The same faith? : comments [Matthew's Journal]

I think that it's unfair to Christians who believe that homosexual sex is wrong to just go "well what about adultery and pre-marital sex and stomping on kittens" because most of them think that those things are wrong too and those who don't might be able to give you a thought out theological argument for why. This really isn't just a case of irrational prejudice, but rather people grappling with texts they regard as divinely inspired and which, according to their plain meaning, seem to say that sex between men is a no no. Divorce is a bit more complicated because I think that there's a bit more contradiction in the Bible's handling of it but I can't remember exactly what. I think homosexuality is a big issue in the church is because how the discussion is framed outside of the church. Condemning premarital sex is just seen as a bit old fashioned and silly whereas condemning homosexuality is seen as hate speech. Divorce is a more contentious issue in the church than you might think. The first divorced Anglican bishop in the UK was only appointed in 2004 and his appointment met with quite a bit of protest. Ironically, I don't think that there are any divorced bishops in the C of E at the moment but there are at least two with male partners.

There's a bit of a contradiction in the beginning and end of you comment. You say that bishops are there to think theologically for us but in point 5 you seem to be saying that everyone should work it out for themselves and it was none of anyone else's business. What's the point of bishops doing theology if they don't tell the laity about it. At the very least, religious leaders should teach people the main thrusts of the arguments on all sides to enable them to make an informed decision. It's unhelpful and disrespectful to gay Christians to stop the conversation at just "it's OK, do what you want" without enabling them in a conversation about how to theologically ground their actions and relationships.

[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]

There's a bit of a contradiction in the beginning and end of you comment.

Not at all. Bishops are supposed to have answers, whereas I am allowed to live with only questions :). And, as I tried to make clear, I don't think the division is between people who think it's wrong and those who think it's right, but between those who think it's a duty to impose their moral standards, however unwelcome, on other people, and those who don't.

[link] [parent] [reply]

What do you mean by "impose their moral standards" on other people? As far as I can tell, the English members of FCA are saying that the church should tell people that sex between men is wrong and not act in a way endorses sex between men. I don't think any of them are advocating making sex between men illegal. They argue that men with male partners shouldn't be made bishops because that would be seen as endorsing sex between men as a not inherently sinful act, which they believe to be mistaken.

So, do you object to bishops and priests stating publicly their views on moral and theological matters or do you object to holding bishops to the moral teachings of the church?

One certainly can't divide FCA from non-FCA by whether or not they want to impose their moral standards on others. The ABC and the Bishop of York have both publicly stated that Anglicans shouldn't vote BNP and being an active BNP member would probably prevent one from getting ordained if one's bishop found out. A priest found to be having sex with children would not just be left to make up his own mind about the morality of it, and rightly so in my opinion.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Because I read all the comment in Emp's ~~flame wars~~ interesting posts...

I think that *as the established church* in this country the CofE should not, er, make statements about morality that contradict the morality that the government officially subscribes to (we've got various and sundry equal rights legislation on this particular topic). I think it makes us (as a country) look bad. "Bad" obviously on my terms.

This is probably an argument for *disestablishment* though, rather than anything else.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think it's more of an argument for disestablishment. I find the idea of the CofE having to toe the government lines rather worrying, they wouldn't have been able to speak out about the governments actions in the miners' strike or the war in Iraq or the treatment of asylum seekers. It's also a bit harsh given that this disagreement spans the Anglican communion and telling African and American Anglicans that their church's policy has to be in line with that of the UK government.

I think the ballad of reading diocese had something about the problem that the CofE is both the Anglican church in England and the National G@d Service and these two roles are sometimes in tension.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I agree with you that the C of E having to toe government lines is exceedingly worrying. It's a massive issue that seems to have been missed in the sexuality debates/wares.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Established church: good for the country, bad for the church.

'S why I like there being an established church that I can not be part of.

S.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think that the Church should - and now is - fairly free to speak out in defiance of the government's views on public and ethical matters. Obviously this has not always been the case, and I don't agree with many things which clergy have said or done which have either been conformist or non-conformist.

I think that quite often the church makes the nation look good in prophetically-tinted hindsight: the 'national church' or some portion thereof taking a stand against apartheid, slavery, compulsion in religion, slum housing, poverty etc etc emphasises how profitable the established relationship between the CofE and the national consciousness can be.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25 1
26	27	28	29	30	31

Matthew's Journal

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

October