Comments: bishops seek to radically alter PMMs

The bishops have emerged from their long hibernation have they ?

And such beautifully crafted politically adept re-framing....

Moral guidance, truth and spirituality would have been inconsistent with the political procedure undertaken here ( and so not ventured)

Posted by laurence at Sunday, 4 February 2007 at 5:55pm GMT

Typical fence-sitting, spineless twaddle.

No wonder no-one respects the CofE any longer.I'd prefer an honest homophobe.

Posted by Merseymike at Sunday, 4 February 2007 at 7:26pm GMT

And just so james Jones isn't under any illusion - ONLY a status and framework akin to civil marriage would have been acceptable.

Thats why we have CP's - to give equality and status to same sex couples. The Church view on their moral standing is not reflected in civil law, and neither should it be.

Posted by Merseymike at Sunday, 4 February 2007 at 7:30pm GMT

Clarity poured into frosty glass bottles and with corks firmly pushed in.

Posted by Pluralist at Sunday, 4 February 2007 at 7:57pm GMT

Mary Gilbert's resolution always seemed to me a fine enunciation of absolutely unobjectionable propositions framed in positive language - altogether excellent.

But even the positive tone is unacceptable to the bishops in the current climate.

How mean spirited and craven of them. Shame on them.

Posted by badman at Sunday, 4 February 2007 at 8:57pm GMT

Dear Merseymíke, I think that the church is *trying* to be as open as reasonably possible, not just spineless. However, I would prefer it if the HoB also restated what the Church actually believes about same-sex sex, rather than just refer back to previous resolutions.

After all we would have a right to be respected and to take part in the public square as Christians, even if everyone else thought we were wrong!!

Posted by Dave at Sunday, 4 February 2007 at 10:45pm GMT

Why do I find it interesting that the amended version of the Gilbert motion leaves out anything about LGBT people in actual communities?

Clearly, at least to the bishops, we are still an abstract proposition.

Posted by kieran crichton at Sunday, 4 February 2007 at 11:00pm GMT

As for equality of gay partnerships with marriage. The fact is that there are similarities (two adults entering into a public and legal commitment) but there are also substantial differences (physiologically, biologically and sociologically, as well as religiously). CP and Equality legislation has gone too far by trying to legislate that the actual differences between different sexualities are unimportant.

I think that nearly everyone I know was supportive of the idea that, as people were no longer living by true Christian values, compassion should allow for those in committed dependent relationships, who could not marry, to be provided with legals structures to reflect the actual relationship(s).

But what the Government provided is not equality for all. That was not the real intention and it was not done. They didn't provide for *all* those previously disadvantaged by laws based on the old moral doctrine. They just imposed a new moral ideological doctrine that benefits a few new groups, leaves others still disadvantaged, and actively disadvantages a few groups.

Posted by Dave at Sunday, 4 February 2007 at 11:10pm GMT

Yes we take part in public squares as Christians, those who affirm lesbian and gay people as equal, in relationships, active and inactive in all sorts of activities, the sexual included (boy are you obsessed Dave with "same sex sex" - please sort it out) who should be open to conduct all forms of church ministries, who could have forms of ceremonies that recognise the sacred character of their faithful relationships, just as with others.

Posted by Pluralist at Sunday, 4 February 2007 at 11:58pm GMT

All you need to know about +Gloucester's Item 12 amendment, are to be found in the following:

"commend continuing efforts to prevent [...] diversity of opinion"

:-(

Lord have mercy!

Posted by JCF at Monday, 5 February 2007 at 3:38am GMT

+Gloucester won't please the GS radicals anyway - the affirmation of the rightness of homosexual people to full participation in the life of the church will cut no ice with some en route to Tanzania.....

Posted by mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) at Monday, 5 February 2007 at 8:57am GMT

Within the civil law, gay partnerships have equality with marriage, and so they should - because the state does not regard gay people or their relationships as unequal. Different, yes - that's why there are CP's for same sex couples, and civil marriage for opposite sex - but they offer the same rights and responsibilities, reflecting the role of committed partnerships in civil society. As they should, because the 'differences' people like Dave refers to are those recognised only be conservative religionists and the anti-gay lobby.

The CofE recognise that CP's are here to stay - outside the Church this simply isn't an issue any more.

Posted by Merseymike at Monday, 5 February 2007 at 9:04am GMT

Whilst it seems to me that the LGBT case occupies a good deal of the moral high ground, its is surely cut away by such selective and dishonest editing as that in JCF's posting.

This is akin to editing the sixth commandment to read "Thou shalt [...] kill"

Posted by cryptogram at Monday, 5 February 2007 at 10:50am GMT

JCF, the text reads "“(a) commend continuing efforts to prevent the diversity of opinion about human sexuality creating further division and impaired fellowship within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion; "

If I wrote that I wish to prevent children from breaking windows, I would be very upset if you misrepresented me as saying I wished to prevent children.

Posted by Fr Joseph O'Leary at Monday, 5 February 2007 at 11:14am GMT

cryptogram talks about the moral high ground - and apparently one gets it by ignoring the moral teaching of scripture - amazing!

Posted by NP at Monday, 5 February 2007 at 2:43pm GMT

"as people were no longer living by true Christian values"
While I grant people aren't living by "true Christian values", Dave, I wonder at your use of "no longer". Surely "still not, after 2000 years" would have been a better phrase, or perhaps you can point to one period in the past 2 millenia when this HAS been true.

Posted by Ford Elms at Monday, 5 February 2007 at 5:52pm GMT

To Fr. Joseph and cryptogram:

"No, write 'He SAID "I am the King of the Jews"!'"

Pilate wasn't wrong, there. :-/

Posted by JCF at Monday, 5 February 2007 at 5:54pm GMT

JCF
- Your perversion of the amendment isn't remotely parallel to the verse you cite, and you know it. You don't improve your case by such deceitful misquoting.

NP
- You make silly assumptions. You do not ask in what the "moral high ground" subsists, but assume you know. And in doing so you betray the moral paucity of your own argument.

Neither "side" of the debate is covered in glory here. You might both do better to listen (or read) and to understand what is being said, rather than respond with the same tired old reflexes.

Posted by cryptogram at Monday, 5 February 2007 at 9:06pm GMT

JCF’s observation is acute. It is clear from (a)

“commend continuing efforts to prevent the diversity of opinion … creating further division and impaired fellowship…”

that the (not so) good Bishop sees difference as a problem, not the animosity, division, spin, lies, havoc, intentionally nurtured and fomented in some places to destroy the Church of England and the Anglican Communion of churches.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Tuesday, 6 February 2007 at 5:42am GMT

NP writes: “… ignoring the moral teaching of scripture – amazing!”

Now, NP, “moral” is a 12th century concept of the European Neo Platonist Academy. Not in the Bible.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Tuesday, 6 February 2007 at 5:42am GMT

NP obseved
cryptogram talks about the moral high ground - and apparently one gets it by ignoring the moral teaching of scripture - amazing!

I know, I have a rebellious son, he REFUSED to tidy his room for years, and I didn't put him to death. I do apologise.

Posted by mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) at Tuesday, 6 February 2007 at 8:34am GMT

cryptogram - yeah, so "silly" to assume that the CofE might take its morality from the scriptures...what do you want me to read - is The Guardian the current authority? (you know what I want you to read)

Mynster - glad you spared your son! Untidiness is not a sin, you know......and I don't think TEC's actions, "tearing the fabric of the Communion" deliberately) is mere untidiness - is it?


Posted by NP at Tuesday, 6 February 2007 at 10:16am GMT

Very well, NP, if you need it spelled out:

YOU apparently assume that all LGBT people are involved in genital acts which you believe to be condemned in no uncertain terms in scripture, and therefore cannot in any sense "occupy the moral high ground".

I do not make the assumption of those genital acts. Indeed, in many circumstances such acts would patently be impossible. However, in terms of acceptance of the outcast, refusal to cast the first stone and belief in the uiniversality of atonement, (rather than its restriction to the Elect) I believe they do occupy the moral high ground.

In Matthew 5:22 Jesus says that anyone who calls a brother "moré" will be condemned to hell fire. That conservative evangelical commentator, R V G Tasker remarks that it is better to read this as an Aramaic word (and thus parallel to "raka" in v.21) rather than as the vocative of the Greek adjective "moros". Thus: "Anyone who calls a brother "Outcast" will himself be cast out". I find less readiness to chuck anathemata around among the LGBT Christians than among the "righteous". As the priest is wont to say in the confessional "Go in peace, and pray for me, also a sinner"

As for your comment on David's post - while you may know your Leviticus, you clearly don't know your Deuteronomy.
Try reading Deut. 21:18-21

Posted by cryptogram at Tuesday, 6 February 2007 at 12:07pm GMT

crypto - I made no such assumption.

I am addressing the issue of those who want to say "don't do x" means "do x, it is good" - a position which the CofE House of Bishops is clearly not willing to support as we can see....the same is not true of the majority of the TEC bishops, sadly.

By the way - my views are not just based on Lev. There is a consistent message in the OT and NT. Revisionists always have to end up ignoring certain passages and the bigger picture - because it ain't unclear.

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 6 February 2007 at 12:46pm GMT

NP wrote: "I am addressing the issue of those who want to say "don't do x" means "do x, it is good""

Which implies, in applying it to my original post, an assumption that that is my meaning.

It is not my meaning, or anything remotely approaching it. But you carry on tithing your mint and cumin. One day you may notice the weightier things.

Posted by cryptogram at Tuesday, 6 February 2007 at 4:28pm GMT

crypto - it seems like you think you have made some strong argument.....just so it is clear, I am not trying to read your mind, was not commenting on your undisclosed views and am more concerned with the issues anyway

You talked of "the moral high ground" in relation to people who seem often to sacrifice any moral teaching in scripture they do not like to the god called "Inclusiveness" - this is what I found ironic

Posted by NP at Wednesday, 7 February 2007 at 11:06am GMT

NP wrote: “…to sacrifice any moral teaching in scripture…”

NP, I have told you before, that “moral” is a 12th century abstract concept. Scholasticism. NOT in the Bible.

I would seem it was ABC Cranmer who invented the threefold division of Leviticus into “Civil, Ceremonial and Moral” (it’s unknown here) in order to “justify” Henry VIIIs divorce from the Queen (claiming it was “”moral” ;=)

Leviticus itself makes NO such distinction – unthinkable even, before the late 12th century.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Thursday, 8 February 2007 at 9:49am GMT

Goran - you so love your technicalities...and remain so unconvincing but you seem to enjoy yourself, so that is fine.

I am sure you have read the opening chapters of Genesis. You will agree that they occur before C12....and you might find in them some idea of what sin means, how much God hates it and punishes it - and that right (moral) and wrong behaviour is not a new idea by any means.

Posted by NP at Thursday, 8 February 2007 at 5:24pm GMT

NP - This is a genuine enquiry, not an attempt to score points, so please respond in the same spirit:
just how would you understand "sin"?

Would you see it, for example, as a sort of demonic goo which clings to us when we do things that are wrong - a sort of kakoplasma, to coin a term? It disgusts God who turns away from it, but has provided the remedy in the Saviour's blood, which alone can cleanse us of it?
Or would you see it perhaps as a dysfunction in our relationship with God, and consequently with our fellows, which hurts rather than disgusts God and for which he has provided a remedy in the perfect obedience of the Saviour, through whom alone it can be healed?
Or maybe you would put it another way?

I ask because I am a little concerned about the use of the word "hate" in your most recent post, and feel it needs to be unpacked a bit.

Posted by cryptogram at Friday, 9 February 2007 at 2:24pm GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.