 |
| Bishop of Monmouth, Cherry Vann . Source: Twitter |
Out of curiosity I tuned in on catch up. There was nothing spiritual, just sex
There was a nervous quiver in the bishop's voice as though her participation was part of an organised campaign that had thrust her into the limelight. Her part of the deal was speaking frankly about her situation, thus enhancing the LGBT+ credentials of the bench of bishops.
Straight in, the interviewer explained that Cherry Vann's appointment had coincided with the statement issued by the Church of England suggesting sex should take place only within heterosexual marriage but bishop Vann is 'the first openly gay female bishop and the first to be in a civil partnership in the UK'.
Vann explains how she hid her sexuality out of fear: "Like a lot of other gay and lesbian people it is not an easy place to be in the Church and fear means it is easier to keep silent rather than the risk of being rejected, or losing your job or losing friends."
Has she not noticed that the only people rejected in the Church in Wales are orthodox Anglicans!
Bishop Vann said that she and her partner decided to make their civil partnership public when Vann was first invited to have her name put forward for the post of bishop. They decided that this was the time to be more open and honest.
However, The cover-up was maintained until after the Sacred Synod confirmed her appointment.
It is all out in the open now. Vann says the Church in Wales is "more accepting as an institution of gay and lesbian people". The Church in Wales is a "different Church".
She claims that the Church as a whole is on a journey with 'stiffened' resolve to work 'positively and creatively' until we get to a place where "everyone is accepted and welcomed irrespective of their sexuality".
Vann continues, the Church in Wales is more open with the courage to take a positive lead enabling bishop Vann and people like her to be honest and open about who they are - unlike the Church in Wales which has pursued its agenda by stealth. - Vann is sure that same sex marriage in church will come in time.
The reason she was appointed is made clear in her interview. It is to further the gay agenda of the bench of bishops leading to same sex marriage
There is no mention of the Gospel or of salvation, only that we are all sexual human beings.
The clearest message yet from the bench.
Postscript [26.02.2020]
More self justification with some dangerous views from Cherry Vann in an 'acast' interview recorded with Martin Shipton, Chief Reporter for Wales Online https://play.acast.com/s/9b06ea45-4ded-49de-9368-7590ce8c831f/038a13f8-b566-4c13-9d73-d37731ea2f03 .
On religion she talks about the 'multiplicity of faiths' [@ position 11] . At their best she thought there was an awful lot of congruence between the different faiths and particularly between the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism Christianity and Islam: "There is a lot in common, a lot about respect for one another. A lot about mutual tolerance. A lot about living in harmony and I think that is what I would urge us all to aspire to. The very best."
Her views do not sit comfortably with the Quran: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Q 9:29)
Presumably the bishop failed to listen to Anglican Unscripted edition 570
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=679&v=Q5x_ZO-6GKw&feature=emb_logo
Everyone is welcomed irrespective of their sexuality? Looks like polyamory, polygamy and goodness knows what else is fine now in Cherry's prayer book.
ReplyDeletePaedophilia and bestiality will be following right behind.
DeleteQuite, are their no rules other than love? And if there are rules who are the heterodox among us to criticize our defense of a traditional view of marriage? If they impose rules despite 'love' (monogamy, no-incest etc.) who are they to say our rules are wrong?
DeleteThey don't even believe in this 'love is everything' doctrine since they know if they truly do then they have to espouse 'anything goes'. The frightening thing is they may actually believe that it does!
Only if the said Cherry has a wholly individualistic 'anything goes if that's the way you're made' approach to everything, and I rather doubt that she has!
DeleteNevertheless I think that you raise a significant issue here. Moral and ethical principles are, at least as far as I can see, invariably developed as the outcome of an ideology. The ideology may well be religious in nature - historically that seems to be overwhelmingly the case in Europe - but it isn't necessarily the case: there was a very definite moral and ethical tone, for example, to the Stalinist era's vision of the proper conduct and way of thinking of individual Soviet men and woman.
But in the absence of a generally agreed and accepted settled ideology - which is surely where we're at now in Britain - the only determinant of moral/ethical conduct has to be the vagaries of the drift of public opinion. The shift in my lifetime from a general public sense that homosexuality was in principle 'wrong' to where we now find ourselves is a case in point.
I well recall the emergence of 'PIE' - the Paedophile Information Exchange - in 1974. They campaigned for the abolition of laws around the age of consent. Initially they did so on human rights grounds: the argument was that in our modern emancipated age the sexual liberation of children was a positive good and that legal denial of the right of children to have sex was a mere hang-over from our nation's prim and puritan past.
The fly in the ointment in all this, of course, was that PIE wasn't at all a movement of randy newly pubescent teenagers, but one of mature adult males with a pretty obvious agenda: a point which was readily thrown back at them by their critics. Which in fairness some of them at least conceded, retreating, more honestly, to the argument of 'I'm attracted to young teenagers (or, in some cases, even to young children) - it's the way I am. I can't help it and I didn't ask to be like this. It's just how it is'.
In the end it proved a step too far as far as public opinion was concerned, and PIE was eventually wound up. But it survived ten years, and during that time was both endorsed by the Campaign for Homosexual Equality and formally affliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties, now 'Liberty'; and its speakers were able to make their case in student societies in a number of universities.
The realities which brought PIE down were that both public and political opinion simply weren't prepared to extend 'the permissive society' that far; to which might be added the general awareness - arguably growing by the early '80s - that there's an inevitable power imbalance in any intimate relationships between older men - or, indeed, older women - and inexperienced and impressionable kids.
But my point in reciting this bit of arcane history is that for a full ten years PIE managed both to survive and to achieve at least some measure of social acceptance, because on the face of things it appeared that its manifesto might accord with the drift of contemporary public opinion, as summarized by the late Roy Jenkins's dictum that 'a permissive society is a civilized society'. Public opinion is a shifting and essentialy amorphous thing!
British society - now overwhelmingly secular in outlook - must decide for itself. But - more than ever in a secular era - the Church is essentially counter-cultural; as St Paul put it, 'do not be conformed to this world, but continuously be transformed by the renewing of your minds so that you may be able to determine what God's will is—what is proper, pleasing, and perfect'. If the Church loses that distinctiveness - that essential 'otherness' - it loses both its soul and its raison d'être.
And that strikes me as the current direction of flow.
Abolish the concept of sin and anything is OK in sexual relationships. The CinW Bishops will find gay marriage a push-over following the Newport appointment. Game, set and match.
DeleteLoosemore
PP. I also listened to the interview. I found the inquisitive interviewer being very precise in her gay questions and in part a nervous response in that the questions were not expected or, pre-arranged. Unfortunately, bishop Vann was quite obviously caught off guard. I don't think based on her honesty harm was done. The mention of faith was there too, but this was clouded by the intensity of the quick questioning.
ReplyDeleteGiven the fact prior to her election her public acknowledging of her partnership was not know is sheer speculation. It was widely known and accepted in Manchester and Synod. Like thr male gay bishops in CofE in CPs, along with other senior diocesan clergy, the normalisation is there to see, but not as openly accepted.
In the CiW is the agenda one of openness, to water down the faith? I hope not. Are we going secular too community orientated, or just simply meeting people where they are with a fresh expression of the Gospel? We have a new bishop who is lesbian, so what! We have had gay men in the clergy for many years has that tarnished the Church (exception the abusers) I guess not.
The real argument here is that women are in ministry, in holy orders, episcopal office and some who fall under the label LGBTQI.Is that the real issue, the crux of the argument? Or is it that women can be leaders who succeed?
If you are correct in your analysis PP, why has the Church in Wales retweeted BBC Woman's Hour: "Cherry Vann is the first openly gay bishop to have a civil partnership in the UK. She has a powerful message for those in the LGBT community who feel rejected by the Church of England: http://bbc.in/2Hzvj0X"
Deletehttps://twitter.com/BBCWomansHour/status/1230522542550667266
You might also as yourself why, if the questions came as a surprise to the bishop, she did not exercise her episcopal ministry and demand to speak of salvation.
I tend to go along with Anonymous's comment above. Clearly the interviewer - unsurprisingly - had a particular agenda which she wished to pursue, one which was much more about sexuality and gender (but not, please note, about "sex" itself!) than spirituality or the Faith. However I did feel that the Bishop was a bit over-cautious in her answers as there were times when I think she could have brought in some simple theological responses. It's possible that she felt (or had been told) that these would have been inappropriate in a secular programme. The interview did come over very much as "this is the way society is going and the Church must catch up"; ultimately I found it disappointing.
ReplyDeleteOf course it was about "sex itself"!
DeleteIf it wasn't, there would have been no point in asking the questions.
The only thing it was about was sex. It always has been and always will be.
Baptist Trainfan, why would you expect a bishop of the Church in Wales to bring in a "simple theological response" to anything? Firstly, to be a bishop in the CiW you need to be antinomian. This is what drives the bench. They are under grace not law. The more they encourage sin the more grace abounds - that is their mentality. Of course, they would say it is about equality and justice. Whilst Jesus treated people with great respect, he was also adept at telling them to "Go, and sin no more!", but this seems to have eluded the bench sitters. In the uber-liberal Church in Wales, the more sinful you are, the higher the position you obtain.
DeleteSecondly, anyone with a theological background stands no chance of becoming a bishop in the CiW. The current bunch are lawyers, a scientist, a social scientist and a musician. They would probably look at you askance if you gave them a Bible, and should they ever open it in order to read its contents, they would be appalled with its moral requirements. In short, you expect too much if you expect theological responses from a Welsh bishop.
Seymour
PP. The book by a former Dean of Winchester (Beedon) has a really interesting bio of Cherry Vann and Viv Faull as leading Anglican women - oddly no mention of JO. Its called "The Church's Other Half:Women's Ministry" pub by SCM.
ReplyDeleteYou cannot expect orthodox Christians to take Beeson's views seriously PP.
ReplyDeleteFrom The Church of England Newspaper's review of 'The Church’s Other Half: Women’s Ministry':
"He [the author] exudes the typical smugness of the establishment liberal. Paul is dismissed, Augustine of Hippo’s conversion is dismissed as “disastrous,” the discredited slur of sex-hating neuroticism used against a noted defender of marriage. Unlike Rowan Williams, whom Beeson lambasts for it, he never allows the possibility that those who disagree with him on women’s ordination, including some of the women in his book, might not necessarily be fools or naves. Indeed any suggestion of dialogue with “patriarchal” opponents is deemed a sick joke."
Trevor Beeson was one of those whizz-kid young clergy who in the 1950s and 60s thought they'd found the answer to all the Church's problems, proclaiming it in "Prism", its successor "New Christian" (who remembers either of those up-to-the-minute anti-establishment periodicals now?) and little handbooks published by formerly fuddy-duddy A.R. Mowbray & Co -- truly, it was an exciting time to be alive! Alas, their answers proved illusory. Like many another whizz-kid Beeson morphed in middle age into a pillar of the establishment, and at Winchester developed a haughty manner consonant with his decanal dignity. He has a certain literary ability, so I'm sure the scorn he pours on his opponents is both effective and nasty. I shan't trouble myself by reading the book.
ReplyDeletePP. Wow! I certainly was not seeking to defend Beeson's arguments,neither do I seek to denounce the Church fathers, their arguments or standing in the socio-historical richness of theology, but raise the bio mention of the new Bishop, which gives a clearer picture than some other media.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the term "orthodox Christian" is it not ambiguous? Would that be in definition: "Anglo-catholic", Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox,evangelical or the strict branches of non-conformity etc? Surely if one has accepted Christ Jesus as Saviour, one is simply a Christian and any other labels are to a point, denominational or a preference towards belief or theological stance. But before anyone lamblasts me, does anyone have the upper hand or, bias, right or, correct meaning/way of service? I don't think so. But the common denominator is that we in our humility seek to serve Jesus Christ as best we can, as brothers and sisters in Christ. Diversity in churchmanship has become a hyjacked term, once it meant having a different perspective in our churchmanship, with respect for others views;now we have a Church that uses the secularised meaning to denote the precarious sexualisational schism causing conundrum in a shrinking Anglican Church. But, the common thread is we are by definition, Christian no matter what argument we use.
Fair point regarding the term "orthodox Christian" PP. I meant orthodox Anglicans in the traditional sense as opposed to the 'progressives'.
DeleteI think that you are being extremely naïve, PP.
DeleteMontanus, Arius, Nestorius, et al, would have all claimed to be Christian. They, too, would have claimed Jesus Christ as Saviour, yet the Church determined them to be heretics and apostates. A heretic is someone who, according to Friedrich Schleiermacher, "preserves the appearance of Christianity, and yet contradicts its essence". An apostate is someone who "no longer adheres to orthodox Christian belief". Doesn't this aptly describe the bench of charlatans?
Seymour
PP. @Seymour thank you for your comment. I appreciate your stance. But, I am far from Naive. Their are many theologians with varying views in which an argument can be made, but the bottom line has to be that we are "in Christ".
ReplyDeletePP, how can someone be "in Christ", when they contradict his very teaching, and place themselves above him? By so doing and behaving, surely they have rejected Christ and placed themselves outside of him.
DeleteSeymour
The only Theologian with whom you should trouble yourself is Iehoshua of Nazareth.
DeleteThe same applies to the chumps on the bench but they are beyond all hope, one fears.