Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Epiphanies 2022: "Together in love and faith" - is the CofE finally going to change?

ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
edited January 7 in Limbo
The Bishop of Oxford recently published an extended essay laying out his evolving thinking on human sexuality and proposing a mechanism for resolving the state of paralysis the CofE has found itself in for the last 30 years in relation to how it treats LGBT people. I will admit I've not read the whole thing. The idea seems to be that anti-gay elements in the church should have a separate province to protect them from, I don't know, gay cooties. This seems an absurdity to me. There's already provision for the misogynist faction within the church (already a step too far), but the idea that there should be a fully sectioned off part of the church just to pander to the tender sensibilities of homophobes seems quite absurd. I'll tolerate clergy not being willing to conduct the solemnisation of marriage of same-sex couples, because no-one wants to force a homophobe to officiate at their wedding anyway, and priests are largely interchangeable. I'd even go so far as to tolerate congregations being able to refuse to accept a priest in a same-sex relationship for a period of, say, 10 years while they get their tiny minds around the idea. But the idea that, long term, the CofE will have parishes that are simply off-limits to gay people, that the right to marry in one's parish church will continue to be asterisked as *only if your tab A matches their slot B, is not tolerable.

Credit to the Bishop for speaking up, at last, but I find myself reaching for Nick Clegg's words about AV: this is a "miserable little compromise".
«134

Comments

  • It's a small step forward for senior bishops to be talking like this at all, I agree, but yes - the usual miserable little compromise is probably the way they'll go.

    What a ghastly prospect, though - churches officially off-limits to LGBT+ folk...

    The flying bishops set-up for the *traditionalist* faction does seem to work fairly well at grass-roots level (at least IME - Our Place is one of those with what our previous Area Dean mischievously called a *Special Needs Bishop*).

  • I'm not sure how well flying bishops work if you're a young woman called to the priesthood and your parish church is one of those under "alternative oversight".
  • @Arethosemyfeet I haven't read the essay and might not understand all of the language specific to the C of E if I did. How is it that churches would be off limits to LGBT people? Would most of the restrictions only be on the hiring of LGBT clergy at certain parishes and the prohibition of clergy from celebrating same sex marriages and/or blessing same sex couples? Would LGBT laity be able to do everything at a parish except marry their partner? Would they be able to have children they are raising baptized and confirmed? Could they be denied baptism or confirmation in a church or denied from receiving communion? Could they be denied funerals in the church? Would they be able to serve on the parochial church council (or whatever the equivalent is called) and in various church ministries and volunteer, music, and educational positions otherwise open to the laity?
  • It is impossible to hold two opposing views in tension without schism.
  • @stonespring what would put me (a gay man) off going to such a church is the constant preaching to the effect that heterosexual marriage and the raising of children was God's design for the life of every human being. That would then be expressed in things like suddenly finding that certain positions didn't exist, or that I was welcome on my own but not if I brought my partner during one of his visits, but it's the theology that's the problem. To me, that is spiritual abuse, though I know people don't agree with this.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    edited November 2022
    @ThunderBunk I know all kinds of exclusion of LGBT people already exists in subtle and not so subtle forms across many denominations. I’m just wondering how this proposal in the OP would institutionalize this for certain congregations, especially how it would do it regarding LGBT laity, and whether the C of E’s current rules and the laws that the C of E has to follow would permit this.
  • @Arethosemyfeet I haven't read the essay and might not understand all of the language specific to the C of E if I did. How is it that churches would be off limits to LGBT people? Would most of the restrictions only be on the hiring of LGBT clergy at certain parishes and the prohibition of clergy from celebrating same sex marriages and/or blessing same sex couples? Would LGBT laity be able to do everything at a parish except marry their partner? Would they be able to have children they are raising baptized and confirmed? Could they be denied baptism or confirmation in a church or denied from receiving communion? Could they be denied funerals in the church? Would they be able to serve on the parochial church council (or whatever the equivalent is called) and in various church ministries and volunteer, music, and educational positions otherwise open to the laity?

    There are already churches that won't let LGBT people be in any sort of leadership position. The proposals would effectively say there will be churches where this is perfectly acceptable. I suspect the most egregious examples of such churches already refuse to baptise infants (contrary to the doctrine and practice of the CofE). I honestly don't know how far they'd go in refusing confirmation or funerals.
  • To me this seems actively worse, in that currently at least if churches let LGBT people down pastorally there are at least in theory ways to get that corrected by the diocesan hierarchy (it's not always the case that such churches are in line with local diocesan attitudes). If a separate province exists then surely the LGBT people within the province are just expected to have to put up with it? This is especially concerning for rural areas where people don't have a lot of choice, or for LGBT children and teens. This is particularly galling to me as +Oxford was +Sheffield during some extremely serious homophobic abuse taking place in Sheffield churches, and did nothing.

    I haven't read the whole thing but does it even mention that transphobia and homophobia (and biphobia) aren't necessarily happening in the same places? Unfortunately there are plenty of 'liberal' transphobic churches, and churches can already choose not to recognise a Gender Recognition Certificate for example. It's all right for someone in somewhere with as much church choice as Oxford, but not everywhere does have that choice.
  • I'm not sure how well flying bishops work if you're a young woman called to the priesthood and your parish church is one of those under "alternative oversight".

    True, and it's not always possible to transfer to another parish (nor should it ever be necessary).
  • @stonespring I think what I am saying is that the exclusion is fundamental (as well as, to my mind, fundamentalist). It excludes us from the the church's purview altogether. This is where I believe that such churches are profoundly disingenuous - they don't just want us to be celibate, they want us to be tortured - indeed some want everyone who is not married to a spouse of the opposite sex and children to feel constantly insufficient. Of course, this leads to exculsion from leadership positions, and exploration of vocations, but that is just an outworking of their position.

    I know of women who feel entirely comfortable in parishes under alternative episcopal oversight, and only some of them agree that priests must be male. I have been wondering whether the same thing could happen with LGBT people and parishes in this province. I don't see how, because we are excluded from their idea of the proper shape of the community of the church.
  • @stonespring I think what I am saying is that the exclusion is fundamental (as well as, to my mind, fundamentalist). It excludes us from the the church's purview altogether. This is where I believe that such churches are profoundly disingenuous - they don't just want us to be celibate, they want us to be tortured - indeed some want everyone who is not married to a spouse of the opposite sex and children to feel constantly insufficient. Of course, this leads to exculsion from leadership positions, and exploration of vocations, but that is just an outworking of their position.

    I know of women who feel entirely comfortable in parishes under alternative episcopal oversight, and only some of them agree that priests must be male. I have been wondering whether the same thing could happen with LGBT people and parishes in this province. I don't see how, because we are excluded from their idea of the proper shape of the community of the church.

    I think there are some of these churches where you can get a fair bit of positive attention for being the "right sort of gay", someone who they can point to and say "see! see! It works!" I did see some research (though sadly can't recall where) that said that the least comfortable place for gay Christians was in the fuzzy middle - neither affirming nor clearly condemnatory. Clearly those in affirming congregations were happy and healthy, but weirdly those in the most hostile did pretty well too. Presumably knowing where the limits are, even if they're hard to bear, is easier than constant uncertainty.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    It is impossible to hold two opposing views in tension without schism.
    If that's really true, that strikes me as really, really depressing, a denial of something fundamental to the Christian message. It's a statement that the Beatitudes are just a pious aspiration rather than a countercultural reality to aspire to. It demonstrates to the unbelieving world that one of its primary accusations against Christianity - that it is scandalously and cantankerously divided - is true and, if your statement is true, irretrievably and irreversibly so.

    It also goes against a message of the current Archbishop that is far more important on the eternal scheme of things that any of the hares put up in this current row, that the one thing the Christian Church ought to be offering the world and to be able to do so, is to demonstrate disagreement without breaking the bonds of love.

    Anyone can love those who agree with them. Quite a lot of people will say that they try to love those that disagree with them in spite of the disagreement. But so often, that's a grudging disagreement. It's founded in the condescending assumption that we still love them and will try to continue to do so until they come round to our way of thinking, because we are completely confident that we are right and they are wrong.

    What's rather harder is to realise that the calling is to love one's brothers and sisters. That's to say full stop, irrespective. That is, irrespective of whether they agree with one or not, irrespective of whether they are right or wrong, irrespective of whether they come round to 'my' way of thinking, irrespective of whether they have hurt me, irrespective of whether they are nice, rude, uncouth or nasty. It even includes allowing for the possibility that I might not be 100% right and that they might not be 100% wrong.

    Schism isn't a nineteenth century liberal freedom to pick and choose which of one's brothers and sisters one will have fellowship with. It's a sin. It can only be defended when it is oneself that has been thrown out, and even there, that must not be sought or achieved by passive aggression.

  • Well said Enoch.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited November 2022
    Enoch wrote: »
    It is impossible to hold two opposing views in tension without schism.
    If that's really true, that strikes me as really, really depressing, a denial of something fundamental to the Christian message. It's a statement that the Beatitudes are just a pious aspiration rather than a countercultural reality to aspire to. It demonstrates to the unbelieving world that one of its primary accusations against Christianity - that it is scandalously and cantankerously divided - is true and, if your statement is true, irretrievably and irreversibly so.

    It also goes against a message of the current Archbishop that is far more important on the eternal scheme of things that any of the hares put up in this current row, that the one thing the Christian Church ought to be offering the world and to be able to do so, is to demonstrate disagreement without breaking the bonds of love.

    Anyone can love those who agree with them. Quite a lot of people will say that they try to love those that disagree with them in spite of the disagreement. But so often, that's a grudging disagreement. It's founded in the condescending assumption that we still love them and will try to continue to do so until they come round to our way of thinking, because we are completely confident that we are right and they are wrong.

    What's rather harder is to realise that the calling is to love one's brothers and sisters. That's to say full stop, irrespective. That is, irrespective of whether they agree with one or not, irrespective of whether they are right or wrong, irrespective of whether they come round to 'my' way of thinking, irrespective of whether they have hurt me, irrespective of whether they are nice, rude, uncouth or nasty. It even includes allowing for the possibility that I might not be 100% right and that they might not be 100% wrong.

    Schism isn't a nineteenth century liberal freedom to pick and choose which of one's brothers and sisters one will have fellowship with. It's a sin. It can only be defended when it is oneself that has been thrown out, and even there, that must not be sought or achieved by passive aggression.

    I'm straight so am not "thrown out" but should I not stand with the LGBT+ who have been rather than those who have thrown them out?

    Difference of opinion is not the issue. Damage being done to people is the issue.

    It's just not that simple.
  • Does one in this instance have to make a choice to support only one side ?
    Life is not always a case of black or white,pink or blue, right or wrong,there are innumerable shades of grey.
    While we are right to maintain our own position and to support those whom we may feel are hard done by,it is best if we can try to find out why some people say and do things which we do not agree with.
  • Forthview wrote: »
    Does one in this instance have to make a choice to support only one side ?
    Life is not always a case of black or white,pink or blue, right or wrong,there are innumerable shades of grey.
    While we are right to maintain our own position and to support those whom we may feel are hard done by,it is best if we can try to find out why some people say and do things which we do not agree with.

    You can if you like. Life's too short IMV.
  • Forthview wrote: »
    Does one in this instance have to make a choice to support only one side ?

    Bluntly? Yes. Either you think that LGBT Christians should be fully included in the life of the church without particular restriction, or you don't.
  • LGBT Christians should be as fully included in the life of the Church as anyone else and similarly non LGBT Christians should equally be included in the life of the Church as much as anyone else. that is also putting things bluntly.
  • Forthview wrote: »
    LGBT Christians should be as fully included in the life of the Church as anyone else and similarly non LGBT Christians should equally be included in the life of the Church as much as anyone else. that is also putting things bluntly.

    Bluntly, that doesn't accurately describe the two 'sides'; Rather you have one group who think that LGBT Christians should be fully included in the life of the church and another group who think that LGBT Christians should not be fully included in the life of the church.
  • I'm not sure how the flying bishop model created over the ordination of women applies to the LGBT rights issue. Do the congregations that would seek such an arrangement believe that any LGBT bishop and any priest consecrated by an LGBT bishop (and, along with that, any LGBT priest) is not a valid bishop or priest and therefore cannot validly celebrate the Eucharist? If they are not trying to preserve the validity (in their mind) of holy orders, then it seems that they just want to have a C of E within the C of E with a different moral stance (or a more restrictive moral stance) than the church as a whole - is there any precent for that?

    When he says a new "province", does he mean a province like Canterbury and York or province like the C of E itself within the Anglican Communion?
  • It is high time that those who will say privately that they support LGBT people being fully accepted without reservation by the Church got off the fence and say so publicly. And the rest of us should call out the "God's Plan" line of argument for what it is - rampant homophobia.
  • Forthview wrote: »
    LGBT Christians should be as fully included in the life of the Church as anyone else and similarly non LGBT Christians should equally be included in the life of the Church as much as anyone else. that is also putting things bluntly.

    Is anyone disputing the latter?
  • Forthview wrote: »
    LGBT Christians should be as fully included in the life of the Church as anyone else and similarly non LGBT Christians should equally be included in the life of the Church as much as anyone else. that is also putting things bluntly.

    Others have pointed this out, but that is in fact the position of the inclusive side on this question. It's not straight vs. LGBT+; it's inclusion vs. exclusion.
  • All should be welcome in the House of God and all make up the Church,the Body of Christ.
    As we know from other theological argument Christians do not always understand things in exactly the same way and yet they manage to get on with one another somehow.
    The arguments in the Anglican Church about the ordination of women have shown that that church community can live with (and sometimes respect) the diverse views shown and sometimes sincerely believed by different Christians within the Anglican community.
    Whilst I applaud those who fight for what they see as LGBT rights,it doesn't help when some of these people call those who are unable to agree with them intolerant,homophobic bigots.
  • What else are they? If my sexuality makes me an un person how else am I being treated?
  • Forthview wrote: »
    All should be welcome in the House of God and all make up the Church,the Body of Christ.
    As we know from other theological argument Christians do not always understand things in exactly the same way and yet they manage to get on with one another somehow.
    The arguments in the Anglican Church about the ordination of women have shown that that church community can live with (and sometimes respect) the diverse views shown and sometimes sincerely believed by different Christians within the Anglican community.
    Whilst I applaud those who fight for what they see as LGBT rights,it doesn't help when some of these people call those who are unable to agree with them intolerant,homophobic bigots.

    It helps even less that people are intolerant, homophobic bigots. Why are you more concerned about the language used to describe them than the behaviour that leads to those descriptions (including, I might add, far worse language directed at LGBT people)? Jesus has no problem with robust language when it's appropriate ("whited sepulchres", anyone?).
  • @Arethosemyfeet 👏👏👏
  • What makes you think that I am not concerned with the behaviour of those who treat LBGT people as 'unpersons'. ?
    Language is important as we can witness by the earlier discussion ,perhaps on another thread ,on the use of the word' h---sexual' which causes offence to some people.
    One might ask what the 'B' in LGBT stands for and why that might not cause offence to some.
    Who decided to use the word 'straight' for those who do not identify personally as LGBTQI+ ? What does 'straight' mean ? not twisted ? not bent ? not deviating ? strict ? narrowminded ?
    Of course some people are intolerant homophobic bigots but we have to try to understand why. and hope that one day we can be inclusive enough to count them as part of our one family.
  • It is impossible to hold two opposing views in tension without schism.

    I would have thought that this is more or less what the Church of England has been doing for some centuries now.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    It is impossible to hold two opposing views in tension without schism.
    If that's really true, that strikes me as really, really depressing, a denial of something fundamental to the Christian message. It's a statement that the Beatitudes are just a pious aspiration rather than a countercultural reality to aspire to. It demonstrates to the unbelieving world that one of its primary accusations against Christianity - that it is scandalously and cantankerously divided - is true and, if your statement is true, irretrievably and irreversibly so.

    [CW: homophobia, gendered violence, suicide]

    I can't speak for secular society in the UK or Australia, never having spent significant time in either one, but here in the US, being "divided" isn't even in the top ten reasons why outsiders dislike Christians these days. I think they might like us better if they did perceive us as divided - at least that way they might know that some of us aren't homophobes!

    Rather, people under age forty-five have never known an America in which the loudest Christian voices didn't spend all their energy publicly condemning gays, extramarital sex, and abortion, while doing whatever they want in their own private lives. (Falwell Jr. and the pool boy, anyone?) They've seen us actively make poverty worse, condemn rape victims and protect rapists, and hound teenagers into taking their own lives. And that's just evangelicals - outside of major cities (where the Catholic population is concentrated) we've barely even processed the Catholic child abuse scandals.

    The main reasons that American millennials and Gen-Zers cite for not being Christians are a) that they were raised in the church and were harmed/disillusioned by it and b) they think we're all hypocrites. "Divided" would be an upgrade from how young people actually view us!
  • It is impossible to hold two opposing views in tension without schism.

    I would have thought that this is more or less what the Church of England has been doing for some centuries now.

    I think people are simply not prepared to maintain the fiction or continue the accommodation.

    Views on the SSM have evolved - why might we be surprised at people's responses to these doing likewise in the sense of being prepared to accept views they disagree with?
  • I think all of this depends on what a Christian denomination is supposed to be. Anglicanism has traditionally considered a much larger range of debates over moral and theological doctrine to fall under adiaphora than in other denominations, while holding to a small-c catholic sense of being a church for all Christians in any geographic area, rather than a church for those who held to a certain doctrine. So Anglicans tend to bend over backwards to avoid schism, calling it the worst of sins as some have in this thread.

    The RCC has low tolerance of doctrinal diversity and an abhorrence of schism, but if the RCC bans or suppresses a certain group or movement or the followers of a certain spiritual leader, any resultant schism is perceived by the RCC to be the fault of those that got banned.

    Protestant denominations other than Anglicanism (depending on whether you consider Anglicanism to be Protestant) tend to have more of a doctrinal identity, so schism in order to maintain doctrinal integrity seems to be acknowledged to be at times a necessarily evil more often than in Anglicanism. I think of all the Protestant denominations, the one that most resembles Anglicanism in its big-tent aspirations is Methodism, which is why the inevitable break up of the United Methodist Church has been such a procedural nightmare, with the institution itself seeming to have a very strong immune response against schism that is throwing every procedural roadblock possible in its way, leading the not insignificant parts of the UMC (on the conservative and liberal sides) that pretty much have already resigned themselves to schism to go on and act like different denominations while still being involved in the legal contortions of trying to get their share of property and money. But I may be characterizing Methodism (and Anglicanism) unfairly, since I'm not part of either denomination.
  • I would say that the Kirk has had similar tendencies in recent decades to try and bend over backwards to avoid schism. I don't know if other "national" churches (Scandinavian Lutherans, for example) have similar tendencies. I suspect Anglican contortions are greater than most because of the autonomy of individual provinces being in tension with any sort of centralised authority. Reformed churches don't generally tie themselves in knots over what other Reformed churches do (Irish Presbyterians being a dishonourable exception to this).
  • Forthview wrote: »
    Of course some people are intolerant homophobic bigots but we have to try to understand why. and hope that one day we can be inclusive enough to count them as part of our one family.

    Welcome to the paradox of tolerance.

    See, the thing about intolerant homophobic bigots is that they aren't just sitting quietly not being gay, and getting on with everyone else - they're loudly and frankly continuously condemning gay Christians, and each and every move to treat LGBTQ+ Christians as equal parts of the Church.
  • Reformed churches don't generally tie themselves in knots over what other Reformed churches do (Irish Presbyterians being a dishonourable exception to this).
    And the (eventual) censure of some South African Reformed churches that supported apartheid being the honorable exception.

  • I suppose that my (RC) parish must be an exception. Apart from one time (in over 40 years in this parish) I've never heard anyone discuss homosexuality,nor has any loud in tolerant bigot ever shouted out about homosexuality,nor have any of those who are LBGT ever come out 'loud and proud'. Maybe ,of course,we are all oppressed.
    It is also possible that we are so intolerant that we don't notice.
    I still find it difficult to believe that two people from Arethosemyfeet's church flounced off saying 'this church is not intolerant enough' Surely this is Mr Feet's interpretation rather than what they actuially said.
  • They claimed that the Kirk had "lost its way" and resigned their membership almost immediately after the General Assembly voted to permit ministers who wished to to conduct the weddings of same sex couples. You don't need to be a genius to connect the dots.
  • Thank you for letting me know what they actually said.
  • Forthview wrote: »
    I suppose that my (RC) parish must be an exception. Apart from one time (in over 40 years in this parish) I've never heard anyone discuss homosexuality,nor has any loud in tolerant bigot ever shouted out about homosexuality,nor have any of those who are LBGT ever come out 'loud and proud'. Maybe ,of course,we are all oppressed.

    Do you have gay parishioners who feel free to discuss their spouses in social conversation, in the same way as straight parishioners do? If your parish was gathered over coffee, would a young gay man feel free to relate a funny story that his husband had heard the other day, and would the fact that it was a husband and not a wife who had heard the story been viewed with indifference? Can a same-sex couple hold hands in the pews?
  • Most of the people who come to the church,come to listen to the Word of God,to receive the sacraments and to BE the people of God. I have never asked anyone about their sexual orientation and no-one has ever asked me about mine.Only a small number of parishioners would come for coffee. Of course funny stories might be told but it would be unlikely within a Catholic context that a gay man would talk about his husband (even although he might be married civilly).If the story were indeed funny many people would laugh whatever the situation.One has to remember that not everyone finds the same things funny and this would have nothing necessarily to do with same sex relationships.
    Irrespective of same sex or opposite sex relationships it is unusual in a RC context to see people holding hands in church. One sees it sometimes when the Our Father is being recited but that is well within a liturgical context.On the rare occasions otherwise when one might see people holding hands,again irrespective of same sex or opposite sex it would be if people are in some way emotionally upset and most 'onlookers' would be sympathetic.
  • It strikes me that there's several reasons for this - either no one cares/is interested or it's a matter of don't ask:don't tell. Both of which fly in the face of RCC doctrine and stated views.
  • Most churchgoers are not greatly interested in doctrine. They come to church to hear the Word of God and to join together in.prayer and song. the gospel passages proclaimed can provide food for thought as to how best to lead one's daily life.
  • I would agree with that as regards RC churchgoers. Forthview and I are of an age where we had “doctrine” shoved down our throats, with varying results.

    EM, best not to comment about “RCC doctrine” which is outside of your experience.
  • edited November 2022
    Sojourner wrote: »
    EM, best not to comment about “RCC doctrine” which is outside of your experience.

    I consider myself duly warned. But my views and experience remain!
  • It strikes me that there's several reasons for this - either no one cares/is interested or it's a matter of don't ask:don't tell. Both of which fly in the face of RCC doctrine and stated views.

    Our RC parish has several gay parishioners. People know, but to be honest it isn't a big deal. Maybe its because they aren't coupled with other parishioners. Folks mention spouses if they are ill or something, but we don't just chat about our other halves.
  • Sojourner wrote: »
    I would agree with that as regards RC churchgoers. Forthview and I are of an age where we had “doctrine” shoved down our throats, with varying results.

    EM, best not to comment about “RCC doctrine” which is outside of your experience.

    Never heard anything to do with sexuality etc mentioned from the pulpit. Ever.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    You have never been to a wedding ?
  • How many RC weddings have you attended, Doublethink?

    Let’s say “ sexuality” is not high on the agenda for a wedding sermon in RC circles ( that is if a sermon is preached-unusual).
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    Several, most recently this year. I assume they normally contain these texts http://www.catholicweddinghelp.com/topics/text-rite-of-marriage-mass.htm
  • Several, most recently this year. I assume they normally contain these texts http://www.catholicweddinghelp.com/topics/text-rite-of-marriage-mass.htm

    were you thinking of any particular part of that chunk of text?
Sign In or Register to comment.