Recent Comments at Thinking Anglicans http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/ en Copyright 2013 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:32:49 +0000 http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34 Jeremy commented on House of Bishops - senior women clergy representatives "We would do well to remember though that the tortoise eventually managed to beat the hare to the finishing line..."

CofE > rabbits.

Is that really a comforting thought?

]]> http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/006113.html#c1914901 comment1914901 Church of England Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:32:49 +0000 Erika Baker commented on House of Lords: Monday in committee on the Marriage bill Rick,
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
No-one is trying to stop straight couples from having babies and no-one doubts that it takes a female egg and a male sperm to create them.

What does that have to do with the fact that some people are intersex, that your biological sex says nothing about your sexuality and that sexuality should be no bar to marriage? That the British civil marriage service says nothing about children - about having them, not having them, adopting them, fostering them, step parenting them, having them by assisted conception as the biological offspring of only one of the parents?

Please do not forget that we are talking about civil legislation, not about some people's religious ideas about marriage.

]]> http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/006112.html#c1914866 comment1914866 equality legislation Wed, 19 Jun 2013 21:51:25 +0000 Steven commented on House of Bishops - senior women clergy representatives Father Ron, you seem to speak with an authority that most of the traditionalists I know would dare not claim. How can you be so sure that the Holy Spirit is being stifled by the processes of the CofE? Is it not even remotely possible that Synod's decision in November was guided by the Holy Spirit? I imiagine you would have said it was if the decision was six votes the other way.

]]> http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/006113.html#c1914854 comment1914854 Church of England Wed, 19 Jun 2013 21:28:56 +0000 Father Ron Smith commented on House of Lords: Monday in committee on the Marriage bill Dr. Sentamu, in his speech today in the House of Lords, talks aout the deep regret felt by him AND THE PRIMATES OF THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION at the diminishment of gay people?
Well, that is a bit of legerdemain if ever one saw one! Hyperbole, at the very least. The Dromantine accord on the matter of respect for gays was never truthfully acceded to by the GS Primates.

]]> http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/006112.html#c1914793 comment1914793 equality legislation Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:32:21 +0000 Father Ron Smith commented on House of Bishops - senior women clergy representatives RE Benedict's comment; one wonders whether God's Holy Spirit ever has to wait for the C.of E's 'due process'? The answer to that question must SURELY be (in the UK) yes

]]> http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/006113.html#c1914780 comment1914780 Church of England Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:13:56 +0000 rick allen commented on House of Lords: Monday in committee on the Marriage bill "the division of the human species into two genders can no longer be considered accurate."

Nevertheless, each human being stubbornly comes into the world as a result of one (male) father and one (female) mother.

Those babies obviously aren't keeping up with the research.

]]> http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/006112.html#c1914771 comment1914771 equality legislation Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:59:08 +0000 James Betteridge commented on House of Bishops - senior women clergy representatives "Like a mighty tortoise moves the Church of God."
We would do well to remember though that the tortoise eventually managed to beat the hare to the finishing line...

]]> http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/006113.html#c1914755 comment1914755 Church of England Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:42:33 +0000 Veuster commented on House of Bishops - senior women clergy representatives > The Church of England has due process. It seems to me that the majority simply wish to ride roughshod over this, simply to drive through its own wants! Cf, previous comments on this thread.

It seems illogical to set a two-thirds threshold for a vote but then to seek to overturn the result when a two-thirds majority is not achieved. Wouldn't it be more honest either to accept the result of the November 2013 vote, which was taken in accordance with due process, or to change the way General Synod works and allow it to pass legislation by simple majorities?

]]> http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/006113.html#c1914671 comment1914671 Church of England Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:00:29 +0000 David Bieler commented on House of Lords: Monday in committee on the Marriage bill I get frustrated when I read the sort of thing on the "no thank you" website. The Regnerus study and all the work by Whitehead and NARTH that are cited have all been discredited or at least rejected by their respective professional communities. Other items are "unfounded" assertions (to use their same brush. So I go round and round trying to understand if these people are simply hopelessly blinkered (wearing blinders to us in the US), just willing to say anything in pursuit of power, or perhaps completely amoral and intellectually dishonest. As a university professor who tries to teach young men and women to live honestly and well in addition to teaching the intellectual rigor that goes with studying their disciplines , I find all three conditions unacceptable.

]]> http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/006112.html#c1914612 comment1914612 equality legislation Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:15:39 +0000 Rod Gillis commented on opinion @ Gene O'Grady, not sure we are talking about the same thing Gene. I don't disagree that some of the faithful may be confused at any given time. Some days midst all the excitement and political baffle-gab, I get a little confused myself. But, and this is the issue with regard to Oddie, to claim, as Oddie does, that the faithful have been confused since the 1960's is in fact a jab at Vatican II, and secondly I suggest that lots of Roman Catholics found V-2 not confusing but refreshing. Furthermore, I don't think many of the faithful who have embraced V-2, and long for more, are confused with the systematic retrenchment, like that advanced by Oddie, since Vatican II--they understand it and they resent it.

]]> http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/006096.html#c1914610 comment1914610 Opinion Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:14:59 +0000 Benedict commented on House of Bishops - senior women clergy representatives The Church of England has due process. It seems to me that the majority simply wish to ride roughshod over this, simply to drive through its own wants! Cf, previous comments on this thread.

]]> http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/006113.html#c1914602 comment1914602 Church of England Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:53:36 +0000 Anthony Archer commented on Reform responds to plans for women bishops I respect Reform, although I think they are wrong on headship. Their centre stage concern seems to be that of canonical obedience. But why is that such a big deal? Are they saying that in their eyes the woman bishop is not a real bishop and therefore the oath is a legal impossibility (canon lawyers will have a field day on that one) or that the woman bishop should not be a bishop for reasons of male headship and therefore they will not be able to acknowledge her as Chief Pastor. I thought conservative evangelicals sat fairly light on the whole question of bishops. They have never been slow in inviting 'one of them' for confirmations et al and no woman diocesan is going to stand in their way. On which subject, if conservative flying bishops are needed, let's appoint them. Some would consider it a shame that they are necessary, but their appointment will hardly institutionalise discrimination. And anyway, the Measure is hardly likely to produce a raft of woman diocesans on day one. M'thinks they are tilting at windmills.

]]> http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/006088.html#c1914576 comment1914576 Church of England Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:54:40 +0000 Erika Baker commented on House of Lords: Monday in committee on the Marriage bill Jeremy,
I fully agree. But I wanted to make the point that, even if completely taken on their own limited terms, their argument makes no logical sense at all.

Will,
you're right, we don't allow public servants to choose who to serve and who not to.
The question is, though, whether an exception could made in this particular case for registrars who are already employed.
There are good reasons for and against it. In itself it would be a relatively minor compromise in this particular case.
But I take your point that it would set a dangerous precedent.

]]> http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/006112.html#c1914551 comment1914551 equality legislation Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:15:21 +0000 Tobias Haller commented on House of Lords: Monday in committee on the Marriage bill @Craig Nelson, actually I've written a book on the subject that approaches "the question" from that standpoint, and I personally gave a copy of it to +Rowan at his sole visit to the synod of The Episcopal Church.

My approach was to examine the "causes" for marriage laid out in the Book of Common Prayer -- with due notice of the fact that the liturgy, since 1549, has directed the omission of the prayer for procreation when the woman is past child-bearing; which neither negates nor nullifies the marriage.

Since procreation (at least as far as child-bearing goes) is a provisional element, it remains to see if the other causes: as a remedy against the sin of promiscuity, and for the help, comfort and support engendered by mutual society. I believe that same-sex marriage is fully capable of accomplishing these ends.

Nor do I understand why that is so hard for some to understand.

]]> http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/006112.html#c1914542 comment1914542 equality legislation Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:54:03 +0000 Tobias Haller commented on House of Lords: Monday in committee on the Marriage bill Actually, same-sex marriage is the answer to exactly the same situation to which mixed-sex marriage is the answer: "it is not good for the human one to be alone." God left it to Adam to choose which helper was suitable to him; the church should do the same for each person, "for force is not of God."

]]> http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/006112.html#c1914533 comment1914533 equality legislation Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:37:21 +0000