Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by leo
Irrational feelings like homophobia can be whipped up through music.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I think I would want a citation to justify this assertion.
quote:And I think that's truer than ever.
”Tell anyone outside the Church that you’re a Christian these days, and they make one assumption about you. It is not that you are spiritual, or ascetically-minded, or dedicated to helping others, or opposed to the culture of consumerism. It is that you are a homophobe.”
quote:The answer is in your post: they are in the bible and that's what ticks the boxes for conservative Anglicans.
Originally posted by bad man:
They are not in the creeds, not in the ten commandments, and not in the gospel reports of the teachings of Jesus Christ. I am not saying they are not in the Bible, and St Paul, obviously, springs to mind, but they are not core issues. Yet now they are touchstones of what conservative Anglicans call "orthodoxy".
Why has this happened?
quote:You are not alone.
Originally posted by bad man:
I think I'm pretty loyal to the Church of England, but I find I don't share its values any more and that makes it harder and harder to feel like a member.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
for you and all such people. It can be really hard, I know.
quote:I think both you and Ruth are wrong. Or at the very least you are mixing with a like-minded bunch of people not necessarily fully representative of the population. I've never heard a sermon even mention homosexuality in decades of churchgoing. I've heard a handful of non churchgoers complain about the church from a so-called progressive perspective and a handful from the opposite end of the spectrum. In my experience some people are vaguely well disposed to the church, a few are hostile, most are entirely ignorant.
Originally posted by bad man:
In 2007, the religious correspondent of The Times, Ruth Gledhill, wrote:quote:... I think I'm pretty loyal to the Church of England, but I find I don't share its values any more and that makes it harder and harder to feel like a member.
”Tell anyone outside the Church that you’re a Christian these days, and they make one assumption about you. It is not that you are spiritual, or ascetically-minded, or dedicated to helping others, or opposed to the culture of consumerism. It is that you are a homophobe.”
quote:I think that depends hugely on local churchmanship and to a lesser extent, the diocese. Certainly when I lived in extremely conservative evangelical East Sussex, I heard quite a few sermons on homosexuality. Funnily enough, once I moved (2010) I only heard homosexuality mentioned in church once again, and not in the sermon (it was when the letter from the RC cardinal or archbishop on homosexuality was released).
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:I think both you and Ruth are wrong. Or at the very least you are mixing with a like-minded bunch of people not necessarily fully representative of the population. I've never heard a sermon even mention homosexuality in decades of churchgoing. I've heard a handful of non churchgoers complain about the church from a so-called progressive perspective and a handful from the opposite end of the spectrum. In my experience some people are vaguely well disposed to the church, a few are hostile, most are entirely ignorant.
Originally posted by bad man:
In 2007, the religious correspondent of The Times, Ruth Gledhill, wrote:quote:... I think I'm pretty loyal to the Church of England, but I find I don't share its values any more and that makes it harder and harder to feel like a member.
”Tell anyone outside the Church that you’re a Christian these days, and they make one assumption about you. It is not that you are spiritual, or ascetically-minded, or dedicated to helping others, or opposed to the culture of consumerism. It is that you are a homophobe.”
quote:We have one female member of clergy in our entire town (which being important historically, has many churches). She is currently struggling to find a children's worker for their popular and growing church (not mine!) who is willing to work with female clergy
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Our little corner of the C of E (charismatic evangelical) has rather loudly supported the ordination of women. So it was a shock to me to learn that the recent appointment of a woman as curate was criticized by a small but vocal minority of the congregation. And then one of the junior staff who we are supporting to plant a church in a few months got up to preach the Sunday following and said he does not agree with women in church leadership.
So on the one hand, he has that right, but on the other, why has he been chosen to lead a church? I have to wonder what the motivations are behind this.
I hope things do not start turning in a more conservative direction. I spent long enough in a church like that to know I don't want anything to do with it.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:I suspect that these issues are more visible now because they are the pertinent issues of the day, both within the church and without. The push for gay rights draws the most attention of any political social issue nowadays, and the Anglican Communion is currently in turmoil over both the ordination of gay clergy and the blessing of gay marriages. Thus, the church is merely addressing contemporary events. Issues surrounding homosexuality were not anywhere near the public forefront decades ago as they are now, so there was no need for the church then to elaborate on its related positions.
Originally posted by bad man:
Why has this happened?
quote:Why not? The opponents of women's ordination have done exactly this, despite the fact that the C of E has been ordaining women for 20 years.
One commentator I read said that the CofE had already come to an official decision about homosexuality, but people were continuing to debate the issue as though no decision had been made!
quote:You'd be surprised. There are plenty of women who see no theological contradiction in being a youth leader who opposes women's ordination, even in the Anglican church. Being a youth leader is a similar kind of role to teaching Sunday School - which women have been doing for centuries.
After all, a fellow woman could hardly claim that it was theologically unacceptable for another woman to be 'in authority' over her, could she?
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:There were women in the group who objected to a female curate at our church.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Out of interest, would a female children's worker be unwilling to work with a female minister, or is it just a problem that male children's workers have? After all, a fellow woman could hardly claim that it was theologically unacceptable for another woman to be 'in authority' over her, could she?
quote:Um yes of course another woman could claim it was theologically unacceptable for another woman to be ordained priest. It happens all the time within conservative areas of the Anglican church. It's about women having teaching authority over women and men, the female children's worker wouldn't be the only person the priest had teaching authority over! Male children's workers aren't that common in the CoE - it's still seen as 'women's work'.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Jade Constable
Out of interest, would a female children's worker be unwilling to work with a female minister, or is it just a problem that male children's workers have? After all, a fellow woman could hardly claim that it was theologically unacceptable for another woman to be 'in authority' over her, could she?
quote:I know women who object to women's ordination but will preach in church as a lay person. Given that they don't believe in an ontological change at ordination anyway, I am baffled by this. I think it's seen as OK because they are under the authority of the male priest/minister...? I know women who are OK with husband/wife pastor teams for the same reason, that it's OK for a woman to be a pastor as long as her husband has ultimate pastoral authority over her.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:There were women in the group who objected to a female curate at our church.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Out of interest, would a female children's worker be unwilling to work with a female minister, or is it just a problem that male children's workers have? After all, a fellow woman could hardly claim that it was theologically unacceptable for another woman to be 'in authority' over her, could she?
I went to a course at St Helen's Bishopsgate, a conservative evangelical church in London, and it was the women giving a hard line on complementarianism and submission. Which was hilarious because they were giving lectures to a mixed crowd. I don't think they noted the irony.
quote:Lots of us con evos don't - even in the CofE.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's interesting that evangelicals should take this position.
quote:That's why it's interesting!
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:Lots of us con evos don't - even in the CofE.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's interesting that evangelicals should take this position.
quote:I would say there is no reason to dissolve the Anglican communion just because we disagree about issues that are tangential to the faith. We manage to accommodate far bigger differences in our understanding of Priesthood, of the Eucharist, of Baptism, of the sacraments in general and many more without impairing communion. A small number of people have decided to make these issues red lines, to the detriment of everyone. Part of the point of the Anglican Communion is that the churches are independent, and none should have the veto over the internal actions of the others.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Is there any particular reason why the CofE and the Anglican Churches in Uganda and Nigeria need to remain shackled together when their constituencies and their theologies are so very different? I can't understand what each side gets out of the arrangement that's worth all the antagonism and bad publicity they have to go through.
quote:A person who sits on the fence gets splinters in their bottom.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Arethosemyfeet
So you see, not only does the Anglican Church in Nigeria have to contend with serious competition from a range of other conservative churches, but it also has a major rival in the growth of Islam. Gay-friendly independent churches (and there is at least one) hardly offer any competition there.
In England, by contrast, the main competitor to the CofE is religious indifference, which requires a more conciliatory approach towards the widespread tolerance towards sexual diversity. However, noone seems to care what the Methodist, URC, Quakers or Unitarians have to say since they've very weak liberal competitors. As for the evangelicals, they represent a growing percentage within the CofE and in other national churches, but you implied in a post above that the CofE was critical of SSM in England not so much because of its internal makeup, but in order to send out a conciliatory message to Anglicans in parts of Africa.
What this suggests is that non-religiosity within the nation and conservative religiosity on the outside are the two utterly conflicting driving forces that propel the CofE's PR machine. As we must agree, it's hard to imagine how that combination can get the CofE anywhere!
quote:Ironically, from the perspective of other churches the CofE actually looks rather tolerant about homosexuality. If I heard that it had a higher percentage of gay clergy and worshippers than the other Protestant denominations in England, maybe even more than those that claim to be more liberal, I wouldn't be surprised. I've never heard of any comparative research on this subject, but it would be very interesting.
Originally posted by Justinian:
The Church of England has decided that their main goals are going to be compromise, unity, and not rocking the boat. Even when confronted by raw evil (as some of the Nigerian, and for that matter Conservative Evangelical, teaching about homosexuality are).
quote:This is a perfectly extraordinary choice of topic for his first interview. The moment of his installation is a moment when he has more people's attention than usual. But, there we go again, here's a dead horse, and here's a flogger.
Bishop attacks gay marriage
THE Right Reverend Peter Hancock, right, has become the 79th Bishop of Bath and Wells.
More than 1,000 people attended a service at Wells Cathedral to mark the beginning of his ministry.
But in his first interview since he was made Bishop of Bath and Wells, Peter attacked gay marriage.
Interviewed on Radio Bristol, he said: "I think marriage is a gift from God. It's a means of grace and his way of blessing us. I believe this was set aside for a man and a woman."
quote:I recall four in about the last 20 years, including a memorable occasion (memorable for all the wrong reasons) on which a senior and well known clergyman used a wedding as an opportunity to preach a 20-minute diatribe on the twin evils of homosexuality and divorce.
Originally posted by Spawn:
I've never heard a sermon even mention homosexuality in decades of churchgoing.
quote:Depends who you compare it to. The Quakers and Unitarians are on the right side of this issue (and most others). Coming off as tolerant about homosexuality when your baseline is major hierarchical Christian churches is akin to being immigrant friendly when your baseline is a UKIP meeting.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Ironically, from the perspective of other churches the CofE actually looks rather tolerant about homosexuality.
quote:Or it'll end up happening between e.g. Uganda and the ECUSA and the CofE will have to choose sides anyway.
I agree that the Anglican Communion in general, and the CofE especially, ought to move towards the mid-century with a different structure, so as to get beyond the 'fence-sitting'. Anglicans seem to hate the idea of schism, though, so any change would have to fall short of that.
quote:Hmmm.... Unitarians questionable Christians anyway due to their denial of Jesus' divinity' (but please let's not go off down that tangent here).
The Quakers and Unitarians are on the right side of this issue [homosexuality] (and most others).
quote:There is nothing in the bible saying you have to enthusiastically approve of straight sex. Certainly, no one I have ever heard says that Christians says that Christians must condone adulterous sex. However gay sex is not inherently adulterous or immoral. At least not unless your moral standards should have been left in the dark ages.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Justinian;
quote:Hmmm.... Unitarians questionable Christians anyway due to their denial of Jesus' divinity' (but please let's not go off down that tangent here).
The Quakers and Unitarians are on the right side of this issue [homosexuality] (and most others).
Hmmm... remind me where the bit is in the Bible that says gay sex is wonderful and Christians have to enthusiastically approve?
quote:On the other hand the CofE does take public positions on such matters. As homophobes. Which, as Justin Welby admits is seen deservedly by most people under 40 as wicked and akin to racism. But despite realising this he is trying to nail the colours of bigotry to the mast.
The reason the CofE has big problems with DH issues is because they are a state church built into the English constitution and therefore if they take a stand on, say, homosexuality, that isn't just a private body saying "We think that is sinful" - it's like the state itself, through the state religion, is being discriminatory. In a modern plural democracy that's bound to be objected to, and if the CofE doesn't want to give up its established status, it's going to have a problem.
quote:You mean other than in pretty much the entire Old Testament? Where Judaism is the state religion much of the time?
Of course the Bible also doesn't teach 'established' churches....
quote:I suspect he was asked for his opinion by the interviewer.
Originally posted by bad man:
Here we go again.
From today's Bristol Post
quote:This is a perfectly extraordinary choice of topic for his first interview. The moment of his installation is a moment when he has more people's attention than usual. But, there we go again, here's a dead horse, and here's a flogger......It's not a great start, is it.
Bishop attacks gay marriage
THE Right Reverend Peter Hancock, right, has become the 79th Bishop of Bath and Wells.
More than 1,000 people attended a service at Wells Cathedral to mark the beginning of his ministry.
But in his first interview since he was made Bishop of Bath and Wells, Peter attacked gay marriage.
Interviewed on Radio Bristol, he said: "I think marriage is a gift from God. It's a means of grace and his way of blessing us. I believe this was set aside for a man and a woman."
quote:Maybe you've abandoned evangelical churches.
Originally posted by Spawn:
I've never heard a sermon even mention homosexuality in decades of churchgoing.rch, a few are hostile, most are entirely ignorant.
quote:I've never exclusively attended evangelical churches as an adult. I've generally gone to my parish church. I still don't think that this is a common sermon topic in evangelical churches. I don't think most of the unchurched population give a damn about the church's opinion of sexuality. I certainly don't think they're surprised that the mainstream denominations are conservative. They'd expect that the church is officially conservative on sexuality as it is on adultery or sex before marriage. Privately and pastorally things might be different.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Maybe you've abandoned evangelical churches.
Originally posted by Spawn:
I've never heard a sermon even mention homosexuality in decades of churchgoing.rch, a few are hostile, most are entirely ignorant.
I remember a funeral where the (evangelical) minister (C of E) preached directly to the deceased's son to tell him that his 'homosexual lifestyle' would lead him to Hell so he would never be reunited to his mother.
Also an impromptu and unrequested exorcism of two gay men as part of a sermon (C of E evo again)
Most sane evos - there are some - don't dare preach on the subject for fear of alienating the young. Nor, of course, do they preach against fornication and cohabiting.
quote:There is a reason the NEW Testament/Covenant is so called. After centuries of preparation Jesus came to fulfil the OT and develop it in new ways. One of these new ways is that God's people is no longer restricted to ethnic Jews, and this new international or transnational situation requires a different relationship between God's people throughout the world and the nations and governments in and under which they live. Therefore
quote:
Of course the Bible also doesn't teach 'established' churches....
You mean other than in pretty much the entire Old Testament? Where Judaism is the state religion much of the time?
quote:
Of course the Bible also doesn't teach 'established' churches....
quote:The Song of Solomon is pretty enthusiastic, I'd have thought. And Genesis 1/27 and 2/24, and the use Jesus makes of them in Mark 10/Matt 19, are to say the least strong endorsements of straight sex, and can't really be said to encourage gay sex. To say that "no one I have ever heard says that Christians must condone adulterous sex" is a silly argument - of course the Bible does not endorse the misuse of God's gift.
There is nothing in the bible saying you have to enthusiastically approve of straight sex.
quote:I applaud you for that.
Originally posted by Spawn:
I've generally gone to my parish church.
quote:I applaud you for that - indeed, the Anabaptist witness is very important to me in recalling me to my first love, despite my being a fairly 'traditional' (with a dash of 'liberal') Anglican catholic.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Forcing my beliefs on others is no part of my Christianity.e politically correct is part of my Christianity.
quote:You are quite right. But "most" is quite broad brush and doesn't mean that we don't have a problem.
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't think most of the unchurched population give a damn about the church's opinion of sexuality.
quote:
The vast majority of the population are ambivalent about whether the Church of England is a positive force in society.
For those who said it was a negative force, the top reason was treatment of women and LGBT people...
quote:I think it is probably more accurate to say that, when the Quakers and the Unitarians have spoken about SSM, nobody has noticed it and it has not been considered "newsworthy". Unless you have been to a lot of Quaker and Unitarian public meetings where the topic has not been discussed.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
For some reason the Quakers and the Unitarians haven't really stepped up to the plate as the country's religious spokesmen for SSM.
quote:Cor blimey. I really don't think those figures tell us anything. Totally bizarre to think that's a problem we don't know about. Ignorance and us not telling people about it.
Originally posted by bad man:
quote:You are quite right. But "most" is quite broad brush and doesn't mean that we don't have a problem.
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't think most of the unchurched population give a damn about the church's opinion of sexuality.
58% think the Church of England is neither a positive nor a negative force in society. 18% think it is a force for good. 14% think it's not a force for good. And 10% don't know.
Here's what the research says.
quote:
The vast majority of the population are ambivalent about whether the Church of England is a positive force in society.
For those who said it was a negative force, the top reason was treatment of women and LGBT people...
quote:Oh, indeed. But this does not mean that there isn't a lot in the Old Testament about an Established Church. It might not mean we should do things that way. But it provides plenty of precedents on how established churches work, that are useful for instruction and reproof.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
There is a reason the NEW Testament/Covenant is so called.
quote:The Song of Songs I'll grant - it says that some sex is good. Jesus approved of marriage - no question about that.
The Song of Solomon is pretty enthusiastic, I'd have thought. And Genesis 1/27 and 2/24, and the use Jesus makes of them in Mark 10/Matt 19, are to say the least strong endorsements of straight sex, and can't really be said to encourage gay sex.
quote:And this is completely missing the point of why adultery is wrong. It's a breach of commitment. If the gift giver still has control over how the gift was used it was not a gift in the first place. It was a loan. Which is admittedly a nice thing to do. But gifts come without strings attached.
To say that "no one I have ever heard says that Christians must condone adulterous sex" is a silly argument - of course the Bible does not endorse the misuse of God's gift.
quote:Yes, it occurs in Leviticus. As a Christian who believes in the New Covenant that is not where you should be looking. There are two much more relevant citations of the same rule - Matthew: 22:39 and Mark 12:31 (Also in Matthew 19 and probably other places)
Yes, the Bible does include the extremely clear statement that you must love your neighbour as yourself. It occurs, I note, in Leviticus 19; 18. Part of the same book as ch20 v13, "13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
Lev 20:13 (NIV). By normal standards of interpretation it is unlikely that the two texts are contradictory...
quote:And my point is that this is nonsense. The CofE has a huge soapbox it could be using. It could be going out and seeking out the injustices in the world to oppose. But last time it did that it came out second best morally to wonga.com.
The point I was making is that the CofE faces unusual problems over these issues because of its established status, which is why its public discourse is currently dominated by these DH issues.
quote:You know it's amazing how almost every time people object to political correctness they mean either (a) based on a strawman or (b) they don't want to be a decent human being who treats others with respect. In this post you've cited approvingly the notion we should stone gay people.
For the record I'm quite happy for the state to make provision for same sex marriage for those whose beliefs include that. Forcing my beliefs on others is no part of my Christianity. Being free to believe the Bible rather than the politically correct is part of my Christianity.
quote:IMO the CofE's 'huge moral soapbox' is compromised firstly because it's shackled to the state and the state's agenda may not always be particularly moral, but more importantly because the job of being the nation's church makes 'fence-sitting' inevitable when we live in such a pluralistic, heterogeneous nation as ours is.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:And my point is that this is nonsense. The CofE has a huge soapbox it could be using. It could be going out and seeking out the injustices in the world to oppose. But last time it did that it came out second best morally to wonga.com.
The point I was making is that the CofE faces unusual problems over these issues because of its established status, which is why its public discourse is currently dominated by these DH issues.
Instead, as Soror Magna says, they don't have anything better to do. So they are dealing with the issues that come to them.
quote:The prevailing zeitgeist favours apathism. That the Churches are mostly for the "Get off my Lawn" brigade, and that believing in God is about on a par with believing in astrology. Except that mainstream astrology isn't generally going to preach bad things.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
One would imagine that the prevailing zeitgeist would favour the Quakers and Unitarians, but it doesn't appear to be doing so.
quote:Origins=/= common use.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Thanks, Justinian; I'll work on a reply to your points but I'm sure you'll appreciate that it's going to take a while.
As regards 'political correctness' my information is that the concept originated with a guy called Lenin and did not at all result in treating people with respect....
quote:
The term was adopted in the later 20th century by the New Left, applied with a certain humour to condemn sexist or racist conduct as "not politically correct". By the early 1990s, the term was adopted by US conservatives as a pejorative term for all manner of attempts to promote multiculturalism and identity politics, particularly, attempts to introduce new terms that sought to leave behind discriminatory baggage ostensibly attached to older ones, and conversely, to try to make older ones taboo.
quote:Generally a guy called Stalin not one called Lenin. But if that's how you are using the term, why stop there? After all, it's only one step further to break Godwin's Law and accuse people of using Nazi-like thought control.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As regards 'political correctness' my information is that the concept originated with a guy called Lenin and did not at all result in treating people with respect....
quote:My source was specific that it went back to Lenin, which is why I quoted it as such. I've personally come across enough examples of dodgy and coercive PC stuff to be sure it's not just a right-wing media scare - but you also shouldn't think I overrate it. The concept has had a decidedly corrosive effect on life and attitudes in the same way that dubious health and safety has (often against the wishes of real H&S professionals).
Generally a guy called Stalin not one called Lenin.
quote:As a general point relevant to a few of your comments – the NEW Covenant does not, of course, simply obliterate the Old. The main portion of the OT which is annulled is the sacrificial rituals which of course were fulfilled and replaced by the sacrifice of Jesus to which they pointed; and even there the OT rituals remain useful in helping us understand Jesus’ sacrifice. Basic moral rules remain, of course, unchanged. Other aspects are variously developed or as it were ‘transposed to a different key’ in the New Covenant. It is necessary to use the brain in this process – and in this case I don’t, for instance, think it makes the Leviticus passage I cited irrelevant, but as I said, I’m not primarily dealing with that issue in this posting.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
There is a reason the NEW Testament/Covenant is so called.
________________________________________
J: Oh, indeed. But this does not mean…. What it does mean is that the passage in Leviticus you cite is completely and utterly irrelevant.
quote:I find this comment a bit confusing, since I don’t know whether Justinian believes in establishment or belongs to an established church. He at least seems to be suggesting an established church as a legitimate option??
J: But this does not mean that there isn't a lot in the Old Testament about an Established Church. It might not mean we should do things that way. But it provides plenty of precedents on how established churches work, that are useful for instruction and reproof.
quote:You already have let the world squeeze you into its own mould, it's just the mould of 50 or 100 years ago rather than the mould of today when it comes to human sexuality. The spirit of the age is no more or less perilous than the spirit of the previous age. It is not possible to divine from scripture everything that is permitted, only some things that are forbidden. In the absence of any relevant text one can only consider, when the world presents us with a new situation, how to extend the principles we have received to that new situation. I was linked recently to a wonderful sermon that dips into some of this (and it takes a lot for me to sit down and watch an hour of Southern Baptist preaching):
We are not likely to be impressed by people who, instead of providing proof on the point, just assail us with rude names like ‘homophobe’, or comments about ‘dark age morality’, or irrationally quote Leviticus against itself as Justinian at least appeared to in his earlier post. We are quite reasonably, I think, concerned not to end up disobeying God ourselves or encouraging others to do so. We do not want to be ‘blown around by every wind of doctrine’ to just follow current fashions; nor do we want to ‘let the world squeeze us into its own mould’ (as JB Phillips paraphrased a text in Romans 12).
quote:Might be cos the Quakers published most of their major thinking on the subject in the 1960s in "Towards a Quaker view of sex", also It was fairly widely covered in the press when Britain yearly meeting agreed same sex marriage.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Justinian
For some reason the Quakers and the Unitarians haven't really stepped up to the plate as the country's religious spokesmen for SSM. This is a shame, because they could do it more authentically than the CofE. (Indeed, the conspiracy theorist side of me wonders why these two churches have said almost nothing publicly about SSM, despite having pursued the matter politically behind the scenes....)
I think some leaders in the CofE argued against SSM because they feared it might be imposed on them against their will as the established church, and perhaps they only obtained an exemption as a result of their disagreement. Of course, there are CofE folk who'd very much like their own priest to be free to conduct SSMs. Freeing up CofE structures would presumably enable this to happen, but CofE people seem to talk of 'creeping congregationalism' as a bad thing, not something that should be formalised.
quote:I think the problem is that the outsiders that openly admire the Quakers and the Unitarians are atheists or non-believers, and the things they admire about those groups have nothing to do with their faith or religious practice. So why would they join them?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The problem for the Quakers and the Unitarians, ISTM, is that outsiders openly admire them but don't often join them.
quote:The second half of that I have no problem with in principle - we may slightly differ about the application and our conclusions about what is forbidden.
You already have let the world squeeze you into its own mould, it's just the mould of 50 or 100 years ago rather than the mould of today when it comes to human sexuality. The spirit of the age is no more or less perilous than the spirit of the previous age. It is not possible to divine from scripture everything that is permitted, only some things that are forbidden. In the absence of any relevant text one can only consider, when the world presents us with a new situation, how to extend the principles we have received to that new situation.
quote:As I stated at the beginning, I'm trying here to avoid discussing the DH issue in itself, but rather to discuss the initial question of why the CofE is having so much problem and DH issues are taking up so much of their 'public discourse' - and the church's establishment clearly plays a major role in that situation. Revenons a nos moutons, mate!
Please don’t go assuming too much of what my full position might be, or assuming that I haven’t thought about issues I haven’t covered directly above.
quote:You are also quite literally suggesting killing gay people is what God instructs. You are literally suggesting that many of my friends should be killed if you follow Leviticus 20:13. When you are suggesting my friends should be killed for actions that don't hurt anyone you do not have a leg to stand on when it comes to politeness. In order to be as impolite as you I would quite literally have to say mass executions of Christians were a good thing. (For the record, and stating the obvious, they aren't).
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Justinian;
We are not likely to be impressed by people who, instead of providing proof on the point, just assail us with rude names like ‘homophobe’, or comments about ‘dark age morality’, or irrationally quote Leviticus against itself as Justinian at least appeared to in his earlier post.
We are quite reasonably, I think, concerned not to end up disobeying God ourselves or encouraging others to do so.
quote:Is it "Arguments that were used to oppose Abolition?"
We do not want to be ‘blown around by every wind of doctrine’ to just follow current fashions; nor do we want to ‘let the world squeeze us into its own mould’ (as JB Phillips paraphrased a text in Romans 12).
quote:No. But it means it should be critically assessed as a secondary source.
As a general point relevant to a few of your comments – the NEW Covenant does not, of course, simply obliterate the Old.
quote:I was simply pointing out that what happened in the OT was about an established church. For my part I think they are a bad idea in general but in specific many can be lived with.
quote:I find this comment a bit confusing, since I don’t know whether Justinian believes in establishment or belongs to an established church. He at least seems to be suggesting an established church as a legitimate option??
J: But this does not mean that there isn't a lot in the Old Testament about an Established Church. It might not mean we should do things that way. But it provides plenty of precedents on how established churches work, that are useful for instruction and reproof.
quote:Few Churches turn down the lure of power - especially when they should. Christianity as a state church as pictured by Constantine was a really bad idea.
Thus the effective establishment of the Church in the Roman Empire was a misstep and disobedient to God’s intentions;
quote:Response - I wouldn't be so stupid as to reduce anyone to their sex lives. What are you going on about????????
And you haven't responded to my comment on you reducing gay people to their sex lives, which is also deeply homophobic.
quote:Where you said it was right in this post. You simply only cited half the verse - and the verse itself is a direct call to kill gay people. You then doubled down saying it should not be ignored.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I don't recall the bit where I said gay people should be killed. That would in fact be abhorrent to me and I am not in favour of persecution of gay people.
quote:Leviticus 20:13 is a direct call for gay people to be killed and you cited it approvingly despite your claim now that the actions it calls for are abhorrent.
Leviticus 20:13, King James Version
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
quote:Only one question mark is necessary, you know.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I don't recall the bit where I said gay people should be killed. That would in fact be abhorrent to me and I am not in favour of persecution of gay people. I am in this thread to discuss the problems the CofE has over various DH issues and to make the point that those problems are related to the CofE being established. If you don't want to discuss that with me, fine; but don't go putting words in my mouth.
by Jade Constable;
quote:Response - I wouldn't be so stupid as to reduce anyone to their sex lives. What are you going on about????????
And you haven't responded to my comment on you reducing gay people to their sex lives, which is also deeply homophobic.
quote:When you talk about people being forced to celebrate gay sex rather than people having to celebrate gay PEOPLE as full members of the Kingdom, that is reducing gay people to their sex lives. The 'texts of terror' you're quoting are also purely about sex. Your comments so far are about gay sex rather than treating gay people as full human beings. Many gay people are celibate and many bisexual/pansexual/queer people are in relationships with people of the same gender - there's not really any such thing as 'gay sex', just gay people having sex.
Hmmm... remind me where the bit is in the Bible that says gay sex is wonderful and Christians have to enthusiastically approve
quote:hosting
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Steve Langton - you are being homophobic, therefore it is perfectly accurate to call you a homophobe. Saying that gay people need the death penalty is pretty much the definition of homophobia.
And you haven't responded to my comment on you reducing gay people to their sex lives, which is also deeply homophobic.
quote:It really depends what you mean by "give a damn" - if you mean it in the sense of valuing what the church thinks and working it into their worldview, you're quite right - unchurched people don't. However, if you mean "give a damn" in the sense of taking notice and filing the information away, unchurched people do. Basically they don't care enough to change how they feel about gay people, but they do care enough to change how they feel about Christians.
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't think most of the unchurched population give a damn about the church's opinion of sexuality.
quote:Sorry - didn't realise there was this difference from a hostly POV.
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:hosting
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Steve Langton - you are being homophobic, therefore it is perfectly accurate to call you a homophobe. Saying that gay people need the death penalty is pretty much the definition of homophobia.
And you haven't responded to my comment on you reducing gay people to their sex lives, which is also deeply homophobic.
Accusing a poster of being a homophobe is getting personal as per C4. You can describe somebody's views as homophobic as much as you like, but if you want to say that another poster is a homophobe ( or accurately described as one) then that belongs in Hell. Please stick to this distinction, and open a hell thread if you want to use the word homophobe with regard to another poster.
thanks,
Louise.
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
quote:The couple in the Song of Solomon are not married so it isn't endorsing conventional morality.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Justinian;
quote:The Song of Solomon is pretty enthusiastic, I'd have thought. Leviticus....ch20 v13, "13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
There is nothing in the bible saying you have to enthusiastically approve of straight sex.
quote:Damn right.
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
quote:It really depends what you mean by "give a damn" - if you mean it in the sense of valuing what the church thinks and working it into their worldview, you're quite right - unchurched people don't. However, if you mean "give a damn" in the sense of taking notice and filing the information away, unchurched people do. Basically they don't care enough to change how they feel about gay people, but they do care enough to change how they feel about Christians.
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't think most of the unchurched population give a damn about the church's opinion of sexuality.
quote:I see no reason to reconsider my actual beliefs - which I've made a point of saying I haven't gone into detail of in this thread in an attempt to avoid going off on a tangent from the OP about the 'public discourse of the Church of England'. It would be nice if you could reconsider various assumptions you have made about my beliefs.
will you now reconsider your beliefs?
quote:Misunderstanding what I said (which was anyway a request for info rather than a statement of my own position), and a bit of a non-sequitur; you're busy having an argument I didn't even know I was involved in.
When you talk about people being forced to celebrate gay sex rather than people having to celebrate gay PEOPLE as full members of the Kingdom, that is reducing gay people to their sex lives.
quote:My use of the phrase 'gay sex' was deliberate, but not necessarily for the reason you suggest. And if I were discussing, say, theft, and didn't discuss every other possible aspect of the lives of thieves, I wouldn't be treating thieves as full human beings? Or if a person discusses my model railway he's not treating me as a full human being but reducing me to my model railway? No, it just means that in a particular conversation one particularly relevant aspect is being concentrated on. Again you are conducting an argument I wasn't even thinking about.
Your comments so far are about gay sex rather than treating gay people as full human beings.
quote:OK, the clarification is appreciated. Many established religions in general have to be 'lived with' - indeed that was the problem for the Christians in the Roman Empire and subsequently in many other places. The issue here is that established Christian churches are not to be lived with because once the New Covenant came to fruition, God's people aren't supposed to do things that particular way. The CofE is having a particular problem because it is ignoring/disobeying that teaching.
I was simply pointing out that what happened in the OT was about an established church. For my part I think they are a bad idea in general but in specific many can be lived with.
quote:Biblical morality is something all Christians should return to; but with respect for the full development through the course of the Bible and a sense of historical perspective about the early events, where it would be anachronistic to expect things to happen as if Jesus had already come when of course he hadn't. (But I too cringe when I hear Tory politicians and US Religious Right people using that and similar phrases!)
Biblical morality is something we should all return to (?)
quote:Which Anglican churches are you thinking of in particular? I was under the impression that the mainstream and non-established Anglican churches in the USA and Canada were now more liberal about gay rights than the CofE because they'd largely shed their most conservative members. Is this not the case?
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Plenty of non-established Anglican Churches are managing to tie themselves in knots over gay rights. I see no reason to suppose the CofE's particular knot-tying to have anything to do with establishment. It provides some of the landforms but does not alter the biota found there.
quote:No you didn't - as I pointed out. I was actually referring to the statement made by Jesus of Nazareth in an entirely different testament in Luke 10:27, Matthew 22:38, and Mark 12:31. Oh, and Matthew 19:19, James 2:8, Galatians 5:14 ("For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."), and Romans 13:9.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
On the one you mainly complain at I drew your attention to the absurdity of quoting 'love your neighbour as yourself' from Leviticus
quote:That's because you were in the wrong testament. That I quote Shakespeare doesn't mean that I agree with everything Shakespeare had to say.
Yet you were going on about it as if it were totally disconnected from Leviticus...
quote:I don't have to come to terms with the biblical data. The bible is a collection of books that have many fictional elements put together by people remembering what human teachers said. But when dealing with a supposed Christian I expect them to reach for Jesus of Nazareth and what Jesus of Nazareth had to say before they reach for the Old Testament verse saying that gay people should be stoned (that you cut off half way through).
Whatever either of us says has to come to terms with that biblical data
quote:I'm not expert on the North American churches, but I think they've had an easier time of it than others. The Scottish Episcopal Church is still tying itself in knots, and making a lot of the same mistakes as the CofE, though with a rather less homophobic tone. I seem to recall some rather tortuous fence sitting from the church in New Zealand, too.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Which Anglican churches are you thinking of in particular? I was under the impression that the mainstream and non-established Anglican churches in the USA and Canada were now more liberal about gay rights than the CofE because they'd largely shed their most conservative members. Is this not the case?
quote:Still going on!
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I seem to recall some rather tortuous fence sitting from the church in New Zealand, too.
quote:And you think Jesus wasn't very deliberately quoting Leviticus? (Actually in Luke it's a 'lawyer' who quotes both that passage and another OT passage about loving God with all your heart - but Jesus clearly approves). Paul would also be very aware of what he was quoting.
No you didn't - as I pointed out. I was actually referring to the statement made by Jesus of Nazareth in an entirely different testament in Luke 10:27, Matthew 22:38, and Mark 12:31. Oh, and Matthew 19:19, James 2:8, Galatians 5:14 ("For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."), and Romans 13:9.
quote:No, the absurdity is not about quoting the words of Jesus; the absurdity - on your part - is ignoring the fact that he is quoting, or dealing with a quote, from Leviticus.
And I don't know why you consider quoting the words of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded by three of the four gospels to be absurd in a conversation about Christian morality. But that you do is your issue.
quote:But the point is precisely that it's not 'an entirely different testament' - it is in fact a book that Jesus himself regarded as holy Scripture and the Word of God, a Word which prepared for, predicted and validated his mission. And Jesus was quoting from it....
the statement made by Jesus of Nazareth in an entirely different testament
quote:Shakespeare ain't the Bible, his works are a different genre of literature; on top of which Titus Andronicus really is a completely different play to As You Like It and by the nature of the genre no such connection is to be expected, so I wouldn't make an obviously irrelevant response.
The equivalent to me is if I were to say that all the world was a stage from As You Like It, and you were to then quote one of the verses of Titus Andronicus about eating people.
quote:First, you do have to come to terms with it if you're going to quote it at others. But yes, it's part of my position, believing that adherence to Christianity is voluntary, that if you are not a Christian you don't have to pay it any attention at all. But if you're going to debate the biblical data, use it properly.
I don't have to come to terms with the biblical data
quote:Basically because the references in the Gospels and Epistles are quoting from the Leviticus passage as Holy Scripture, so obviously what they're quoting, and its proper interpretation, are important to understanding the NT references. Do you really have 'no idea' of such a principle?
Now I have no idea why you consider a single mention in Leviticus to be more important than mentions in most of the Gospels, and in the Epistles.
quote:First part of that, see above. 'Into a different chapter' because it is genuinely part of the context of the verse Jesus and the NT writers quoted. Paul, by the way, whose use of the text in Galatians you quote, also in Romans says things about homosexuality - and as we're not dealing with a Shakespeare play here, I assume Paul intended consistency in his writings.
So pray, what were you thinking when you chose to jump from Jesus of Nazareth into an entire different testament, and from a different testament into a different chapter?
quote:And this has what to do with the price of oil in Nantucket market? As I said, I can quote the works of William Shakespeare without agreeing with everything written in all of his plays.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Justinian;
quote:And you think Jesus wasn't very deliberately quoting Leviticus?
No you didn't - as I pointed out. I was actually referring to the statement made by Jesus of Nazareth in an entirely different testament in Luke 10:27, Matthew 22:38, and Mark 12:31. Oh, and Matthew 19:19, James 2:8, Galatians 5:14 ("For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."), and Romans 13:9.
quote:You might want to re-read those prophecies retconned into dealing with Jesus. In general they don't exist. Jesus made quite clear his opinions on ritual murder for purity reasons - getting between the stone throwing mob and the person they were trying to stone and calling them out. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Despite it being a prescribed punishment. He also had his own opinion on e.g. the Sabbath ("The Sabbath was meant for Man, not Man for the Sabbath").
But the point is precisely that it's not 'an entirely different testament' - it is in fact a book that Jesus himself regarded as holy Scripture and the Word of God, a Word which prepared for, predicted and validated his mission.
quote:And when I talk about "We few, we happy few" do you assume that I'm also in favour of massacring prisoners of war? After all, both those were Henry V.
And Jesus was quoting from it....
quote:OK. I should have used Richard III and Henry V. That much I will grant. But the Old Testament is largely fiction built to aggrandize the country it comes from, and that frequently contradicts the historical record. This makes it almost the same genre as the Bible. There is continuity between the Shakespeare Histories - and you are taking different chapters.
Shakespeare ain't the Bible, his works are a different genre of literature; on top of which Titus Andronicus really is a completely different play to As You Like It and by the nature of the genre no such connection is to be expected, so I wouldn't make an obviously irrelevant response.
quote:I'm the one who's claiming that Jesus said what he said - and that this doesn't mean that he agrees with everything else when he demonstrably disagreed with some of it. You're crossing testaments, chapters, and genres. And you have the sheer nerve to claim I'm the one not using the bible properly.
First, you do have to come to terms with it if you're going to quote it at others. But yes, it's part of my position, believing that adherence to Christianity is voluntary, that if you are not a Christian you don't have to pay it any attention at all. But if you're going to debate the biblical data, use it properly.
quote:In order to understand something's context you look at the context. Which starts off with the surrounding verses, not taking a flying leap into a different source. You see how the person quoting understood what they were saying. Then if they were quoting something else you can possibly bring that in as secondary evidence, starting with the section surrounding that. And then you can only move on to a different chapter if you first put it into context with where it stands.
Basically because the references in the Gospels and Epistles are quoting from the Leviticus passage as Holy Scripture, so obviously what they're quoting, and its proper interpretation, are important to understanding the NT references. Do you really have 'no idea' of such a principle?
quote:Paul was also writing epistles to specific people at a specific time. And I for one stand with him in condemning the use of underage boys as catamites. And for offering your daughters to be raped (as was the sin of Sodom). As for Porneia, we don't actually know what that means.
Paul, by the way, whose use of the text in Galatians you quote, also in Romans says things about homosexuality - and as we're not dealing with a Shakespeare play here, I assume Paul intended consistency in his writings.
quote:You were fabricating the idea that just because Jesus quoted a single part of Leviticus he must have agreed with absolutely everything there. And then chose to quote from a different chapter of Leviticus about it. You couldn't even hit the right chapter of the source material in order to quote your murderous passage.
OK, you perhaps didn't realise the Leviticus connection when you were chucking a superficial interpretation of Jesus' words at me. But don't complain because I did know it.
quote:Of course, by 'mistakes' you mean not coming out as pro-SSM, but the leaders of those churches might say that by hogging the fence they've at least prevented their declining denominations from driving away their most conservative (and also some of their most dynamic) members, which would render their churches even more fragile. The North American Episcopalian churches are declining too, but they're much larger institutions, so are in a stronger position for asserting a liberal identity.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:I'm not expert on the North American churches, but I think they've had an easier time of it than others. The Scottish Episcopal Church is still tying itself in knots, and making a lot of the same mistakes as the CofE, though with a rather less homophobic tone. I seem to recall some rather tortuous fence sitting from the church in New Zealand, too.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Which Anglican churches are you thinking of in particular? I was under the impression that the mainstream and non-established Anglican churches in the USA and Canada were now more liberal about gay rights than the CofE because they'd largely shed their most conservative members. Is this not the case?
quote:NO, NO, NO! Read the story again. Offering his daughters to be raped was the act of Lot, not of 'Sodom'. And even then (a) he was in a pretty desperate situation overall, and (b)many people (not necessarily me) would argue that this was intended as an attempt at defusing the situation, a kind of 'think about what you're doing' gesture, not an offer he expected to be taken up on. No one is suggesting it was an ideal reaction on his part - I don't think many would have been happy with it even then - but it was NOT, repeat NOT, the 'sin of Sodom'.
And for offering your daughters to be raped (as was the sin of Sodom)
quote:Just modifying this to say that the Lutheran churches in Scandinavia each have a different relationship with the state, with Denmark retaining the strongest link, and the process seems to be still evolving in each country. Googling suggests that many of the articles that try to be comprehensive are a little out of date.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The Scandinavian churches have recently been disestablished
quote:I think you'll be surprised how at how quickly views change. In fact, the biblical evidence one way or another is quite thin, but the real problem here is the last six words of the snip that I have quoted have quoted above. To read blanket disapproval of homosexual sex into the biblical account is to ignore the context in which such acts take place, on a way that would be unthinkable for straight sex. Thus to read the levitical proscriptions as referring to covenanted permant and stable relationships is to ignore the facts that the larger issue of the time was cult prostitution, and thus, idolatry. This theme of idolatry is reflected in the Romans 1 passage. The sexual theme there, (and it's clearly not the stuff with which the vast majority of gay people would identify) is a result of idolatry, not the cause of it, and Paul mentions it as an illustration of the consequences of , rather than the reason for, idolatry.
originally posted by Steve Langton
Be realistic; Christians believing, on the basis of the Bible, that gay sex is inappropriate for Christians, will not be going away any time soon because it's rather difficult to get the biblical texts to read as approval of gay sex let alone
quote:Evangelical churches with their clear boundaries and high expectations sometimes create a dynamic and committed environment that draws in people who like the atmosphere but don't really share the theology. In the long run, this ironically makes the churches less evangelical, and hence less appealing overall. It's hard not to see a growing acceptance of diversity in sexual behaviour (straight as well as gay) as part of this process.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The truth is that the objections to gay marriage will melt away, as more and more Christians make friends with their gay co-religionists, and realise that they don't have two heads, are not idolaters, but are people just like them who love the Lord, share the housework and argue about leaving the top off the toothpaste.
quote:Interview with Ken Wilson
KEN: Well, for me, I asked myself: Why am I willing to make so much space in the church for people who are remarried after divorce—despite the Bible’s very strict teaching against that—and I’m not willing to make space for gay and lesbian people? And I kept asking myself: Why does this particular moral stance of the church about LGBT people cause so much harm?...
KEN: When I started pondering these questions, I realized that this particular stance of the church really is harmful. When a married man in a congregation has an adulterous affair with another woman—and he’s confronted about it—we don’t usually have suicides as a result. But, we do have teenagers committing suicides at higher rates when they are part of congregations that have these exclusionary teachings about homosexuality. Is this really the teaching of Jesus when our exclusion of people is contributing to a rise in suicide?...
KEN: Right. The problem is that so many people in the evangelical community—and in the faith community in general—want to find a way to accept and include gay and lesbian people, but they have serious questions based on their faith tradition. Who wants to go up against 2,000 years of Christian consensus on an issue? But, already, many people do know that our hearts are telling us something else. People are realizing that, even if they don’t fully understand how to think through this issue, there’s a more serious question we’re facing: the do-no-harm test.
The truth is: There are gay young people in all congregations, whatever the congregation teaches about homosexuality. So, we’ve got a dangerous situation here when we condemn and exclude people. Just look at the data on suicide rates. As a pastor, I began to realize: This can’t be the fruit of the Spirit. There’s something wrong here.
quote:That's the point I was making. They will change their stance, as they have on others things. Gradually, this will make them less evangelical and more mainstream. Other newer groups will eventually take their place as the standard-bearers of evangelicalism.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
More and more evangelical churches are changing their stances.
quote:It throws up a range of questions. Why don't adulterous couples feel guilty enough to commit suicide, whereas gay teenagers do - if it is indeed about guilt? At what point in history did gay teenagers in churches start to commit suicide? Did John Wesley have to deal with this problem in his churches, or is it a peculiarly late/post-Christendom thing? Do gay evangelicals feel unable to give up on churchgoing and go off to sow their wild oats as young Christians in other Western church traditions are quite willing to do?
When a married man in a congregation has an adulterous affair with another woman—and he’s confronted about it—we don’t usually have suicides as a result. But, we do have teenagers committing suicides at higher rates when they are part of congregations that have these exclusionary teachings about homosexuality.
quote:I wasn't talking so much about substance as about methods (I expect the SEC to permit equal marriage within the next few years, but that's beside the point). The song and dance about "facilitated conversations" and whatever else has resulted in an awful lot of talking about gay people and treating gay Christians as a problem that needs fixing, rather than talking to gay men and women of faith. Provost Kelvin Holdsworth's recent blog post is illustrative of the sort of thing I mean:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Of course, by 'mistakes' you mean not coming out as pro-SSM,
quote:Could you provide an example?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I'm still looking for the Christian that follows every command and prohibition in Scripture (even one who follows merely those in the New Testament.) Because I don't believe they exist, the onus remains on those who are opposed to gay relationships to show why this rule is binding when so many others uttered by Jesus and Paul aren't.
quote:The obvious one seems to be remarriage after divorce - even Roman Catholics have a way of rules lawyering around that one if they need it. Any church that takes the alleged prohibition of same sex relationships more seriously than the blatant prohibition against divorce and remarriage is engaging in fairly blatant hypocrisy.
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:Could you provide an example?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I'm still looking for the Christian that follows every command and prohibition in Scripture (even one who follows merely those in the New Testament.) Because I don't believe they exist, the onus remains on those who are opposed to gay relationships to show why this rule is binding when so many others uttered by Jesus and Paul aren't.
quote:I am unaware of the RCC regulations surrounding this issue. I am also unaware of churches that hew to Scripture, which teach that remarriage after divorce is not adultery outside of a divorce for a Biblically-sanctioned reason.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:The obvious one seems to be remarriage after divorce - even Roman Catholics have a way of rules lawyering around that one if they need it. Any church that takes the alleged prohibition of same sex relationships more seriously than the blatant prohibition against divorce and remarriage is engaging in fairly blatant hypocrisy.
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:Could you provide an example?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I'm still looking for the Christian that follows every command and prohibition in Scripture (even one who follows merely those in the New Testament.) Because I don't believe they exist, the onus remains on those who are opposed to gay relationships to show why this rule is binding when so many others uttered by Jesus and Paul aren't.
quote:Except this change (if it's a change at all, there's some dispute about that) has arisen organically within the language, not been imposed by a totalitarian government. It's just a Godwin, and a clumsy one at that.
Originally posted by Snags:
That's not actually what he's saying. Although I don't particularly agree with what he is saying either. It's an unhelpful and needlessly extreme comparison, but it's basically accurate in terms of what he's talking about with regard to use of language to influence thinking and effect social change.
quote:So I'm not much impressed by N T Wright's comments about social risk in this case. Of course we should always be aware of the risks of political deception and manipulation, and recognise that weasel wording has a part to play in that. But it really doesn't seem to be an appropriate connection to make on this topic.
Bayer's disagreement with the theory that homosexuality is a disease is evident throughout the book. He refers to the American Psychological Association's removal of homosexuality from the official list of psychological diseases in 1973 as a right(e)ous act toward accepting homosexuals into American society.
quote:He also makes the comparison with Blair's speech about bombing Iraq! So that's the Nazis, the Communists rendering people unpersons, and the bombing of Iraq. Oh, and he squeezes in a quote from Khrushchev.
Originally posted by bad man:
And now here is theologian and former Bishop of Durham N T Wright, with the insight in an interview with First Things that introducing equal marriage is like Nazis changing words and Communists getting ready to ship people off somewhere "and have them killed".
It is possible this will bring many people to the gospel but I wouldn't be one of them.
quote:It's also an odd way of looking at it, as if the linguistic change (if there really is one), is the source of social change. That seems quite bizarre, as if some people sat around and thought, let's change the meaning of the word 'marriage', then we'll get equality.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Except this change (if it's a change at all, there's some dispute about that) has arisen organically within the language, not been imposed by a totalitarian government. It's just a Godwin, and a clumsy one at that.
Originally posted by Snags:
That's not actually what he's saying. Although I don't particularly agree with what he is saying either. It's an unhelpful and needlessly extreme comparison, but it's basically accurate in terms of what he's talking about with regard to use of language to influence thinking and effect social change.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Um, it's not so. Well-documented counterexample. Long list of some more controversial counterexamples.
"the word “marriage,” for thousands of years and cross-culturally has meant man and woman... it’s always been male plus female... just cross-culturally, that’s so."
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Except this change (if it's a change at all, there's some dispute about that) has arisen organically within the language, not been imposed by a totalitarian government. It's just a Godwin, and a clumsy one at that.
quote:It's almost as if he is making it up as he goes along, the only consistent theme being that he thinks that rights for people in same sex relationships are a very big deal and a very bad thing.
Last week the Civil Partnerships Act came into force, and couples of the same sex are now able to apply to register as Partners, with various tax and inheritance benefits very similar to those applying to married couples. After a short waiting period, registrations will take place, beginning on December 21.
The government has insisted that this is not ‘gay marriage’...
However, the press and general public have already referred to this new institution as ‘gay marriage’ – which is hardly surprising, since the new law borrows heavily from existing marriage legislation (including, bizarrely, a ban on partnerships within the prohibited family degrees). The relevant minister has stated that refusal of sexual relations might constitute grounds for dissolution of a Civil Partnership. ‘Gay marriage’ is of course now explicitly on offer, in very similar legislation, in other parts of the world such as Canada and Spain. The media are already gearing up for the first ‘gay weddings’. Such notional distinction as there may be is entirely lost on most people.
quote:Divorce and remarriage
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:Could you provide an example?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I'm still looking for the Christian that follows every command and prohibition in Scripture (even one who follows merely those in the New Testament.) Because I don't believe they exist, the onus remains on those who are opposed to gay relationships to show why this rule is binding when so many others uttered by Jesus and Paul aren't.
quote:A local priest who is a friend of mine wrote a pretty good rebuttal to Wright's comments.
Originally posted by bad man:
And now here is theologian and former Bishop of Durham N T Wright, with the insight in an interview with First Things that introducing equal marriage is like Nazis changing words and Communists getting ready to ship people off somewhere "and have them killed".
It is possible this will bring many people to the gospel but I wouldn't be one of them.
quote:What's funny is that the people who oppose gay rights on the grounds that they object to changing the meaning of words are exactly the same people who, when you call them "homophobes", deny it.
Originally posted by bad man:
It's almost as if he is making it up as he goes along, the only consistent theme being that he thinks that rights for people in same sex relationships are a very big deal and a very bad thing.
quote:Thing is, though, that's not an accurate reflection of Wright. He's not a dyed-in-the-wool conservative as such (though he's far from a radical progressive). Certainly he's argued in favour of women bishops (though on the grounds that it's biblical to do so, rather than from an idea of progress as such). I don't think he quite fits the description of a conservative resisting any and all change within the church. It seems to be mainly in this area of SSM that he holds to the traditional line.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose that conservatives like Wright are dismayed by the advance of secular morality, on issues like gay marriage. They have been lagging behind for a long time, on the issue of racism, equality for women, and now equality for gays.
quote:Glad Wright has come into the discussion.
Originally posted by bad man:
And now here is theologian and former Bishop of Durham N T Wright, with the insight in an interview with First Things that introducing equal marriage is like Nazis changing words and Communists getting ready to ship people off somewhere "and have them killed".
It is possible this will bring many people to the gospel but I wouldn't be one of them.
quote:Agreed, absolutely. Just wanted to point out that bad man was kicking him for the wrong reason.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Except this change (if it's a change at all, there's some dispute about that) has arisen organically within the language, not been imposed by a totalitarian government. It's just a Godwin, and a clumsy one at that.
Originally posted by Snags:
That's not actually what he's saying. Although I don't particularly agree with what he is saying either. It's an unhelpful and needlessly extreme comparison, but it's basically accurate in terms of what he's talking about with regard to use of language to influence thinking and effect social change.
quote:Hardly surprising. Wright may be an admired academic, but pastoral gifts are not his strong suit.
Originally posted by bad man:
And now here is theologian and former Bishop of Durham N T Wright, with the insight in an interview with First Things that introducing equal marriage is like Nazis changing words and Communists getting ready to ship people off somewhere "and have them killed".
It is possible this will bring many people to the gospel but I wouldn't be one of them.
quote:
Originally posted by bad man:
And now here is theologian and former Bishop of Durham N T Wright, with the insight in an interview with First Things that introducing equal marriage is like Nazis changing words and Communists getting ready to ship people off somewhere "and have them killed".
quote:Isn't it?
Originally posted by Snags:
That's not actually what he's saying.
quote:I am NOT surprised as this outburst seems to fit in with the other things I have read of his attitudes.
Originally posted by Snags:
I'm also slightly surprised at Wright; I haven't read a lot of his stuff, but from what I have read I would have expected him to be a touch less of a reactionary conservative on the issue.
quote:Because, of all the qualities missing from the bishops' bench, in the judgment of the Archbishops, it is the lack of a bishop who believes and teaches "Male headship" which urgently needs sorting out.
"...it is evident that to date the normal processes for appointing diocesan and suffragan bishops have not delivered the aspiration to appoint a bishop who holds the Conservative Evangelical view on headship. It is also unclear whether the processes are capable of doing so within a reasonable timescale.
We are therefore now consulting others with a view to ensuring that the aspiration is met within a matter of months."
quote:This could well be my diocese as we are in vacancy at the moment.
Originally posted by bad man:
Which diocese would like a bishop who "holds the Conservative Evangelical view on headship"? That is, who believes and teaches that women are unable, because of their gender, to exercise all the leadership roles that a man could exercise?
It seems that none of them do. And the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York have put out a paper for General Synod in which they reassure us all that, just because the horse is dead, doesn't mean that they won't move heaven and earth to get that bishop appointed.
quote:Because, of all the qualities missing from the bishops' bench, in the judgment of the Archbishops, it is the lack of a bishop who believes and teaches "Male headship" which urgently needs sorting out.
"...it is evident that to date the normal processes for appointing diocesan and suffragan bishops have not delivered the aspiration to appoint a bishop who holds the Conservative Evangelical view on headship. It is also unclear whether the processes are capable of doing so within a reasonable timescale.
We are therefore now consulting others with a view to ensuring that the aspiration is met within a matter of months."
quote:
The Rt Revd Richard Inwood, Acting Bishop for Southwell and Nottingham, announced the disciplinary move saying Anglican teaching required “modelling” by clergy in their lives.
“In view of this I have spoken to Jeremy Pemberton and subsequently written to him to tell him his permission to officiate in the Diocese of Southwell and Nottingham has been revoked,” he said.
quote:Here beginneth the witch hunt.
Originally posted by bad man:
Now here comes a bishop who bans a priest from officiating in his diocese because he married his long term partner.
Being gay, he officiated. Living with his partner, he officiated. Marrying - making a long term commitment in accordance with the law of the land - and he's suddenly unfit to officiate as a priest anywhere in the diocese. Because this is really, really important in the Church of England now. Marriage is a terrible, bad, banned, thing and the consequences for priests who get married will be very severe.
quote:
The Rt Revd Richard Inwood, Acting Bishop for Southwell and Nottingham, announced the disciplinary move saying Anglican teaching required “modelling” by clergy in their lives.
“In view of this I have spoken to Jeremy Pemberton and subsequently written to him to tell him his permission to officiate in the Diocese of Southwell and Nottingham has been revoked,” he said.
for Jeremy Pemberton. May he become a beacon of encouragement, rather than a whipping horse.
quote:I think it is no surprise that it is a retired bishop who is taking the lead in this. He's got nothing much to lose and the archbishop can use him as a fig leaf.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Going onto the diocesan website there's no mention of this under their 'News' category.
Is it bitchy of me to think that a flood of email enquiries as to why this should be might give the diocese (if not the bishop) pause for thought?
/tangent
How is it that a retired suffragan bishop over the age of 67 can be making decisions like this. I'd have thought York might have advised him to either do nothing or for it to be passed onto them, bearing in mind any action is likely to be controversial. //
quote:If Sentamu doesn't believe all that, he won't have much trouble in coming down like a ton of bricks on a clergyman who commits the unforgiveable act of marriage, as long as he's a homosexual clergyman.
In the name of God, we, the bishops of the Anglican Communion who have affixed our names to this Accord, publish it as a statement of our shared opinion in regard to all persons who are homosexual. We affirm that while we may have contrasting views on the Biblical, theological, and moral issues surrounding homosexuality, on these three points we are in one Accord:
- That no homosexual person should ever be deprived of liberty, personal property, or civil rights because of his or her sexual orientation.
- That all acts of violence, oppression, and degradation against homosexual persons are wrong and cannot be sanctioned by an appeal to the Christian faith.
- That every human being is created equal in the eyes of God and therefore deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.
We appeal to people of good conscience from every nation and religious creed to join us in embracing this simple Accord as our global claim to human rights not only for homosexual men and women, but for all God's people.
quote:What does that have to do with the price of fish?
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
But no attempt on either diocese's part to justify punitive action for someone doing sonething that is entirely legal.
quote:I know someone who used to work for Holtham and says he is two-faced - he wanted top get on so he was liberal enough to get noticed but not too liberal so as to rock the boat.
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Even Alan Wilson and Nick Holtam have been remarkably silent on the matter recently.
quote:I am very surprised you've never heard of her. For a start she's much more well-known in evangelical circles - I know many evangelicals who have never heard of Steve Chalke but almost all will have heard of Vicky Beeching as most will be singing her worship songs. She's written a great deal of worship songs and they are sung both in the UK and US - I think having influence in the UK and US is definitely rather more influential than Steve Chalke!
Originally posted by leo:
Never heard of Vicky Beeching - looked her up - she isn't a preacher or church leader so why is she more influential than Chalke?
quote:That's rather my point. There will still be LGBT people (please don't ignore trans people) in con evo congregations, and ignoring them won't make them go away.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I thought con evos still tended to deny the existence of LGB and just talk about "problems with same-sex attraction". They'll admit to those, but they won't admit to the existence of LGB people because then they might have to relinquish the sophistry that being gay is unnatural and that homosexuality can be tackled by enough prayer and cold showers.
quote:I didn't include the "T" because the problem con evos have with trans people isn't quite the same as they have with LGB people and the debate isn't framed in the same way. I'm wary of lumping in "T" folk when it's not appropriate.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
That's rather my point. There will still be LGBT people (please don't ignore trans people) in con evo congregations, and ignoring them won't make them go away.
quote:Well no, it is different, but trans people can also be LGB people. I'm conscious of trans people historically being pushed out of LGBT community stuff even though a trans woman started the stonewall riots.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:I didn't include the "T" because the problem con evos have with trans people isn't quite the same as they have with LGB people and the debate isn't framed in the same way. I'm wary of lumping in "T" folk when it's not appropriate.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
That's rather my point. There will still be LGBT people (please don't ignore trans people) in con evo congregations, and ignoring them won't make them go away.
quote:I avoid 'evangelical circles' like the plague.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:I am very surprised you've never heard of her. For a start she's much more well-known in evangelical circles - I know many evangelicals who have never heard of Steve Chalke but almost all will have heard of Vicky Beeching as most will be singing her worship songs.
Originally posted by leo:
Never heard of Vicky Beeching - looked her up - she isn't a preacher or church leader so why is she more influential than Chalke?
quote:Er, she's not a singer, she's a songwriter and Oxford-educated theologian, currently working on a PhD in the ethics of technology from Durham. What a nasty and ignorant bit of sneering. As iamchristian says, the idea of hymns and worship songs influencing Christian culture is nothing new.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I avoid 'evangelical circles' like the plague.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:I am very surprised you've never heard of her. For a start she's much more well-known in evangelical circles - I know many evangelicals who have never heard of Steve Chalke but almost all will have heard of Vicky Beeching as most will be singing her worship songs.
Originally posted by leo:
Never heard of Vicky Beeching - looked her up - she isn't a preacher or church leader so why is she more influential than Chalke?
And the notion that a singer can be more influential than a moral theologian suggests how vapid evangelicalism has become.
If it is such evangelicals that LGBTs have to fear then they (LGBTs)have already won the war.
quote:I grew up in the Methodist Church, where singing the faith is far more commonplace than the study of any 'moral theologians', so I find yours a very interesting comment.
Originally posted by leo:
And the notion that a singer can be more influential than a moral theologian suggests how vapid evangelicalism has become.
If it is such evangelicals that LGBTs have to fear then they (LGBTs)have already won the war.
quote:I get around (ahem) in evangelical circles a bit but I'd never heard of Vicky until I read your post. I've read some of her stuff now: very interesting.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Er, she's not a singer, she's a songwriter and Oxford-educated theologian, currently working on a PhD in the ethics of technology from Durham. What a nasty and ignorant bit of sneering. As iamchristian says, the idea of hymns and worship songs influencing Christian culture is nothing new.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I avoid 'evangelical circles' like the plague.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:I am very surprised you've never heard of her. For a start she's much more well-known in evangelical circles - I know many evangelicals who have never heard of Steve Chalke but almost all will have heard of Vicky Beeching as most will be singing her worship songs.
Originally posted by leo:
Never heard of Vicky Beeching - looked her up - she isn't a preacher or church leader so why is she more influential than Chalke?
And the notion that a singer can be more influential than a moral theologian suggests how vapid evangelicalism has become.
If it is such evangelicals that LGBTs have to fear then they (LGBTs)have already won the war.
And if you avoid evangelical circles like the plague I don't see how you can make any kind of fair comment on evangelicalism.
quote:1. It doesn't need a singer nor a moral theologian to be influential. Anyone who is close to God will inevitably do it. The sung word is just as much an expression of one's encounter with God (and response to that) as is an academic tome from a moral theologian. More people are likely to understand the former anyway.
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]
1. And the notion that a singer can be more influential than a moral theologian suggests how vapid evangelicalism has become.
2. If it is such evangelicals that LGBTs have to fear then they (LGBTs)have already won the war.
quote:If you think that this isn't a war then the first thing you can do is stop Evangelical Christians and other Christian homophobes shooting at gay people and their friends and families. Trying to destroy their marriages or prevent them from ever happening. Trying to harrass them and compare consensual loving sex to bestiality and paedophilia. And the very least you can do is stop objecting when those your fellow Christians would shoot return fire.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
2. You use of the word "war" here rather gives your game away. It's not a war, it's a tragedy because no one will win save division. We will all get what we want but at what cost to the gospel imperative in the UK?
quote:I think that one of the things that Vicky Beeching and Steve Chalke share (along with such folks as Rob Bell and Brian McLaren) is a keen awareness of groundswell opinion. After all, there's no point in broadcasting even a prophetic rallying call if the troops aren't of a mind to respond. And I think that their views are congruent with a large portion of the (particularly young) evangelical community. It's not that they are out of step with the majority of evangelicals so much, as that they are out of step with the majority of evangelical leaders.
originally posted by Exclamation Mark
I get around (ahem) in evangelical circles a bit but I'd never heard of Vicky until I read your post. I've read some of her stuff now: very interesting.
Yes - I'd place her current position with that of Steve Chalke. They might both call themselves "evangelical" but to most people in that constituency they've redefined what that word means to suit their own views.
Their views would not be acceptable to most evangelicals (of whatever denomination)in my experience of that group, whether at local, regional or national levels. Chalke's foray into biblical interpretation is fast making him an outsider in his own denomination.
quote:I think they call themselves 'evangelical' because they claim to base their views on the Bible, despite the fact that (as they both know full well, I'm sure!) most others claiming the label 'evangelical' disagree with their stance.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Yes - I'd place her [Vicky Beeching's] current position with that of Steve Chalke. They might both call themselves "evangelical" but to most people in that constituency they've redefined what that word means to suit their own views.
quote:Which is why elements of evangelicalism are dangerous and based upon emotion.
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Lex cantandi, lex credendi...
Vicky Beeching is more than a singer, no? A prominent writer of worship songs or hymns being as influential as a preacher wouldn't have been considered unusual to the Wesleys, I'm sure.
quote:
originally posted by leo
Irrational feelings like homophobia can be whipped up through music.
quote:Except that Beeching is for marriage equality and her songs are not 'all about 'me''
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Which is why elements of evangelicalism are dangerous and based upon emotion.
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Lex cantandi, lex credendi...
Vicky Beeching is more than a singer, no? A prominent writer of worship songs or hymns being as influential as a preacher wouldn't have been considered unusual to the Wesleys, I'm sure.
Irrational feelings like homophobia can be whipped up through music.
'Worship songs' that are all about 'me' whip up selfishness and smugness.
quote:I think that sums up well the massive failings of evangelicalism in general - under the guise of spirituality and zeal, stupidity and ignorance is placed above knowledge. Yup. That's the evangelicalism we've all come to know and love. What need for facts or truth when you've got gut feelings? And if those gut feelings tell you to hate gay people, well if must be God telling you that right? And if you can find a verse in the bible which vaguely looks like it justifies your gut feelings on first glance, well then you know you're right! (Not that you had any uncertainty before, of course, because that would be "doubt" and as an evangelical you know that doubt is bad. (James 1:6))
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It doesn't need a singer nor a moral theologian to be influential. Anyone who is close to God will inevitably do it. The sung word is just as much an expression of one's encounter with God (and response to that) as is an academic tome from a moral theologian. More people are likely to understand the former anyway.
quote:The phrase "culture war" is a term coined and used by evangelicals in the US to refer to their ongoing "fight" to foist their insane views onto everyone else through law. In my observation, evangelicals in the US tend to use an absurdly large amount of military metaphors, which they seem to feel is justified by occasional reference to verses like "fight the good fight" with "the sword of the spirit" and "put on the breastplate of righteousness". Funnily enough, the gay people being literally killed by evangelicals (ie driven to suicide) in the evangelical's "war" against them, occasionally express the desire to have some rights, at which point evangelicals tend to wail loudly about themselves (!) being persecuted and losing (religious) freedom. I find their hypocrisy quite funny.
You use of the word "war" here rather gives your game away.
quote:You can't use "Look over there! The economy!" as an excuse for ignoring basic human rights violations. Nothing stops both being addressed at the same time. I also note that Christians have quite a large number of different economic views, so I am somewhat confused by how you think Christians as a whole would be able to meaningfully speak to any economic issues without causing even more division among them than on the issue of homosexuality.
While we're navel gazing in this way the economic upheaval continues around us. The church isn't responding to this because we are spending all our energy on in house issues.
quote:I recall seeing a documentary about homophobia in Jamaica which claimed that hundreds of worship songs there had been written with anti-gay lyrics. They gave subtitles for one that was being played in public by a pentecostal pastor. Can't remember which of the various documentaries about Jamaican homophobia it was though.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by leo
Irrational feelings like homophobia can be whipped up through music.
I think I would want a citation to justify this assertion.
quote:If evangelicals are committing crimes against anyone then they should be subjected to secular legal penalties. But religious groups are voluntary organisations. No one should feel obliged to submit to any church if they're in basic disagreement with its teachings about sexual behaviour or anything else.
Originally posted by Starlight:
You can't use "Look over there! The economy!" as an excuse for ignoring basic human rights violations.
quote:Firstly, I don't recognise that as a characteristic of "evangelicalism in general" - of some branches of evangelicalism yes, but not "in general". There are good, great evangelical thinkers (whether or not you agree with them) who have thought about stuff and not just gone with their "gut instinct". Yes, I guess they would ultimately say that you must submit your intellect to Scripture and the guidance of the Spirit and yes, there does sometimes seem to be a worrying anti-intellectualism in some branches of evangelicalism. But it's far from general or universal.
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:I think that sums up well the massive failings of evangelicalism in general - under the guise of spirituality and zeal, stupidity and ignorance is placed above knowledge. Yup. That's the evangelicalism we've all come to know and love. What need for facts or truth when you've got gut feelings? And if those gut feelings tell you to hate gay people, well if must be God telling you that right? And if you can find a verse in the bible which vaguely looks like it justifies your gut feelings on first glance, well then you know you're right! (Not that you had any uncertainty before, of course, because that would be "doubt" and as an evangelical you know that doubt is bad. (James 1:6))
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It doesn't need a singer nor a moral theologian to be influential. Anyone who is close to God will inevitably do it. The sung word is just as much an expression of one's encounter with God (and response to that) as is an academic tome from a moral theologian. More people are likely to understand the former anyway.
quote:Oh yes, totally. IMO sermons in themselves are, on the whole, a pretty ineffective teaching method, whereas songs, poetry and probably other art forms too are highly memorable and influential. *Dismounts hobby horse*
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Secondly, I think this does a disservice to the power of music to work at multiple levels, including the intellect. One of my Bible tutors at college, who was both a (good) preacher and a songwriter, as well as being very intelligent and far from con-evo, reckoned that the songs he wrote did much to more get across the ideas he wanted to say than the sermons he preached. Hymns have a long and honourable history of being used to teach faith in the church. You yourself point out the use of hymns in Jamaica to inculculate a homophobic attitude in worshippers. Hymns and songs have fantastic power, for good or ill and this doesn't need to be antagonistic to thinking, facts etc. at all.
quote:I'm a preacher, so I'm... not going there... (though for me, preaching =/= teaching - at least not entirely)
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:Oh yes, totally. IMO sermons in themselves are, on the whole, a pretty ineffective teaching method, whereas songs, poetry and probably other art forms too are highly memorable and influential. *Dismounts hobby horse*
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Secondly, I think this does a disservice to the power of music to work at multiple levels, including the intellect. One of my Bible tutors at college, who was both a (good) preacher and a songwriter, as well as being very intelligent and far from con-evo, reckoned that the songs he wrote did much to more get across the ideas he wanted to say than the sermons he preached. Hymns have a long and honourable history of being used to teach faith in the church. You yourself point out the use of hymns in Jamaica to inculculate a homophobic attitude in worshippers. Hymns and songs have fantastic power, for good or ill and this doesn't need to be antagonistic to thinking, facts etc. at all.
quote:You didn't miss much.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Vicky Beeching is a new name to me - I'd never heard of her until this thread. As a result, I Googled her, and got a link to an article in "Christianity Today" which talks about her support of SSM. Sadly, every time I try to go there my entire pc freezes. Am I under spiritual attack, do you think?
quote:Give me an undivided heart Just say the word and I will be changed Lord I want to know what moves you
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Except that Beeching is for marriage equality and her songs are not 'all about 'me''
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Which is why elements of evangelicalism are dangerous and based upon emotion.
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Lex cantandi, lex credendi...
Vicky Beeching is more than a singer, no? A prominent writer of worship songs or hymns being as influential as a preacher wouldn't have been considered unusual to the Wesleys, I'm sure.
Irrational feelings like homophobia can be whipped up through music.
'Worship songs' that are all about 'me' whip up selfishness and smugness.
.
quote:I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so rude about her, particularly given that she, er, agrees with you re SSM.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:You didn't miss much.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Vicky Beeching is a new name to me - I'd never heard of her until this thread. As a result, I Googled her, and got a link to an article in "Christianity Today" which talks about her support of SSM. Sadly, every time I try to go there my entire pc freezes. Am I under spiritual attack, do you think?
She says very little but repeats herself and her views are based on emotion rather than reason.
quote:Um, that's one song out of many. And given her lack of homophobia, it's certainly not whipping up that.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Give me an undivided heart Just say the word and I will be changed Lord I want to know what moves you
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Except that Beeching is for marriage equality and her songs are not 'all about 'me''
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Which is why elements of evangelicalism are dangerous and based upon emotion.
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Lex cantandi, lex credendi...
Vicky Beeching is more than a singer, no? A prominent writer of worship songs or hymns being as influential as a preacher wouldn't have been considered unusual to the Wesleys, I'm sure.
Irrational feelings like homophobia can be whipped up through music.
'Worship songs' that are all about 'me' whip up selfishness and smugness.
.
quote:If you follow the link you'll see that they are 'me' sentiments from 3 different songs.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Um, that's one song out of many. And given her lack of homophobia, it's certainly not whipping up that.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Give me an undivided heart Just say the word and I will be changed Lord I want to know what moves you
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Except that Beeching is for marriage equality and her songs are not 'all about 'me''
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Which is why elements of evangelicalism are dangerous and based upon emotion.
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Lex cantandi, lex credendi...
Vicky Beeching is more than a singer, no? A prominent writer of worship songs or hymns being as influential as a preacher wouldn't have been considered unusual to the Wesleys, I'm sure.
Irrational feelings like homophobia can be whipped up through music.
'Worship songs' that are all about 'me' whip up selfishness and smugness.
.
quote:Whoa, whoa, whoa. Stop the car, put it in park, and set the emergency brake. You may want to qualify that -- otherwise I'll start naming influential people and asking you how close to God you think they are.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
1. It doesn't need a singer nor a moral theologian to be influential. Anyone who is close to God will inevitably do it. ...
quote:It's not the song writer I am concerned about.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Leo, I'm really struggling to understand the constant snipes at Vicky Beeching's songwriting, given a) it seems irrelevant to the subject at hand and b) she's on your side in this argument .
quote:Then stop sniping at her songwriting, for goodness' sakes. It's completely irrelevant here.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:It's not the song writer I am concerned about.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Leo, I'm really struggling to understand the constant snipes at Vicky Beeching's songwriting, given a) it seems irrelevant to the subject at hand and b) she's on your side in this argument .
It is the notion that, in evangelical circles, a songwriter should be seen to have more clout that a moral theologian.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:where?
Originally posted by Gildas:
I think I may have spotted a flaw in your reasoning there, leo.
quote:Presumably that some patients will also be bigots and/or very pedantic about the licensing of their chaplains.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:where?
Originally posted by Gildas:
I think I may have spotted a flaw in your reasoning there, leo.
quote:The whole point of having an episcopal church is, surely, consistency.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Southwell is quite an evangelical diocese. It is very difficult to find any MOTR or Anglo-Catholic churches at all, anywhere, so the acting Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham is not out of kilter with the area. The Bishop of Lincoln, however, is a patron of Changing Attitudes.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:And this is exactly why the church's clubby "let's all rub along, pass the port" schtick is killing it.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Meh, I agree, but no skin off my nose. I am no longer a member of any congregation, took myself off the electoral roll at the last update. I got fed up of saying "not in my name*" and remaining within the same church.
* homophobia and misogyny
quote:If the patients are of all faiths and none then neither a C of E minister in good standing nor an independent can be said to be representative.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:where?
Originally posted by Gildas:
I think I may have spotted a flaw in your reasoning there, leo.
