myself- in fact, I don't, when I do say the office. But certainly yes, for public worship: if only because you are going to be reading them out loud.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE] 1. No - the lectionary sets the reradings.

2. A priest should prepare for Sundays when preaching. But this was a Tuesday. Do you expect a minister to look up 6* readings and 3 psalms in advance?

---

1. As I said, the readings are set. By what or whom is immaterial: they are set.

2. Yes. It's called adequate and informed preparation and its honouring to God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

[...] One con evo friend asked me what he should do: I suggested he step away from a bishop who he can't see as a believer and basically run on a congregational model as a community church meeting in a local hall. After all the church's giving is more than enough to support the staff and activities. he should put his convictions where his mouth is.

---

quote:

---

Clergy have several calls upon their time in addition to the daily offices and eucharist. I doubt very much that many clergy make time for 'preparing' readings on weekdays.

---

• speed-reading
• time management

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
I first felt that the writings of Paul should be separated from the rest of the Bible when I was in confirmation classes nearly 50 years ago.

The passage of time has done nothing to dissuade me from that view, rather it has strengthened it. And the rest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
As I've not appointed myself God's mouthpiece, I've really no idea.

---

Byron, forgive me for any confusion here, but somehow from some other Purgatory thread, I thought you were an atheist, unless I'm just easily confused...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by leo

quote:

---

Clergy have several calls upon their time in addition to the daily offices and eucharist. I doubt very much that many clergy make time for 'preparing' readings on weekdays.

---

We're not talking hours here: its a simple case of finding 10-15 minutes to cast an eye over the readings - you can ruminate on them at your leisure later when doing more mundane things, such a driving, washing up, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]It is quite likely that the priest didn't look at the passage or think about if beforehand - indeed, it the epistle is usually read by a lay person but she didn't turn up that day so the priest would have picked it up after the collect when he realised she wasn't there.

---

Er, they are set readings - doesn't the priest prepare properly by reading the scriptural setting for that day's service?????

---

No - the lectionary sets the reradings.

A priest should prepare for Sundays when preaching.

But this was a Tuesday. Do you expect a minister to look up 6* readings and 3 psalms in advance?

* Morning Prayer - 2 readings plus a psalm
Evening Prayer - 2 readings plus a psalm
The eucharist - 2 readings plus a psalm

---

If you're just going to mouth the readings then what's the point?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
[...] The answer is to follow in the train of the theologians who figured out the earlier puzzles. [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
As I've not appointed myself God's mouthpiece, I've really no idea.

---

Byron, forgive me for any confusion here, but somehow from some other Purgatory thread, I thought you were an atheist, unless I'm just easily confused...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
[...] The answer is to follow in the train of the theologians who figured out the earlier puzzles. [...]

---

When did that happen?

Christians didn't stop supporting slavery because a group of exegetical geniuses cooked up some ingenious anti-slavery hermeneutic: no such interpretive lens has been created. Christians turned their backs on the "peculiar institution" due to a lack of convincing reasons to justify its cruelty (helped along by industrialization).

In short, change in the church is driven by change in society, with justifications thought up along the way. However you want to describe it, it's not the Bible taking the lead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Byron, forgive me for any confusion here, but somehow from some other Purgatory thread, I thought you were an atheist, unless I'm just easily confused...

---

This is a question I, too, would be interested to hear answered.

---

Please, not the comfy chair!

I answered ChastMastr via PM, as I didn't want to interrupt the flow of the thread at that time.

To repeat it here: along with millions of other Christians, I don't believe in an interventionist sky-god. I am, in terms of evidence, agnostic, and my faith hovers between Paul Tillich and Don Cupitt.

Given your defense of revealed authority, do I understand correctly that you take a more traditional position? If so, as I don't believe in biblical authority (moreover, consider authoritarianism to be, to put it mildly, undesirable), I'm not about to argue it from your perspective, anymore than I'd expect you to argue it from mine.
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Even if you're right, the Bible is still taken along for the ride rather than being thrown out.

---

Absolutely, which is why the hysterical cries of doom from the religious right are so absurd. No Christian is going to "throw out" the Bible; what they will do is read, and apply, it differently.

To see protestants demand uniformity of biblical interpretation is, surely, irony in perfection!
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Byron wrote:

quote:

---

...I don't believe in biblical authority (moreover, consider authoritarianism to be, to put it mildly, undesirable...

---

Where did you do your catechesis? That's not the meaning of authority that anyone I know understands in the context of "biblical authority".

quote:

---

3. An influence exerted on opinion because of recognized knowledge or expertise - (also) such an influence expressed in a book , quotation etc. [OED]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Where did you do your catechesis? That's not the meaning of authority that anyone I know understands in the context of "biblical authority".

---

quote:

---

The phone directory is the authority on phone numbers in your area. Using it doesn't make you an authoritarian! That would be a category error.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
…I'm not about to argue it from your perspective, anymore than I'd expect you to argue it from mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Given your defense of revealed authority, do I understand correctly that you take a more traditional position?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Thank you for your last direct answer.

This was pretty much were I thought we would land. There really isn't enough in common for us have a coherent discussion.

For example, I read "interventionist sky-god" as cant without content. Despite your protestation to the contrary, being agnostic about the bible as revelatory text denies, in fact, its revelatory character. These two, among the others, show you to be arguing against a Cartoon Christianity. I won't be a foil for you. [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
[QUOTE]I think something like that is being built at Latimer Minster?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE] 1. Do we want our clergy to 'prepare' 74 readings per week?

2. Any clergy prepared to comment?

Any laity prepared to give some slack?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]So is visiting the sick and housebound. Clergy have several calls upon their time in addition to the daily offices and eucharist. I doubt very much that many clergy make time for 'preparing' readings on weekdays.

---

quote:

---

Byron begins a quick sketch:
…three-tiered universe…

---

quote:

---

…people can disagree with biblical authority not out of intellectual laziness, but conviction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE] 1. Do we want our clergy to 'prepare' 74 readings per week?

2. Any clergy prepared to comment?

Any laity prepared to give some slack?

---

1. Yes - it's their calling: besides which many don't have to do all those services.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by leo

quote:

---

Clergy have several calls upon their time in addition to the daily offices and eucharist. I doubt very much that many clergy make time for 'preparing' readings on weekdays.

---

We're not talking hours here: its a simple case of finding 10-15 minutes to cast an eye over the readings - you can ruminate on them at your leisure later when doing more mundane things, such a driving, washing up, etc.

---

For goodness sake.

The reading I referred to was meant to be read by a lay woman who didn't turn up - so the priest stepped in at 10 seconds notice,

Weekdays = 36 readings and 18 psalms

Sundays = 7 readings and 3 psalms

= 74 readings

Do we want our clergy to 'prepare' 74 readings per week?

Any clergy prepared to comment?

Any laity prepared to give some slack?

---

• issued a letter from Canterbury and York announcing that there was to be discussion about attitudes towards LGBTI people - all people, not just Christians - at parish level
• diocesans would have issued a letter to parishes asking that they arrange meetings/ discussions within a certain time-frame - I'd have suggested by Trinity Sunday 2014 - with informal vote being taken approving SSM and/or blessing of SS civil partnerships
• open sessions of diocesan synods should have taken place straight after the parish discussions and views reported up to General Synod so that
• discussion papers could be prepared for GS members by the end of October 2014
• General Synod to act on both diocesan discussions and AGM votes to propose and vote on enabling legislation for SSM and for blessing of SS civil partnerships in Summer or autumn of 2015

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
[QUOTE]I think something like that is being built at Latimer Minster?

---

Well, as "Latimer" is described as "... an exciting group of talented people called by God to serve the church" ... I think it's very very different. For a start the place I'm thinking of doesn't have a trendy couple with Oxford backgrounds leading it.

I don't have much time for that type of self praising church planting. They'll always get the support they need - others aren't quite so lucky with support esp if you are in rural ministry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
There are many things about the whole SSM saga which are profoundly depressing - or enraging, depending on your point of view - but IMO the worst by a mile is the lack of any sense of urgency, and that is doing as much, if not more, damage to the image and opinion of the CofE in the wider world as anything else.

Wake up, CofE: the rest of the world moves at a swifter pace than Trollope and so should you.

---

(Ho hum - no time for anything more. Time to get back in the car and keep moving on...)
 

---

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
L'organist:

quote:

---

If ++Justin, Synod, etc, really wanted to speak to people about Pilling they would have done the following... [detailed timetable from parish-level discussions to General Synod legislation snipped]
That timetable is entirely realistic...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
That's a great timetable (and somebody should put you in charge of the 'listening process') but what makes you think that it would inevitably result in a framework for approval of SSM/blessings for civil partnerships? From where I'm sitting, most of the House of Bishops still seem to be denying the existence of (would-be) faithful Anglicans who think SSM should be allowed.

---

quote:

---

And the C of E is in a unique position here; any other Christian denomination can restrict the provision of SSM to their own members. The C of E has a statutory duty to marry anyone in the parish (assuming that they are legally allowed to get married), so we do have to consider what to do about non-Anglicans who want to be married in church. Personally I would get round this by removing the statutory duty and allowing each parish to set its own rules, but then I'm in favour of disestablishment as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
If ++Justin, Synod, etc, really wanted to speak to people about Pilling they would have done the following:

• issued a letter from Canterbury and York announcing that there was to be discussion about attitudes towards LGBTI people - all people, not just Christians - at parish level
• diocesans would have issued a letter to parishes asking that they arrange meetings/ discussions within a certain time-frame - I'd have suggested by Trinity Sunday 2014 - with informal vote being taken approving SSM and/or blessing of SS civil partnerships
• open sessions of diocesan synods should have taken place straight after the parish discussions and views reported up to General Synod so that
• discussion papers could be prepared for GS members by the end of October 2014
• General Synod to act on both diocesan discussions and AGM votes to propose and vote on enabling legislation for SSM and for blessing of SS civil partnerships in Summer or autumn of 2015

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Does anyone happen to know what the position in Scotland is with regard to (i) SSM and (ii) who the CofS can, and (if anyone) must, marry?

---

quote:

---

That's a great timetable (and somebody should put you in charge of the 'listening process') but what makes you think that it would inevitably result in a framework for approval of SSM/blessings for civil partnerships? From where I'm sitting, most of the House of Bishops still seem to be denying the existence of (would-be) faithful Anglicans who think SSM should be allowed.

---

quote:

---

What's baffling me is what the bishops hope to achieve by walking into a conversation talking about good disagreement and understanding the other point of view when they clearly have no intention of making the changes that naturally flow from doing this. Have they made a mistake, and are they going to respond by looking stupid and hypocritical or by doing things that are more liberal than they want to?

---

quote:

---

Surely there's an analogy with divorce here. The unmarried have an automatic right to get married, but for divorcees it's at the discretion of the vicar. Gays could be lumped in with divorcees. This is obviously a hassle for gays who only have connections with homophobic parishes, but it's a fudge that can be administered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
*Leon*, thus:

quote:

---

Surely there's an analogy with divorce here. The unmarried have an automatic right to get married, but for divorcees it's at the discretion of the vicar. Gays could be lumped in with divorcees. This is obviously a hassle for gays who only have connections with homophobic parishes, but it's a fudge that can be administered.

---

Indeed. But IIRC it's not really at the discretion of the vicar for divorcees (and I think those marrying their deceased spouse's sibling)- the couple are in a stronger position than that: the parish church must be made available if the couple can find a priest who is willing to marry them.

---

quote:

---

Surely there's an analogy with divorce here. The unmarried have an automatic right to get married, but for divorcees it's at the discretion of the vicar. Gays could be lumped in with divorcees. This is obviously a hassle for gays who only have connections with homophobic parishes, but it's a fudge that can be administered. (Whether or not the CofE rules on marriage are more generally in need of reform is a separate question to which the answer is 'yes')

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by *Leon*

quote:

---

What's baffling me is what the bishops hope to achieve by walking into a conversation talking about good disagreement and understanding the other point of view when they clearly have no intention of making the changes that naturally flow from doing this. Have they made a mistake, and are they going to respond by looking stupid and hypocritical or by doing things that are more liberal than they want to?

---

Agreed, that is one source of bafflement, and here's another:

We have the bishops supposedly starting their 'facilitated conversation' and willing to listen to both sides.

WTF - here are two bishops - Inwood and Wheatley - who have just called in two clergymen to reprimand them for contracting a civil marriage, but we're asked to believe they're approaching the issue with open minds.

WTF pt 2 - here is an Archbishop who has approved and given his blessing to Inwood in his taking action that prevents a cleric from taking up a job and exercising his ministry - gosh, what a broadminded archbishop.

WTF pt 3 - we're asked to further suspend disbelief for Birkenhead - he who's already shown he will misquote or misattribute to support his Paisleyite objections to SSM or any kind of recognition that people who are LGBT are deserving of respect.

You couldn't make it up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
Surely the whole point of such conversations is that all concerned come at the issue from entrenched positions and are unconvinced of the good faith of their opponents. It would be quite nice if the C of E's position on SSM could be thrashed out over a couple of gins by Colin Coward, Jeffrey John and Vicky Beeching but realistically, if we're going to get anywhere, we are going to have to convince the unconvinced.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Its questionable to what extent they bankroll the church - there are a significant number of evo parishes that don't make their parish share, some because they can't afford and others because they consider they can use the money more wisely.

I agree that the remainder do seem to be of a mindset that he who pays the piper etc: but maybe its time the bluff was called.

Quite apart from anything else, it seems a bit rich for them to be calling down hell-fire and brimstone on the heads of LGBT people and citing the 'authority' of scripture when they as churches more often than not refuse to acknowledge or obey the authority of bishops.

Funny old world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
[QUOTE

1. If we're going to get anywhere, we are going to have to convince the unconvinced .... depends what we're trying to convince them of.

2. Evangelicals are convinced that homosexuality is a sin, and a "salvation issue," and supporting it would, in their eyes, be incompatible with Christianity.

3. You'd have more chance of convincing them to reconsider the divinity of Christ.

4. They may, against their own instincts, be persuaded to support "two integrities," but only on political, not theological, grounds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Part of the sadness as an outsider to the CofE is the recognition that "evangelical" is increasingly used as a term of abuse. It's become worthless with every side claiming it and very few seeming to be it.

---

quote:

---

Part of the sadness as an outsider to the CofE is the recognition that "evangelical" is increasingly used as a term of abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
1. To convince the unconvinced means them throwing away every vestige of what they believe. Would supporters of SSM be prepared to do that too?

2. That's the nub of the argument.

3. There's no chance of that - even considering it suggests that you aren't (probably) an evangelical

4. I doubt it. Most feel so strongly about the issue that they will leave altogether, join another denomination or withdraw funding (declare UDI).

However much gin Jeffrey John, Vicki Beeching and Colin Coward drink - their views will just float past most people whose minds are made up.

Part of the sadness as an outsider to the CofE is the recognition that "evangelical" is increasingly used as a term of abuse. It's become worthless with every side claiming it and very few seeming to be it.

---

A small point: no problem with you reformatting my post for clarity, but next time, could you please make it clearer that it's an edit? Thanks.

Sure, a majority of evangelicals may up and leave the church if it adopts "two integrities." If that's gonna happen, best it finds out now, and splits as smoothly as possible.

Gotta say, it's a strange field on which to take a moral stand. Church of England already tolerates sexual relationships between LGB couples; it's in full communion with churches that bless them (TEC, & Scandinavian Lutheran churches). Evangelicals haven't waged a war against this, have they?

Why draw the line at tolerance coming out the closet?
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

Gotta say, it's a strange field on which to take a moral stand. Church of England already tolerates sexual relationships between LGB couples; it's in full communion with churches that bless them (TEC, & Scandinavian Lutheran churches). Evangelicals haven't waged a war against this, have they?

Why draw the line at tolerance coming out the closet?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

Gotta say, it's a strange field on which to take a moral stand. Church of England already tolerates sexual relationships between LGB couples; it's in full communion with churches that bless them (TEC, & Scandinavian Lutheran churches). Evangelicals haven't waged a war against this, have they?

Why draw the line at tolerance coming out the closet?

---

I could probably make a case for "tolerating LGB relationships..." being a reasonable position if you thought homosexuality was probably wrong, but weren't sure, whereas endorsing such relationships (by performing SSM, allowing priests to be in a SSM etc.) needs you to think that homosexuality is at least probably OK.

This doesn't seem like a terribly con-evo way to think, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I could probably make a case for "tolerating LGB relationships..." being a reasonable position if you thought homosexuality was probably wrong, but weren't sure, whereas endorsing such relationships (by performing SSM, allowing priests to be in a SSM etc.) needs you to think that homosexuality is at least probably OK.

This doesn't seem like a terribly con-evo way to think, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But con-evos already 'endorse' divorce by allowing priests to be divorced and marriages of divorcees to take place in church. Why one approach towards divorce and another towards SSM? Makes no sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
1. To convince the unconvinced means them throwing away every vestige of what they believe. Would supporters of SSM be prepared to do that too?

2. That's the nub of the argument.

3. There's no chance of that - even considering it suggests that you aren't (probably) an evangelical

4. I doubt it. Most feel so strongly about the issue that they will leave altogether, join another denomination or withdraw funding (declare UDI).

However much gin Jeffrey John, Vicki Beeching and Colin Coward drink - their views will just float past most people whose minds are made up.

Part of the sadness as an outsider to the CofE is the recognition that "evangelical" is increasingly used as a term of abuse. It's become worthless with every side claiming it and very few seeming to be it.

---

A small point: no problem with you reformatting my post for clarity, but next time, could you please make it clearer that it's an edit? Thanks.

Sure, a majority of evangelicals may up and leave the church if it adopts "two integrities." If that's gonna happen, best it finds out now, and splits as smoothly as possible.

Gotta say, it's a strange field on which to take a moral stand. Church of England already tolerates sexual relationships between LGB couples; it's in full communion with churches that bless them (TEC, & Scandinavian Lutheran churches). Evangelicals haven't waged a war against this, have they?

Why draw the line at tolerance coming out the closet?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Two points, Byron --

First, the CofE is nearly unique in global Anglicanism (if one can speak of such a thing) in that evangelicals are still inside the tent. In some parts they left years ago, in others they appear to own the tent. In either case, the "church" doesn't have to do what the CofE seems to feel it must and hold two incompatible entities in unity. This explains, I think, the apparent inability ot CofE leaders (see Rowen WIlliams, for example) to understand that they look a lot of right prats to the the rest of us (on both sides). And the utter incomprehension with which most of us observe the CofE tying itself in knots -- with no Alexander in sight.

---

quote:

---

Second, evangelicals in the CofE -- like the CofE itself, and many of the English for that matter -- is firmly convinced that they alone matter. No experience from outside (outside whatever box or community you're talking about) could possibly have anything to do with what they (again, not just the evangelical they) are about. The fact that other parts of anglicanism have had female bishops for decades mattered not a whit in the CofE debate; the fact that the CofE is in full communion with groups that accept LGBT people matters not in the least. Because those are outside evangelicalism in the Cof E, or outside the CofE, or outside England (depending again on which box you're in) and therefore they don't matter, and so effectively they are imaginary and don't exist. See again, as an example, Rowen Williams' attitude to TEC and the Anglican CHurch of Canada.

John

---

Parochialism's the elite's other curse. Guess it comes from living on an island.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
[QUOTE

1. If we're going to get anywhere, we are going to have to convince the unconvinced .... depends what we're trying to convince them of.

2. Evangelicals are convinced that homosexuality is a sin, and a "salvation issue," and supporting it would, in their eyes, be incompatible with Christianity.

3. You'd have more chance of convincing them to reconsider the divinity of Christ.

4. They may, against their own instincts, be persuaded to support "two integrities," but only on political, not theological, grounds.

---

1. To convince the unconvinced means them throwing away every vestige of what they believe. Would supporters of SSM be prepared to do that too?

2. That's the nub of the argument.

3. There's no chance of that - even considering it suggests that you aren't (probably) an evangelical

4. I doubt it. Most feel so strongly about the issue that they will leave altogether, join another denomination or withdraw funding (declare UDI).

However much gin Jeffrey John, Vicki Beeching and Colin Coward drink - their views will just float past most people whose minds are made up.

Part of the sadness as an outsider to the CofE is the recognition that "evangelical" is increasingly used as a term of abuse. It's become worthless with every side claiming it and very few seeming to be it.

---

quote:

---

As entryism goes, it's been as sucessful as the religious right's takeover of the GOP

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Byron wrote:-

quote:

---

As entryism goes, it's been as sucessful as the religious right's takeover of the GOP

---

Hardly. Whilst never having been an evangelical, I would have to acknowledge that evangelicalism in the CofE goes right back to the reformation. And so does the stay vs. go argument within evangelicalism.

It has been the dominant force at times, e.g. during the evangelical revival. Plenty of other currents in the CofE can more accurately be described as entryist, but not evangelicalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Yep, and this is 'cause, in the late Sixties, English evangelicals deliberately chose to stay in the Church of England en masse and influence its policy.

---

quote:

---

For Stott, separation was not a feasible option as Anglican evangelicals were
presented with a golden opportunity to increase their influence within the
Church of England.

---

Not: "separation was not a feasible option as splitting a church is wrong."

I'll keep reading to find out if the initial impression I get from that statement is justified or not. Nevertheless, I'm not entirely sure I'd be free of factionalism, church-splitting, and influence-pedalling and -mongering myself if push came to shove on issues that I care about.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Anyone heard any responses to the Bishops new trialing material?
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
My spy-in-a-palace reports when their boss got back home he headed straight for strong drink
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Probably the most appropriate place to ask - what's the policy on clergy in civil partnerships and child-rearing?
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Crap spouted by Albertus:
Standard 'high grid, high group' behaviour: when you feel under attack, draw your boundaries and identify an external enemy who must be resisted at all costs.

---

quote:

---

Crap spouted by Jade Constable:
Probably the most appropriate place to ask - what's the policy on clergy in civil partnerships and child-rearing?

---

quote:

---

Yep, and this is 'cause, in the late Sixties, ***l*** evangelicals deliberately chose to stay in the Church of ***land en masse and influence its policy.

---

quote:

---

Crap spouted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Crap spouted by Albertus:
Standard 'high grid, high group' behaviour: when you feel under attack, draw your boundaries and identify an external enemy who must be resisted at all costs.

---

You're thinking of 'low grid, high group' behaviour.

---

quote:

---

Crap spouted by Horseman Bree:

quote:

---

Crap spouted by Jade Constable:
Probably the most appropriate place to ask - what's the policy on clergy in civil partnerships and child-rearing?

---

* would have to assume that, since gays/lesbians do not ***age in procreative activities (or so the high priests say), they do not have to consider child-rearing by "that kind of person".

The hierarchy would like to appear to be out of touch, whatever glimmerings of public opinion may leak into their minds.

And civil partnerships are not a religious issue, since any heathen can take part in one, or, for that matter, register one. See: previous paragraph.

Why does the church maintain a hierarchy that is so obtuse? Perhaps a proper Reformation is needed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
This must be a new and interesting definition of 'entryism', with which I was not hitherto familiar. It's not actually entryism to remain part of a body of which one is already a member and which one had previously joined in good faith.

---

Fair point, but pre-Keeble, it's debatable if the majority of evangelicals were really "in," or just using the Church of England as the best boat to fish from. Post-'67, they were fully committed, and set on moving to the center of the organization.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
FYI There is an excellent article in The Church Times about Pilling, focusing particularly on ths confusion within the report and the less than clear or logical extrapolations made.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Yes - I commend that article.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
What I find particularly disturbing is the way that the emphasis shifts on the reasons for objection to SSM.

Talk to an evangelical about marriage and the subject of sex comes up very quickly - although maybe couched in language about children. They will tell you that one of the most important things about marriage is that it is a 'building block of society', they'll talk about 'family life' and certainly allude to the importance of a sexual relationship as being something God wanted us to have and to take pleasure in and from.

Even the good old CofE refers to the aspect of pleasure in relationship to sex:

quote:

---

from the Preface of the Marriage Service
... brings husband and wife together in the delight and tenderness of sexual union...

---

quote:

---

also holds institutional memberships in the Evangelical Alliance (EA), and with the International Federation for Therapeutic Choice (IFTC), a branch of the USA-based National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Alas, with a couple of the bishops I fear we shouldn't under-estimate their levels of prurience but maybe the rest could restrain them

---

(Mouth appears to go dry, and with a suggestion of awkward, barely hidden eagerness...)

I, uh, I'd be up for that.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 

 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Maybe the answer is to greet every bishop we have dealings with or meet * with bright, breezy and determined questions about their sex life or, if they're unmarried, nice loud questions about how they're coping with celibacy.

I suspect they won't like it - well, neither would I but is it fair for them to try to impose this sort of thing on others if they wouldn't be happy with it themselves.

Alas, with a couple of the bishops I fear we shouldn't under-estimate their levels of prurience but maybe the rest could restrain them within the bounds of polite behaviour.

*[Informally I tried this with a bishop (now retired) I knew well: he went very red, looked as if he'd swallowed a wasp and I've since had a note to say that a repeat will see me crossed off his Christmas card list.]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Related to this (I think) was a poster spotted in my church this evening. Our local Evangelical Association is advertising a meeting with the headline: Human Sexuality, discerning a Biblical vision. It promises to help prepare you with an orthodox perspective for the planned "Conversations" (their "", not mine) within the CofE. much to change my view. Perhaps it's the only way the CofE decided they could make things work.

---

quote:

---

LGBTI people should be represented by more than one person in each diocesan group.

---

quote:

---

I know I lean naturally towards the cynical, but this isn't doing much to change my view. Perhaps it's the only way the CofE decided they could make things work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Back when I was a student UCCF produced a booklet entitled "Homosexuality - A Christian Option?". They withdrew the first print run because the ? had been left off the cover, which did not give the impression they wished to convey.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Jemima the 9th

quote:

---

I know I lean naturally towards the cynical, but this isn't doing much to change my view. Perhaps it's the only way the CofE decided they could make things work.

---

Its the only way the bishops can see of achieving their goal - which is to keep sitting on the fence.

The reason is that they're running scared of challenging the homophobia in the ranks, especially among evangelicals: and many of the bishops have firmly closed minds in any case. Plus there is likely to be latent homophobia among the mitres as well - did I say Birkenhead?

What they're absolutely terrified of is that someone with good contacts gets terminally pi**ed off with them and leaks the names of gay bishops and their partners to, say, Stonewall.

Some must be getting jittery at the very least, bearing in mind that even The Daily Mail has managed to 'uncover' and get photographs of the lover of Kieran Conroy, RC Bishop of Arundel and Brighton - press and freelance photographers on the loose in the supermarkets of Brighton and Hove can only be a cause of anxiety.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm not sure what practical purpose outing any Bishops would serve. It might vent some ire at those who block others but is it "a heavy heart" or pique?

When I say "I'm not sure" that's not rhetorical, I'm really not close to the situation, but my assumption is any exposed Bishops would be replaced by even more homophobic Bishops. Is this not the case?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rajm:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Back when I was a student UCCF produced a booklet entitled "Homosexuality - A Christian Option?". They withdrew the first print run because the ? had been left off the cover, which did not give the impression they wished to convey.

---

This was Grove Books rather than UCCF - unless UCCF made a similar error!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
One in 10 Church of England bishops 'could be secretly gay' – says bishop (Daily Telegraph)

I haven't been following this thread partiularly closely, so apologies if this 'news item' interrupts the flow, but didn't want to start a new thread just to bring this link to your attention!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I read the proposal as saying:

quote:

---

LGBTI people should be represented by more than one person in each diocesan group.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
When a number of conservative closet gay politicians were outed after passing anti-gay legislation I could see the point. If nothing else, it scuppered the careers of those who concel their own activity by persecuting. Justification for doing so seemed to involve active damage done by the individual and not merely going along with the malic of others.

I'm not sure what practical purpose outing any Bishops would serve. It might vent some ire at those who block others but is it "a heavy heart" or pique?

When I say "I'm not sure" that's not rhetorical, I'm really not close to the situation, but my assumption is any exposed Bishops would be replaced by even more homophobic Bishops. Is this not the case?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
One in 10 Church of England bishops 'could be secretly gay' – says bishop (Daily Telegraph)

I haven't been following this thread partiularly closely, so apologies if this 'news item' interrupts the flow, but didn't want to start a new thread just to bring this link to your attention!

---

What? Only 1 in 10. I bet it's more than that.

---

How so, leo?

(Just interested in how you come to the conclusion, not in "outing" anyone).
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Honest Ron

I'm feeling a little naughty today but I may have found the answer to your question.

Scroll down to The Bishop's Gambit section in this link, and all will be revealed.

(I think the last two quotes may have been misplaced)

[ 29. September 2014, 17:01: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Tsk, Barnabas62!

On the subject of outing, it's been done before of course. I think the main power about outing is in the threat of it, not the doing of it, which can backfire.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Barnabas 62

As Chaucer would say Ful ofte in game a sooth I have herd saye.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

They should be outed because the teaching and discipline that springs from their self-oppression is toxic, not good news and they tend to do wiotch hunts on others.

They need not be 'replaced' - just living in the open air might be healthy because honest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by *Leon*:
The Bishop of Buckingham has said a bit about how the listening went.

---

quote:

---

When I was ordained the Church was a comparatively compassionate and safe place for all. The end of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" has got us to a place where things are actually worse for gay clergy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
It still all comes down to sex.

Why do the bishops, or anyone else, feel they have a right to know whether or not people in a relationship are having sex?

If they feel they do have that right, then why don't they question male-female couples about their sexual practices? After all there are things that give thousands pleasure in the privacy of the bedroom that are still (technically at least) illegal.

---

quote:

---

It is totally illogical for the bishops to say it is OK for people to have SS relationships while objecting to those same people having a sex life: if their objections are so-called biblical then the relationship itself is wrong and celibacy won't water down the wrongness.

So, why the obsession with sex?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
One in 10 Church of England bishops 'could be secretly gay' – says bishop (Daily Telegraph)

I haven't been following this thread partiularly closely, so apologies if this 'news item' interrupts the flow, but didn't want to start a new thread just to bring this link to your attention!

---

What? Only 1 in 10. I bet it's more than that.

---

How so, leo?

(Just interested in how you come to the conclusion, not in "outing" anyone).

---

I counted, on the fingers of two hands.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Well I counted too and I had to remove my socks...
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Why only goats, Byron? Obviously the Bible is definitely pro-sheep (no celtic jokes, please) but, so long as the beast concerned is kosher and consents, where's the harm?

And if Higton objected to 'genital acts' is that two sets of genitals or one? Because if one then that means the sex-toy market has an entirely new marketing angle.

I think we should be told
 

---

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
On the possibility of gay bishops outing themselves, this letter to the HoB is being widely circulated for signatures by lay and ordained Anglicans in and beyond the CofE:

quote:

---

This letter is simply to say that, for those bishops who choose openly to acknowledge their sexual orientation as gay or bisexual, you will receive our energetic support, prayer, and encouragement.

Sadly we continue to live in a time when those who are honest about being LGBT Christians are treated poorly by a vocal minority within and outside the Church.

But we fully expect that the vast majority will welcome and embrace you for your courage and conviction and weep with you with joy and sadness for the journey past and the journey ahead.

If you stand out we will stand beside you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by *Leon*:
Reform have withdrawn from the shared conversations.

As far as I can make out, they object to the conversations being shared and the disagreement being good. Presumably it's progress that they have clearly stated their position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It will be interesting to see if Jeffrey John ends up being appointed to St, Edmuindsbury. If he is, that might irrevocably kill the Listening Process.

Am I right? I'm not an Anglican, so I may have completely the wrong idea about this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by *Leon*:
Reform have withdrawn from the shared conversations.

As far as I can make out, they object to the conversations being shared and the disagreement being good. Presumably it's progress that they have clearly stated their position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm with Byron: While it may give Reform some small, temporary advantage to call their bluff, it must happen - any move towards accommodating them now would be disastrous and nothing more than a charter for every loony-tune pressure group to have a go at pushing onto the church some obnoxious prejudice.

The position of Reform is inherently unChristian: what they seem to want is an amalgam of MOTR Judaism and Pauline (to the exclusion of all else) Christianity.

The fact that ++Justin and a few others have given these people encouragement beggars belief but even he (and York, for that matter) must now see that this particular tail can no longer be allowed to wag the dog, however much money it comes wrapped in.

---

quote:

---

Anglo-Catholics like Williams, too, sincerely believe that schism is a terrible sin. (Quite how they reconcile that belief with belonging to a protestant church is, I admit, a mystery to me.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
The silence from folk like Nicholas Holtam right now is deafening.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Anglo-Catholics like Williams, too, sincerely believe that schism is a terrible sin. (Quite how they reconcile that belief with belonging to a protestant church is, I admit, a mystery to me.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Anglo-Catholics like Williams, too, sincerely believe that schism is a terrible sin. (Quite how they reconcile that belief with belonging to a protestant church is, I admit, a mystery to me.)

---

Because anglo-catholics do not believe that the C of E is protestant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Anglo-Catholics like Williams, too, sincerely believe that schism is a terrible sin. (Quite how they reconcile that belief with belonging to a protestant church is, I admit, a mystery to me.)

---

Because anglo-catholics do not believe that the C of E is protestant.

---

Some protestants believe that the CofE isn't - and indeed, can' be - anglo catholic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Hang on a second, the Reform statement says:

To accept an outcome in which the Church moves from its present, biblical, understanding of marriage to one where we accommodate two separate beliefs, with one part of the Church calling for repentance over sexual sin and another declaring God’s blessing.This is tantamount to asking us to accept a redefinition of what will and will not lead to salvation as though there could be two gospels, equally valid.

Have I missed a trick, or are they suggesting that undertaking marriage, or blessing marriage, of a same-sex couple would be a salvation issue? Blimey.

---

That's a standard evangelical belief, for which we can thank 1 Corinthians c.6, in which Paul proclaims that arsenokoitai (men who lie with men) will not inherit the kingdom of God.

As Matthew's "blood curse" was ground-zero for Christian antisemitism, that verse is ground-zero for Christian homophobia. To date, there's been no getting around it, despite many attempts from the affirming camp. It's explicit, and sweeping.

If there was ever an example of why authoritarianism is a really terrible idea, that's it.
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
BTW, thanks to Honest Ron Bacardi for an Anglo-Catholic perspective.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Hang on a second, the Reform statement says:

To accept an outcome in which the Church moves from its present, biblical, understanding of marriage to one where we accommodate two separate beliefs, with one part of the Church calling for repentance over sexual sin and another declaring God’s blessing.This is tantamount to asking us to accept a redefinition of what will and will not lead to salvation as though there could be two gospels, equally valid.

Have I missed a trick, or are they suggesting that undertaking marriage, or blessing marriage, of a same-sex couple would be a salvation issue? Blimey.

---

That's a standard evangelical belief, for which we can thank 1 Corinthians c.6, in which Paul proclaims that arsenokoitai (men who lie with men) will not inherit the kingdom of God.

As Matthew's "blood curse" was ground-zero for Christian antisemitism, that verse is ground-zero for Christian homophobia. To date, there's been no getting around it, despite many attempts from the affirming camp. It's explicit, and sweeping.

If there was ever an example of why authoritarianism is a really terrible idea, that's it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
By 'authoritarianism' do you mean sticking to the literal meaning of a text in the Bible? This has always baffled me, since the obvious solution is to say that you don't agree with it. Presumably, this is not permitted to evangelicals, although I do wonder how rigidly they stick to other texts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Hang on a second, the Reform statement says:

To accept an outcome in which the Church moves from its present, biblical, understanding of marriage to one where we accommodate two separate beliefs, with one part of the Church calling for repentance over sexual sin and another declaring God’s blessing.This is tantamount to asking us to accept a redefinition of what will and will not lead to salvation as though there could be two gospels, equally valid.

Have I missed a trick, or are they suggesting that undertaking marriage, or blessing marriage, of a same-sex couple would be a salvation issue? Blimey.

---

Yep, have come across this before, though IME acceptance of non-heterosexuality is considered a salvation issue and not just SSM. I have heard +Benn say so with my own two ears - that female clergy is not a salvation issue and therefore different positions can be allowed, but that homosexuality is a salvation issue.
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
It doesn't help that so many advocates of change frame their argument in evangelical terms. They don't say, "Yes, your interpretation's right, but the Bible's wrong," they say, "What the Bible really says is ..." Evangelicals love this, 'cause arguing scriptural minutiae is their nirvana, and they tend to be better at it.

I'd understand if it was just affirming evos who take that position, but moderates and liberals do as well. Evangelicals sense they lack the courage of their convictions, and I can't say they're wrong.

Result: the most compelling argument -- that Paul gave no reason for his condemnation -- is left unstated, as are 2,000 years of increased knowledge.

It doesn't have to be this way. Evangelicals get noticeably tetchy when confronted about the human cost of their position, and its injustice. People are so much more complicated than books.

[ 12. October 2014, 13:22: Message edited by: Byron ]
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Evangelical does not equal intransigent, Byron. Nor is intransigence only to be found amongst evangelicals.
 

---

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
Indeed. I'm thoroughly intransigent in my liberal-ness. (I think).

Thank you Byron & Pomona. I've never heard the idea of non-heterosexuality as a salvation issue, and despite my peripatetic church upbringing, I have definitely spent most of my time in churches that would identify as evangelical, although I don't think I've ever called myself one.

I've recently been reading, and thoroughly enjoying "How to like Paul again" by Conrad Gempf. It was lent to me by an evangelical friend who was lectured by Gempf at London Bible College, I think. It's an easy read and doesn't make too many points that I hadn't come across before, but he stresses that many of the letters were replies dealing with specific issues. ("Now about what you wrote to me....") and also the ways in which Paul adopted different tactics to address the different churches.

He also talks about the invisibility of normal as why Paul didn't dismiss slavery - ie. everyone does it, he would be powerless to change it.

Both these points are things commonly raised in discussions about homosexuality, I think. 1. Paul was addressing particular practices, not the long term relationships akin to marriage, and 2. Neither Jesus nor Paul said much about marriage-type committed relationships between same-sex partners because that wasn't part of the culture.

All of which rather makes me wonder what I've missed.

I'm mithering about whether to go to the Evangelical Association meeting mentioned earlier, to see what arguments they are preparing people with, ahead of the listening process. I'm also pondering emailing Mary Beard for advice on religious & sexual practices of the Romans......
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Evangelical does not equal intransigent, Byron. Nor is intransigence only to be found amongst evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

Problem's not with Paul, or any other biblical author, so much as it is with doctrines that turn men into God's mouthpiece.

---

quote:

---

William Wilberforce and friends were condemned by huge swathes of the Church as they fought for abolition. They were dismissed as liberal and unbiblical for their ‘deliberate abandonment of the authority of Scripture’. But, on the basis of a straightforward biblical exegesis of the Bible’s text, their critics were right.

---

A point which he illustrates effectively. And of course there is this rather fine piece of Jed Bartlet exegetical observation which makes a similar point very well. I've used that before in DH and also in RL discussions. It makes people think.

I think the traditional position is open to serious criticism along the lines that Steve Chalk opened up, which is not to say either that his argument is completely correct. His point was not to resolve but to state personal convictions and open up a discussion on a topic regarded by many as closed. That was pretty brave and he's received both bouquets and brickbats as a result. How many minds has he changed? Well, I personally know quite a few.

I'm an evangelical. My personal position is pretty well known here and in RL in my local congo, and was made clear within my first few weeks of joining the Ship close to 10 years ago. IMO those who support the traditional position have already lost the moral argument, but rather like slavery and other justice issues it takes a while for that penny to drop. After all, the traditional belief that homosexuality was a moral and pathological aberration was enshrined in the Encyclopedia Britannica article and in authoritative psychiatric texts as little as 60 years ago. It was "received wisdom" then, in the same way as the anti-abolitionist arguments were a couple of centuries earlier. It was something I felt uncomfortable about at the time, sensed the unfairness of, began to question, formed my own opinions gradually, got to where I am now some time in the 1980's. And was helped on the way by discussion with friends I respect. My own experience teaches me that a private unease with received wisdom has been very common amongst many evangelicals who at least in public still stick to "the party line".

I like Ursula Le Guin's observation from "The Left Hand of Darkness" that "to oppose a thing is to maintain it". She points of course to the dangers of polarisation and isolation which arise from implacability. However annoying it might be, however closed we may perceive the minds of others to be, I think it's wrong to stop trying, right to persevere.

[ 13. October 2014, 07:44: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
One of my oldest mates screwed up her courage and contacted her local bishops, offering (if they thought it would help) to speak to them, or to any of the diocesan 'listeners' about being married to someone who'd been told to 'marry themselves straight': it took 8 weeks for her to get a reply which was that "althought your own personal experience may have been distressing we don't see how this would be relevant to the ongoing discussions and conversations taking place".
 

---

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
If they're not interested in hearing about the personal experiences of people who have been affected by the Church's current policy I don't see how they can claim to be engaged in a 'listening process'.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
As an old campaigner I always regarded such responses as a kind of open door! Some fairly obvious techniques of gradual escalation occur to me. I'll PM if you're interested.
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
If Reform did bugger off, would their loss be in the long term much more significant than the loss of the Ordinariate parishes? - Which didn't make very much difference at all, at least AFAICS.

Liverpool is supposed to be an Evangelical diocese, but I'm not aware of any Reform parishes, and I doubt that Liverpool is atypical in that respect.
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
If Reform did bugger off, would their loss be in the long term much more significant than the loss of the Ordinariate parishes? - Which didn't make very much difference at all, at least AFAICS.

Liverpool is supposed to be an Evangelical diocese, but I'm not aware of any Reform parishes, and I doubt that Liverpool is atypical in that respect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
[I] have come across this before, though IME acceptance of non-heterosexuality is considered a salvation issue and not just SSM. I have heard +Benn say so with my own two ears - that female clergy is not a salvation issue and therefore different positions can be allowed, but that homosexuality is a salvation issue.

---

quote:

---

... these are Gospel Issues ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Because anglo-catholics do not believe that the C of E is protestant.

---

Thank you.
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qoheleth.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
[I] have come across this before, though IME acceptance of non-heterosexuality is considered a salvation issue and not just SSM. I have heard +Benn say so with my own two ears - that female clergy is not a salvation issue and therefore different positions can be allowed, but that homosexuality is a salvation issue.

---

At 3:18 into this, the Bishop of Winchester maintains that

quote:

---

... these are Gospel Issues ...

---

Though such a claim is not obvious in its meaning.

---

Started listening to this but my brain revolted at the sheer vacuity of it all, on both sides. The Rev JC Flannel is clearly alive and well. As it happens I do think it's a Gospel issue, but in a rather opposite way from many of those who make the claim (even when they're not as contemptibly ridiculous as the ludicrous +Benn).
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
Thanks for an affirming evo perspective, Barnabas62. Although I make no secret of disagreeing with evangelical theology, my frustration's better directed at liberals and moderates, who refuse to argue a case for change on their own terms.

Any coalition to end institutional homophobia must be broad, and of course affirming evangelicals will argue from their perspective. It's just that liberals and moderates should do likewise.

So when bishops take as given that it's all about scripture, they should be pulled up on it. "Yes, our affirming evangelical allies would agree, and they argue their position strongly, but many of us don't hold to an evangelical view of biblical authority."
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
The Bishop of Winchester says that it depends on what the gospel is. From what I’ve heard of him before, he is quite sure that the gospel for gays is that God won’t love them unless they get cured.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Listened to this twice.

Who scripted it - Alan Bennett or Richard Ingrams?

Highlights just how accurate so many caricatures of the CofE are: +Winchester in particular comes across as vacuous and addicted to cliches. Just a hint at the end that his inclinations to be judgemental wouldn't be out of place in Tehran.

Appreciate that +Manchester was trying to be a decent cove - but what he and other decent coves don't get is that Dakin & Co are not open to persuasion at all and see any compromise as weakness.

Truly depressing.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
What is it about Winchester?! The previous bishop, who died recently, was also a homophobe.
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
That's just what I was thinking. We used to have a particularly homophobic shipmate from those parts- can't remember his name. Perhaps they made him a Bishop too.
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
I reside in the diocese (as does Quoholeth - is that spelt right?) and I hear that there's a conservative evangelical lined up for suffragan. What an enouraging potential sending diocese for me, not

We both also have the joy of Maria Miller as local MP. What did Hampshire ever do to piss God off so much??
 

---

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
I reside in the diocese (as does Quoholeth - is that spelt right?) and I hear that there's a conservative evangelical lined up for suffragan.

---

Pomona - the deed is done. Diocesan Rep to the CNC who selected +Dakin, who then in turn selected him as Suffragan.
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qoheleth.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
I reside in the diocese (as does Quoholeth - is that spelt right?) and I hear that there's a conservative evangelical lined up for suffragan.

---

Pomona - the deed is done. Diocesan Rep to the CNC who selected +Dakin, who then in turn selected him as Suffragan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qoheleth.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
I reside in the diocese (as does Quoholeth - is that spelt right?) and I hear that there's a conservative evangelical lined up for suffragan.

---

Pomona - the deed is done. Diocesan Rep to the CNC who selected +Dakin, who then in turn selected him as Suffragan.

---

Sorry for mangling your username, and the timeline!

Within his area, are there any particularly conservative and/or evangelical churches? Because all the Anglican churches in the Basingstoke area I've encountered so far are neither.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Within his area, are there any particularly conservative and/or evangelical churches? Because all the Anglican churches in the Basingstoke area I've encountered so far are neither.

---

Exhibit A: St Mary, Eastrop is affiliated to Reform. +Wallace is the guest speaker at their 'Mens Weekend' in November. Their female curate 'specialises in Women and Children's work' . Basingstoke Deanery was the only one in the diocese to vote against WB.
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qoheleth.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Within his area, are there any particularly conservative and/or evangelical churches? Because all the Anglican churches in the Basingstoke area I've encountered so far are neither.

---

Exhibit A: St Mary, Eastrop is affiliated to Reform. +Wallace is the guest speaker at their 'Mens Weekend' in November. Their female curate 'specialises in Women and Children's work' . Basingstoke Deanery was the only one in the diocese to vote against WB.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Looking at bishops (suffragans especially) named since ++Justin was appointed: anyone else think he's appointing in his own image/ to suit his own preferences?

A cause for concern IMO.

---

I'm not sure how much influence the ABC has over the appointments process these days.

Pragmatically that is. Though it's hardly a new accusation. Robert Runcie was frequently accused of being behind the disproportionate number of lib/cath bishops in his day.

Bishops surely have a much greater hold over the appointment of their suffragans.

(X-post with Albertus)

[ 16. October 2014, 11:23: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Well yes, but diocesans are overwhelmingly evo these days, and increasingly seem to appoint suffragans who agree with rather than complement (as opposed to compliment) them.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Which all goes to show how extraordinary it was for +Wallace to become a bishop...

Actually, in Runcie's day it was rather more to do with the appointments secretary Mr Smith who was rumoured to limit his suggestions to those clergy he had either met in the Athanaeum or in the showrooms of Watts & Co (and, of course, Lindy Runcie was his goddaughter).
 

---

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
The suffragan appointments tend to be the choice of the Diocesan (after due process, etc.) The Archbishop's role is more about consenting and giving his nihil obstat

So I don't think that Justin (or his predecessors) can be blamed for any perceived poor quality among the suffragans.

As for the alleged evangelical hegemony, it was only a decade or two ago that every appointment was from Cuddesdon or Westcott stock. What goes around comes around.

Edmonton is our next one here in London - I somehow doubt that there will be an evangelical appointed there!
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:


Actually, in Runcie's day it was rather more to do with the appointments secretary Mr Smith who was rumoured to limit his suggestions to those clergy he had either met in the Athanaeum or in the showrooms of Watts & Co...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
BTW I can only imagine that +Wallace's purple shirt was down to Eric Kemp either (a) going gaga or (b)deciding to have a fling at discrediting the conevos by appointing someone patently unfit from within their ranks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
BTW I can only imagine that +Wallace's purple shirt was down to Eric Kemp either (a) going gaga or (b)deciding to have a fling at discrediting the conevos by appointing someone patently unfit from within their ranks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Actually, in Runcie's day it was rather more to do with the appointments secretary Mr Smith who was rumoured to limit his suggestions to those clergy he had either met in the Athanaeum or in the showrooms of Watts & Co...

quote:

---

That all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. At least you got some bishops with a bit of class and style.

---

---

But then Runcie was also creative and could mould the most unlikely pig's ear into the sumptuous silk - I speak as one who remembers +London in his youth

As for any explanation, rational or otherwise, for +Wallace, I'm not sure Callan has it quite right:

quote:

---

According to that great theological principle, Buggins turn, an evangelical was required and, it being +Eric an opponent of the ordination of women was required. It therefore seemed good to +Eric and, one hopes, to the Holy Ghost that Mr Benn became Bishop Benn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Thanks for an affirming evo perspective, Barnabas62. Although I make no secret of disagreeing with evangelical theology, my frustration's better directed at liberals and moderates, who refuse to argue a case for change on their own terms.

Any coalition to end institutional homophobia must be broad, and of course affirming evangelicals will argue from their perspective. It's just that liberals and moderates should do likewise.

So when bishops take as given that it's all about scripture, they should be pulled up on it. "Yes, our affirming evangelical allies would agree, and they argue their position strongly, but many of us don't hold to an evangelical view of biblical authority."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
BTW I can only imagine that +Wallace's purple shirt was down to Eric Kemp either (a) going gaga or (b)deciding to have a fling at discrediting the conevos by appointing someone patently unfit from within their ranks.

---

Or perhaps he tried to find someone acceptable to the conevo faction in Chichester Diocese and Wallace Benn was the best he could come up with. Let's face it - I don't think there were many people on the shortlist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
[QUOTE]That all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. At least you got some bishops with a bit of class and style.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
BTW I can only imagine that +Wallace's purple shirt was down to Eric Kemp either (a) going gaga or (b)deciding to have a fling at discrediting the conevos by appointing someone patently unfit from within their ranks.

---

Or perhaps he tried to find someone acceptable to the conevo faction in Chichester Diocese and Wallace Benn was the best he could come up with. Let's face it - I don't think there were many people on the shortlist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
[QUOTE]That all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. At least you got some bishops with a bit of class and style.

---

Might then that (both the process and the people involved) go some way towards explaining the mess the CofE is in?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
I see the Bishop of Fulham has informed his clergy of his impending re-marriage: to be held in a register office with a blessing afterwards.

So - fine for a civil union to be followed by blessing even if you've been married before and your ex-spouse is still living but not OK if you're gay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not anti the service in church bit: what I don't get is why isn't he getting married in church? After all, if +London is happy to celebrate and bless the union surely he's happy to marry the happy couple - or am I missing something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
I've been in (evo) Anglican churches that won't marry divorcees but they'll bless the marriages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Was just trying to find some semblance of dignity about the whole thing...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
If you're prepared to bless divorces, why not bless a gay couple as well?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
If you're prepared to bless divorces, why not bless a gay couple as well? I have heard the line, "Gay relationships are of such nature that they cannot be blessed," but wasn't deeply impressed with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Fr. Hunwicke seems to think that this is the equivalent of blessing pedophile relationships.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Well if you don't believe in marrying divorcees then a blessing isn't the same, surely?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not anti the service in church bit: what I don't get is why isn't he getting married in church? After all, if +London is happy to celebrate and bless the union surely he's happy to marry the happy couple - or am I missing something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
There isn't really any theological basis for holding that in such circumstances God would disapprove of a Christian minister acting as a registrar but would be quite comfortable with said minister pronouncing God's blessing on the union.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
There isn't really any theological basis for holding that in such circumstances God would disapprove of a Christian minister acting as a registrar but would be quite comfortable with said minister pronouncing God's blessing on the union.

---

Well, I do know of a few Baptist ministers who refuse to act as Registrar for ANY weddings as they say that ministers (and churches) shouldn't act as servants of the State. But that has nothing to do with divorcees in particular!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Then what is your role in the service? You (like any other minister or priest) are not marrying the couple in the sight of God: they themselves do that.Your conscience will not permit you to do what is necessary to marry the couple in the sight of the state. Are you, then, essentially a (doubtless very dignfied and supportive) MC and general diffuser of goodwill, rather as, say, a humanist celebrant might be, except that you also bring a gift for public prayer?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But what we would like to know is whether he is presiding at a Blessing of a Marriage, following a Civil Ceremony held elsewhere;

or if he is conducting a Marriage Service, made legal by it taking place in a registered building with the presence of a Registrar or an Authorised Person appointed by the church (the normal Nonconformist situation).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There are one or two Baptist churches - I understand, but I've never encountered them - which refuse to have their buildings registered for Marriages, and to appoint an AP, so that they can be completely free of the State. (I have heard that they may also refuse to register with the Charity Commission, for the same reason).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Surely Gift Aid wouldn't be a problem as it involves taking money from the Caesar(Boo!) and giving it to God (hurrah!).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Related to this (I think) was a poster spotted in my church this evening. Our local Evangelical Association is advertising a meeting with the headline: Human Sexuality, discerning a Biblical vision. It promises to help prepare you with an orthodox perspective for the planned "Conversations" (their "", not mine) within the CofE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
My impression was of a climate of fear, and almost a siege mentality from some of the speakers (possibly not helped by one, who said he had been reading a lot of Daniel lately, and thinks that we are living in a post-Christendom exilic state).

---

quote:

---

...those of us at the traditionalist end...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
My impression was of a climate of fear, and almost a siege mentality from some of the speakers (possibly not helped by one, who said he had been reading a lot of Daniel lately, and thinks that we are living in a post-Christendom exilic state).

---

Given that gay men, until recently, could end up in the 'lion's den' of prison, maybe it is the turn of fundamentalists!

---

Don't encourage him! The persecution complex is strong with this one, as they didn't quite say in Star Wars.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:

... no surprise from someone who is perennially stroppy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
A conversation with a main protagonist from the LGBTI groupings this last weekend led me to two conclusions:

1. that he sees this (and the whole Christian faith) as about relationships, while those of us at the traditionalist end see it as about salvific relationship with God, revealed religion, discipleship, and transformation (which LGBTI people might well also affirm, but with entirely different presuppositions).

2. that the conversations are still likely therefore to be a useful place of meeting, but also a dialogue of the deaf, which made us both pull up short and say "do we want to put vulnerable people into this sort of context, at great risk to themselves, when there is no end result in view?"

If you believe (as I and many evangelicals do) that being in relationship cannot trump fundamental theological differences, no amount of being nice to each other in the same room is going to crack it.

Byron's helpfully provocative stuff suggests that I and others can "take things forward". The present reality is that I can't see a way forward - because in Sidney Smith's words about two women having an argument from upstairs windows across the street, we are discussing things from entirely different premises.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
I still don't see how being a 'traditionalist' on this issue should prevent you from co-existing in the same church with people who have equally strong and Christian but different convictions about it. Any more than being a 'traditionalist' about the ordination of women means that they don't accept you, and the rest of us, as members of the same Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:

Byron's helpfully provocative stuff suggests that I and others can "take things forward". The present reality is that I can't see a way forward - because in Sidney Smith's words about two women having an argument from upstairs windows across the street, we are discussing things from entirely different premises.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
And that's near-impossible. Leviticus is explicit: Paul is explicit. Sure, you can read-in qualifications about Bacchus and abuse, but it's a thin argument, which is why it's failed in most cases.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

The poverty of the argument is illustrated by its failure to persuade pete173 and other open evangelicals. I'm sure he'd jump at the chance to affirm gay relationships. He fought for (secular) gay rights when that position was reviled. I don't for a second believe that he wants to hold the position he does. He honestly believes that's God's will.

Most affirming Christians don't take an evangelical approach to scripture. I certainly don't.

---

quote:

---

So, here is my question. Shouldn’t we take the same principle that we readily apply to the role of women, slavery, and numerous other issues, and apply it to our understanding of permanent, faithful, homosexual relationships? Wouldn’t it be inconsistent not to?

What are we to make of the kind of fancy exegetical footwork which can allow (in spite of the 1 Timothy 2 argument from the order of creation) one approach to the role of women in church leadership, while rejecting the acceptance of faithful same-sex relationships because it would overturn a ‘creation ordinance’? Is this ‘pick and choose’ approach to the New Testament more to do with an outworking of social conditioning and cultural prejudices than a genuine grappling with its text?

---

At the very least it's good to ask the question. His earlier comments on slavery are also worth reading.

Of course counter-arguments can be, and have been, made. But I don't think Steve can be fairly accused of rationalising in favour of a changing social view, any more than the abolitionists could, or those many voices in favour of OoW could. Many saw the abolitionists, many have seen the OoW proponents, as dangerous unbiblical radicals as well. Whatever may be the position over OoW, it's now very widely accepted that, at least on abolition of slavery, the defenders of the status quo were wrong to cry "dangerous unbiblical radical". Used to paddling in the shallows, they missed the deeper waters.

All I'm saying, all Chalky is saying, is that the argument can be made, people may still disagree, but defenders of the staus quo should think carefully before dismissing the argument and the arguers as either dangerous or unbiblical. Such actions may point the fingers back at themselves.
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
Some great points here, which help lift me out my funk, and think it may be possible to get past this.

On Paul, the word "arsenokoitai" is a roadblock to many 'cause it's so sweeping ("arseno-," man, and "-koitai," laying with). You do need "exegetical fancy-footwork" to get it to not apply to all sexuality activity between men. (And, given what Paul wrote elsewhere, women too.)

And in good conscience, I can't make the argument, 'cause I think, given his cultural and religious background, it's overwhelmingly likely that Paul would've condemned homosexuality in all circumstances. I just think he's as wrong about that as he was an imminent eschaton.

I totally agree with Ricardus, to me, it seems crazy to tolerate diversity on warfare but not on sexuality. That old refrain about sex being worse than violence. But that's me applying my own standard, rooted in reasonableness: from an authoritarian POV, all that matters is that Paul said that sex was a "salvation issue," and violence wasn't. And that's the problem.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
You have to be right about what Paul meant in Romans 1. There"s really nothing to debate there in terms of exegetics.

I think in his pre-ABC days, Rowan Williams argued that we could look again at the words 'natural' and 'unnatural' and recognise the change in our understanding of what 'pertaining to nature' might mean to us today (rather than what it meant for Paul as a 1st century Jew). I think again that at that point the hermeneutical argument comes into play.

None of that strikes me as 'fancy footwork' at all. Homosexual desire is natural for a homosexual. It seems fair to argue that the real perversity is to pretend otherwise; that's the point where lying comes in.

Is it legitimate for evangelicals to consider such possible meanings via biblical study? I can't see why it shouldn't be.

[ 25. November 2014, 17:07: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
It may be, but the certainty of open evangelicals makes me doubt it'll get anywhere. I dunno. I hope I'm wrong. But if these arguments could persuade, wouldn't they have persuaded those who fight for social justice, take a nuanced approach to the Bible, and support women's ministry?

The "salvation issue" thing just seems insurmountable. From their POV, if they get it wrong, they're sending people to eternal torture. So long as there's any risk that the interpretation is wrong, they'll err on the side of caution. As they see it, better a life of celibacy than an eternity in hell.

How anyone could think that a being that inflicts such cruelty is worthy of godhood beats the hell outa me, but then I'm no evangelical, so I would say that.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
"After all, it is rating one's own conjectures at a very high price to roast a man alive on the strength of them"

Montaigne, commenting on witch trials.

There's an echo of Jesus in that (Matt 7) with the additional observation that if you judge someone is fit for roasting, you may be fitting yourself up for the spit.

[ 25. November 2014, 18:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
I realise I'm no longer an evangelical (I don't think - I think the boundaries are blurry) but I don't think the Bible is clear at all. Certainly I know personally many conservative evangelicals who do not think the Bible is clear on the issue - Byron, would you at least do me the courtesy of trusting my own involvement in said evangelical groups and me knowing that they're really not small in number? I think the UK situation is quite different to the US one, evangelical being a bit differently defined too. Don't know about Accepting Evangelicals, but certainly Diverse Church and Two:23 (Two:23 is the main group, Diverse Church is the 18-30 group) have a mix of LGBTI evangelicals, some believing that they should be celibate and some believing that sexual relationships are OK. Both groups get along fine and honour the other position.
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
Pomona, I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong, and hope I am. I just see affirming evangelicals swiftly marginalized by the majority: in the UK, Oasis gets kicked out the Evangelical Alliance; in the U.S., well, just look at the World Vision hatefest.

Then we have liberal evangelicals like N.T. Wright compare equal marriage to Communist reeducation. I've heard from multiple people that Wright's been nothing but kind to his LGBT friends and colleagues, and I believe them (they've no reason to defend him). He's not driven by bigotry. Like Pete, he's convinced the Bible offers no wiggle room on this.

Open evangelicals would love to affirm gay relationships; not doing so makes their life difficult, especially if they're "same sex attracted." Yet most can't. What's gonna change?
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
In fairness, most of the conservative evo LGBTI people I know are lay people and not in a position to become well-known. However, I was recently at a (con evo) Youthwork Conference and the response to a Diverse Church workshop was extremely positive. So I wonder if the situation in the pews is very different to the opinions of the leadership.
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
Attitudes seem to transcend the grassroots/leadership gap: the World Vision backlash was driven by grassroots support, and the evangelical congregations in the Church of England threaten to withhold donations. I think they feed off one another TBH.

The situation may be better on the ground as people there apply a more intuitive/common sense approach than theologians who apply an abstract framework, and leaders who are abuzz with political considerations.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Pomona, I think you are spot on here, certainly as far as open evos are concerned. Most of my open evo friends are agnostic or approving of, for example, SSM, but very few leaders are willing to stick their heads above the parapet. Partly, this is from a desire not to be seen as "letting the side down in front of those godless liberals", but I suspect the real driver is cultural identity.

As far as I can see, biblical evidence on either side of the debate is pretty thin on the ground, as regards the licitness of same sex relationships. It would be perfectly possible to build a good case from scripture which is either supportive or condemning of such relationships. What makes us chose one rather than the other is, I suspect, culture. I think it is quite possible to imagine, in a different cultural context, a situation where, for example, Tom Wright would strongly support SSM. There is nothing in the text that forbids it. That it is possible to construct a case for the "conservative" view that does not do violence to the scripture does not mean that view is true, merely that the evidence is scanty and that clever scholars are very good at eisegesis the reverse understanding is, of course, equally possible, and may well be equally scriptural.

To those who find it hard to imagine how scripture could be thought to be ambiguous here, I can only cite my own experience. I had been a Christian for twenty or so years before o ever heard an argument that God disapproved of homosexuality. I had always assumed, as a plain reading of scripture, thaPaul was concerned that, in the midst of his condemnation of heterosexual sin, gay people should not feel that they had a free pass to behave in a way that would be sinful for straights. Seriously, no other interpretation even occurred to me, bearing in mind the context. Culture, you see.
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
I agree that culture plays a major part, Jolly Jape, but Tom Wright goes against evangelical culture all the time: he went to bat for Steve Chalke over the atonement, and defends women's ministry from a scriptural POV. He also criticizes common evangelical assumptions about the second coming and rapture, and is a vocal critic of the N.I.V. translation.

Given the unanimous support from his gay colleagues, the most reasonable conclusion to draw is that he honestly believes the Bible makes gay relationships incompatible with Christianity, or at least, with evangelicalism.

I know affirming evangelicals, but their evangelicalism is more cultural than theological. The more folk get into evangelical theology, the more they tend to oppose gay relationships as a "salvation issue." There are exceptions amongst theologians and leaders, but not enough to turn the tide at present.

Will that change? I hope it does, I really do, but I'm not optimistic.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

I know affirming evangelicals, but their evangelicalism is more cultural than theological. The more folk get into evangelical theology, the more they tend to oppose gay relationships as a "salvation issue."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
... I've read pros and cons arguments pretty extensively...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carex:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
... I've read pros and cons arguments pretty extensively...

---

Even sometimes when you'd rather be doing something else I suspect, since the hosts have to read every post!

---