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?
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
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".
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".
Comments
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*).
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.
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.
True, and it's not always possible to transfer to another parish (nor should it ever be necessary).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Is anyone disputing the latter?
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.
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?).
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.
I would have thought that this is more or less what the Church of England has been doing for some centuries now.
[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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
Never heard anything to do with sexuality etc mentioned from the pulpit. Ever.
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).
were you thinking of any particular part of that chunk of text?