My previous entry generated quite a lot of heat from commentators but not on my main point, the sanctity of marriage.
Understandably people have become weary of the same-sex marriage debate. It drags on and on.
Revisionists do not give up. They maintain pressure until all become used to their ideas. They claim that, if approved, same-sex marriage would be accepted just as divorce and re-marriage in Church no longer raises eyebrows.
The protection of Holy Matrimony deserves more. The Church should be protecting marriage as defined, the lifelong, faithful union between one man and one woman.
Defenders of traditional marriage are accused of homophobia and bigotry. That is unfair. What people do in private is between them and their maker but that is not good enough for promoters of same-sex unions who expect others to legitimise their unions by redefining marriage.
Defenders of traditional marriage who have homosexual friends are aware that many are equally upset by demands for same-sex marriage in Church. As one succinctly put it, marriage is for heterosexuals. Same-sex couples have civil partnerships.
My entry in 2012, To be joined together, included a reference to an article 'The six ways homosexual activists manipulate public opinion' which stated: "Anyone who is concerned about the influence of the homosexual agenda on reshaping traditional values must become intimately familiar with the major tactics that homophiles commonly employ in order to anticipate them and respond in charity and truth. Homophile strategists are very adept at manipulating public opinion with an arsenal of six tactics that are based upon deceptions and half‑truths:
- Exploit the “victim” status;
- Use the sympathetic media;
- Confuse and neutralize the churches;
- Slander and stereotype Christians;
- Bait and switch (hide their true nature); and
- Intimidation.
"By far the most popular homophile tactic is the claim to victim status, which is a very powerful, almost paralyzing, weapon that gives them a distinct advantage in the public square."
The Prime Minister said the UK’s first ever global LGBT conference will be about ‘kindness, tolerance and openness’ and will look at what more can be done to promote LGBT equality around the world.
We hear a lot about 'equality'. In the absence of hard theological evidence, secular notion of equality was used to justify the ordination of women. The same argument is being used to allow same-sex couples to marry in Church.
Woke cajoling has not only enforced acceptance of political correctness. It seeks to legitimise that which defies logic as if black can be white and white, black.
'Female' is defined as "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes." 'Male' is defined as "of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring."
Woke personal preference permits those inclined not only to choose their own gender but to insist that others recognise their wish by using gender-neutral pronouns, something that Canadian university professor Dr Jordan Peterson challenged and suffered for expressing logical rather than woke opinions.
Demonized by progressives, the Guardian carried this vitriolic piece: 'How dangerous is Jordan B Peterson, the rightwing professor who 'hit a hornets' nest'?'
Holy Matrimony is being attacked under the banner of equality.
From the Church in Wales web site Holy Matrimony is properly defined:
"Drawing on the teaching of the Bible, and of the Church down through the centuries, the Church in Wales Marriage Service talks about marriage as a gift of God. Marriage is described as the lifelong, faithful union between a man and a woman, and married love is compared with the love Jesus has for his people – a love expressed in his willing sacrifice of himself on the cross."
But the current bench of bishops, following their manipulation of the Governing Body, now claim that “it is pastorally unsustainable for the Church to make no formal provision for those in same-gender relationships”.
The bench have published their proposals to introduce same-sex blessings. In their explanatory memorandum they write:
"The Bench believes that, in the fullness of time, the Governing Body will have to consider whether it wishes to consider a change in the Church’s teaching concerning marriage. This could enable a couple wishing to live in a faithful and mutually committed same-sex relationship to celebrate the rite of marriage in Church."
Many same-sex couples already live in faithful and mutually committed same-sex relationships. They are accepted in the Church but to pretend under 'equality' rules that same-sex couples are no different to one-man - one-woman marriage defies logic.
The woke culture has become so prevalent that a poll in 2018 found that over half of our MPs were afraid to speak their mind. The silent majority must speak up. From C4M:
I recall many years ago a reader's letter published in the 'Church Times' which posed the question 'Does Catholicism [the writer was referring to the Anglican sort] lack conviction?' The suggestion in the letter was that perhap it did.
ReplyDeleteThis proved to be one of those 'letters to the editor' which struck a nerve, given that it evoked a stream of responses extending over several weeks which only ceased when the editor decided to close the topic down. The number and tone of the responses implied that many of the correspondents thought that modern Anglican catholicism had somehow succumbed to a loss of real confidence and conviction.
My sense is that the mainstream institutional churches similarly lack conviction. We've long lived in an age where religion is unfashionable. Even sixty years ago the 'Honest to God' debate uncovered a 'ferment in the Church' over an awareness that the Christian message was increasingly failing to 'strike through' in communicating to the then contemporary society. And so the restless quest for the rainbow's end of what was then usually termed 'relevance' was born.
I think what AB points to is simply the latest stage of that same process. By now those who lead the various mainstream British Christian communities have so lost hope in the Christian 'product' that they now aim to demonstrate that the Church's core ministry these days is to clothe contemporary society, along with its whims, fashions and preoccupations, with some sort of aura of sanctity. Under a banner which reads something along the lines of 'God's absolutely with you, on your side!' Except that contemporary society doesn't particularly care either way whether he is or whether he isn't - always assuming that there really is a God anyway, which a lot of them doubt. Desperate stuff indeed!
Christianity is only coherent and true to itself when it prioritizes being true to itself above being popular or respected or having status sufficient to influence the way society develops. At various times in its history it's managed to achieve many - perhaps all - of those things. But our era isn't one of those times. So maybe Christians need to accept that; to acknowledge that for the present they're very much a minority group, held in rather little affection or respect by most of the public at large.
Trying, in this apparently endless quest for 'relevance', to mould the Christian message to the exact shape of the customs and beliefs of the society and the time is perhaps the most pointless strategy of all, because it merely invites a response that 'this is the way we're going anyway, and we surely don't need you and your God to bless our efforts. You aren't even offering us anything different'.
Your best ever contribution, in my view.
ReplyDeleteRob
Looking at the letter from the bishops to members of the GB, I cannot help but wonder if they are getting stick already on their proposed plans for September's GB. The text of it is printed below. Seymour
ReplyDeleteDear Governing Body member
We would like to draw your attention to the Pastoral Principles materials which have been included in the Governing Body papers. These bilingual resources are designed to aid our conversation and conferring, specifically in relation to the Bill authorising the Celebration and Blessing of Same Sex Unions but they have a wider aim too. The manner in which we make decisions as a church bears significantly on the way we
understand and relate to each other. Our discourse should, at all times, reflect the values of the Kingdom of God. It has not always been the case that we have engaged with difficult matters of faith and belief in a way that brings us credit. When we cease from regarding each other with suspicion and no longer doubt the integrity and sincerity of what others say and believe, we will have taken important and necessary steps towards honouring each other as children of the same heavenly Father. Our hope is these materials will shape the quality and manner of our debate. This debate will, of necessity, involve disagreement. But disagreement has been a part of our history since the church’s inception and dealing with disagreement well is a sign of maturity and commitment. In the New Testament we read of disagreements between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:36f); we also hear how the church wrestled with complex matters of faith and polity (Acts 15:19f). Seeking to hear the authentic voice of God, they wrestled with Scripture and sought the leading of the Holy Spirit. At the heart of these debates was the conviction that all disciples are one in Christ. There can be no room for seeking to undermine sincerely held views. Neither should we seek to walk away from each other. Our union in Christ is at the heart of our life and the bonds and character of our baptism hold us together; sharing a commitment to each other as together we seek the Kingdom of God. We hope these materials will stimulate this quality of engagement and are glad to commend them to you.
The Right Revd Gregory Cameron, Bishop of St Asaph
The Right Revd Andrew John, Bishop of Bangor
The Right Revd Dr Joanna Penberthy, Bishop of St Davids
The Right Revd June Osborn, Bishop of Llandaff
The Right Revd Cherry Vann, Bishop of Monmouth
'There can be no room for seeking to undermine sincerely held views.' So if I sincerely believe that Jesus is not God the bishops will refuse to argue that he is.
DeleteThe treason of the clerics is always the worst.
Teilo
For me, Teilo, the statement, "Neither should we seek to walk away from each other," raises a big issue. When the bishops have succeeded in destroying the fundamentals of the Christian faith, then what else is left but to walk away? They have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted - just look at how duplicitously they behaved with those who "in conscience" could not accept the ordination of women. They will promise everything to get their way, and then renege on it later. To coin a phrase, "Never, never, never trust a Welsh bishop!"
DeleteSeymour
For "Neither should we seek to walk away from each other", read We're going to do what the hell we want regardless of your point of view but we still want your giving gift-aided and on the plate every week ".
DeleteI don't know how many of them are Welsh but never never never trust a Bishop in Wales indeed.
John, you say that "Those who lead the various mainstream British Christian communities have so lost hope in the Christian 'product' that they now aim to demonstrate that the Church's core ministry these days is to clothe contemporary society, along with its whims, fashions and preoccupations, with some sort of aura of sanctity". I sincerely believe that this isn't the case although I would certainly like to see the churches 'interrogating' modern societal trends more rigorously. By this I don't just mean sexual mores which seem to so obsess Christianity today (I think that is a lost battle, certainly within society at large and, to a degree, within the churches) but other issues such as excessive individualism, acquisitiveness and ambition, the stewardship of God's creation, care for the downtrodden and captive, and so on. I know that there will be many on this blog who will accuse me of following society's agenda; the fact is that we should be prophetically leading on these issues from a strong theological conviction rather than shamefacedly attempting to make up ground only to find that the debate has already moved on. In the past it has sometimes been Christians who have taken the lead on great social reforms (slavery or children working in factories, for example); I appreciate that we are far more marginalised from mainstream society but I wonder if, by and large, we have become so inward-looking that we have lost the ability to "make a splash". I may be wrong, but the last times I can really remember the churches being listened to in national terms were with ++Runcie's prayers after the Falklands war and "Faith in the City". But of course there may well have been others that have slipped my mind!
ReplyDeleteI confess to having passed that opinion primarily with Anglican episcopal leadership in mind, but I noticed a rather similar apparent trend within Methodism and the URC.
DeleteIn my limited experience at least, I should say in fairness that I didn't observe the same trend among the Baptists, but their tradition of congregational independency makes it hard to make generalizations. For instance, although it's fifty years away now I remember when I lived in Abergavenny there were two entirely separate Baptist churches in the town, the one fiercely conservatively evangelical and the other exhibiting a more diffused old-fashioned sort of protestant liberalism. Something not entirely dissimilar was observable in the two Baptist churches in Risca of which I knew something a decade later. So maybe I was unjust to Baptists - you're better [laced to judge that than I am!
I agree with you that Christians - of the English-speaking variety at least - have long been disproportionately preoccupied with sexual matters as if they were the prime issue of Christian morality rather than simply one aspect - and arguably not the most significant one - of its application. And that the scope of Christian moral concern extends way beyond ondividual personal relationships and must incorporate a critique on how society as a whole - inevitably including governments - function. I suspect that might underlie Dr Penberthy's 'never trust a Tory', but she sadly fatally damaged whatever she intended by merely sloganizing rather than making a thoughful and reasoned case.
While I agree with you on the importance of being ready when necessary to 'make a splash' - and I thought Abp Runcie was entirely right to pray for all who had suffered and died as a consequence of war - even an established church can never be a nationalized industry under government direction, my sense in recent times is that Anglican church leaders' instinct these days is almost invariably to drift with the prevailing secular tide rather than make any sort of prayerful and confident distinctive 'splash'.
Thank you John, your comments are always well worth reading and reflecting on.
Delete'There can be no room for seeking to undermine sincerely held views.'
ReplyDeleteReally? The precedents in the Welsh province in the context of the ordination of women are hardly encouraging!
PP. This is an interesting commentary on a wide subject. Interesting developments within the evangelical youth movement. A course is being piloted for youth pastors, clergy and works on a theme of making Churches safe spaces for LGBT+ young people with no bias either way, just a safe place to explore faith without prejudice. Similarly, offering heterosexual young people the same safeguarding place to explore.
ReplyDeleteI would say it's a break through to at least listen and learn on both sides. Marriage and relationships is also a key area being explored. One of the Churches taking part in the pilot is The Salvation Army, a denominations I would have thought most conservative. Times seem to be changing.
I have to agree that marriage is as it should be "heterosexual", but, Civil Partnership, for the most still is same sex. A view held as stated in many interviews by two of the Welsh Bishops.
PP, wake up and smell the coffee - this is the softly, softly approach as mentioned in the Pastoral Principles materials in the letter above. There is a request that churches hold study groups, PCC discussion, etc; to make churches a safe place for LGBT+ people.
DeleteWe will have to send Mrs Smith, in our congregation, on one of these courses. She is known to carry a cosh in her handbag to whack any gay or lesbian individual who dares to cross the threshold!! We have told her that she shouldn't do it, but she insists on being a stereotypical Christian. I am being facetious, of course!
Seymour
@ PP:
DeleteThe course which you describe strikes me as in principle a positive idea; I think it was Winston Churchill who once said that 'jaw-jaw is always preferable to war-war'!
Though I do wonder what the take-up will be. This is a polarizing issue to such a degree that I wonder whether folk with potentially wholly different notions will be willing to embark on a colloquy, or, assuming they are, can manage it calmly and without rancour and overmuch passion. My experience - and, more significantly, much church history! - demonstrates that Christians often aren't noticeably good at that in such situations.
And yet if it's to happen and if it's to have hope of any constructive outcome, everyone participating must set out their view, and the rationale for that view, frankly and honestly, and be willing to hear opposing views in an eirenic spirit. There's the difficult bit!
On the one hand a colloquy that ends up in a shouting match is worse than useless. But barely less useless is a colloquy in which one side buttons its lip because 'we have to be nice to everyone'. Maybe that's what Seymour fears, and if so, frankly I think he's right to fear it. When church hierarchies arrange events of this sort, their aversion to risk is liable to make the whole thing so anodyne that it's effectively pointless.
Yes, I agree that there has to be honesty - the "let's be nice and not say anything that rocks the boat" approach is pointless. There needs to be robust yet generous debate.
DeleteHaving said that, many who post on this page have very set views on subjects such as sexuality and marriage, so (apart from giving an opportunity of learning why the 'opposition' has come to the conclusions it has) is there much point in having a colloquy of the kind you advocate? Surely the whole point of such a discussion is to come to a consensus rather than an uneasy truce - and, in the present climate, I don't think we'd get to the latter, never mind the former!
One colloquy is entirely unlikely to result in a consensus; but it might - just might, given a charitable spirit (and I know that can be a big ask among Christians!) - result in a degree of grudging but nonetheless dawning mutual understanding. And, less likely but still just possibly, even some mutual respect.
DeleteAnd if so I'd call that a result, and, as far as it goes, a worthwhile one. I'm with the late Cardinal Newman on this sort of thing: 'I do not ask to see the distant scene; one step enough for me'.
I'd moved back from Wales to England by the time the Anglican debate over the ordination of women reached its climax; but in the English - or, more narrowly, the Chester diocesan - context I was constantly amazed at the lack of opportunities for engagement between the opposing factions. Even the then bishop, seeking doubtless to be eirenic, ensured that he listened to the proponents on their own in one session and to the opponents in a separate one. Perhaps he feared we'd tear each others' throats out!
But one - just one, in all those years - opportunity for colloquy on this matter did arise when the Chester diocesan branch of the Anglican 'Movement for the Ordination of Women' arranged a meeting specifically intended to afford an opportunity for proponents of women's ordination to meet and debate - hopefully 'in the unity of the Spirit and in the bond of peace'! - with opponents.
I went along to that meeting because I quite unambiguously thought that was the right thing to do. And while it didn't shift my opinion on the fundamental issue one little bit, encountering Anglicans who had come down on the other side of the ideological/doctrinal fence from me faced me with the reality that, while I still thought they were wrong, I had no justification for demonizing them in the way that across Christian history opposing factions have so often demonized one another in times of controversy. Fifth century church councils around Christology exhbit that tendency unambiguously!
But the model surely has to be Exodus 2:13: 'When Moses went out the next day, he saw two Hebrews fighting. So he went to the man who had started the fight and asked, "Why are you beating up one of your own people?"' The response might well be the one Moses got: 'The man answered, "Who made you our ruler and judge?"' But, following the apostolic rebuke that 'you have not so learned Christ' it still seems worth making the attempt.
And my sense is that, whether a colloquy of this sort does or doesn't ultimately achieve a coming together of presently divergent minds on these issues, the attempt is still worth making, and that 'an uneasy truce' within a Christian community is preferable to gimlet-eyed confrontation!
PP. Believe me I have smelt and drunk the coffee. Your comment is so true. I was just making a point I had read.
ReplyDeleteLet me give you some more of the softening up process from the plank of bishops in readiness for September. This is from their Unprincipled Pastoralia pack for Parish discussions. You will see that it is OK for them to pass judgement on the members of the Church in Wales who dare to stand up for Christ; and for the Faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints. Apparently, we only do it because we are prejudiced, fearful, abusing power (that has got to be a laugh coming from the bishops), hypocritical and ignorant. As usual, the bishops will do anything to get their way, and will sink to the most devious of levels. The Unprincipled Pastoralia pack is nothing less than a way of heaping guilt on members of the Governing Body who would dare to stand up and speak the truth. Seymour
ReplyDeleteUnprincipled Pastoralia courtesy of the Bishops
The quality of our relationships is diminished by six pervading evils. How are these at work in your own church community and how might your church address them?
acknowledge PREJUDICE
We are all conditioned by our experience of life, positively or negatively. All of us must reflect deeply on our attitudes and behaviour. All are loved children of God. The cross of Christ is for all. The journey from prejudice to hatred is a short one.
Can it be right that any of us fails to explore our own prejudices?
cast out FEAR
There is fear about ‘breaking ranks’ and speaking out. There is fear that if someone’s personal circumstances are known then friendships may be affected, or their ministry may be called into question. Clergy may fear that if their views differ from their bishop’s known views, this will affect their ministry. (Does this apply to Tory voting clergy in St David’s Diocese? Seymour) These kinds of fear can corrupt our life together, make individuals feel trapped and stop people from entering our churches.
Can it be right that people live in fear of one another in our churches?
speak into SILENCE
Good pastoral care of LGBTI+ people can never happen in an environment where their presence or questions are intentionally ignored by those in church leadership. Silence, when misused, can shelter abuses of power. People must be given space, permission and opportunities to speak if they want to – so that those who are vulnerable can hear and thus not feel that they are alone. If our church really believes that it wishes to welcome everyone, no matter their personal circumstances, then this welcome must be voiced in words that come from both head and heart.
Can it be right for our church communities to promote a conspiracy of silence – whether consciously or subconsciously – about matters relating to sexuality and gender?
admit HYPOCRISY
We do not commend intrusive questioning. Rather, our aim is to shine a light on structures and practices that promote evasiveness and can be seen as hypocrisy.
Can it be right that there are situations where people feel forced to hide their sexuality or gender identity, or where parishes find themselves evading these matters?
address IGNORANCE
Ignorance is inevitable, but ignorance about the experiences and perspectives of everyone in our church communities can and should be addressed and taken into account in our teaching and learning about the foundations of our shared Christian faith. Taking Scripture and our tradition seriously does not allow us to ignore these pressing pastoral issues.
Can it be right for people with pastoral responsibility to be ignorant of what it is like to be LGBTI+?
pay attention to POWER
Inequalities of power have led to abuses in the past and will continue to do so unless all who exercise pastoral care reflect continuously on the power that they hold. Power must always be acknowledged.
Can it be right that pastoral encounters still take place without awareness of disparities of power?
Fact: at least some of these evils will be at work in your church, even if not with respect to LGBTI+ people. Who is missing? Who is present? Who is silent?
'Softening up' is correct. Also they are trying to load as many pro-LGBT voters onto GB in readiness for the vote.
DeleteStrange! Have two different contributions somehow been conflated? because the second half doesn 't match the first.
DeleteDom
The second half is what the plank of bishops have put out, Dom
DeleteSeymour
Loading the Governing Body with people who think, say and vote in the "right" way has been going on since the 1990s at least. That's how the vote for women's ordination was engineered in the first place.
DeleteIn our house traditional marriage (one man and one woman) is known as Holy Marriage.
DeleteThe new version is known as Unholy Marriage.
Avoids all confusion.