The latest row ”” into which the Archbishop of Canterbury has stumbled like a blind man into a bog ”” is over the “lesbian bishop” elected by the American Episcopal Church (the equivalent of the Church of England). According to Ruth Gledhill, The Times’s reliable Religion Correspondent, this single appointment places the future of the entire Anglican Communion “in jeopardy”. Such is the froth of hysteria about sexuality in the upper echelons of the Church that this astonishing claim seems quite plausible.
I’m not a theologian. I may be overlooking something in the recorded sayings of Jesus Christ. But as far as I can recall, the founder of the Church said nothing whatsoever about sexuality ”” either his own or anyone else’s. We don’t know whether he was gay or straight; celibate, monogamous or promiscuous. Nor what he expected his followers to be ”” if he expected anything. Mercifully, perhaps, the gospel writers ”” compiling their chronicles 30 years or more after Christ’s death ”” lacked the ruthless digging skills and insatiable prurience of today’s biographers. Had Kitty Kelley rather than St Mark been around in 1st-century Judaea, the story might have been racier. But as things stand, there is no justification in the pronouncements of Christ for anyone in the Church to pontificate (I use the word advisedly) about harmless activities that go on in private between consenting adults ”” even if some of those adults are the Church’s own clerics.
You’re overlooking something: “sexual immorality defiles a man.”
He has some good points such as:
[blockquote]The tragedy for the Church is that it is missing a huge opportunity. There are millions of young people out there who are disaffected from mainstream politics but equally dissatisfied with the mindless consumerism and callous selfishness of modern life. You can see that from the numbers flocking to espouse green causes, or to work for charities this Christmas. With so many youngsters thinking deeply about what’s right and wrong for the world, this should be a golden age for Christianity — the most revolutionary of religions.[/blockquote]
….in amidst the cultivated ignorance.
And of course, thousands of young people are coming to Christ sometimes through Alpha, Christian Unions, and through festivals such as Soul Survivor etc, but many of these are offshoots from church ministries and have not really been integrated into our approach as a denomination, and some of them are inter-denominational.
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with gay American bishop elections; but who is writing screeds and screeds about it? Well people like Richard Morrison in the Times, probably because it helps sell newspapers.
Pageantmaster: but those young people you refer to attracted in by Alpha etc, are mostly deeply embarrassed by the Con Evos’ stand on sexuality. Young people in the pews do not by and large share their male leaderships’ obsession with gender/sexuality issues, in my experience, but take a live and let live approach. This is the demographic time-bomb that belies the Con Evo position: the children of the Giddings/ Sugden generation do not share their homophobic prejudices,and it is highly unlikely that they ever will do so in an increasingly tolerant and equality-driven modern Europe. And, of course, Con Evos have as many gay children as anyone else themselves: having gay family member or close friend is probably what ultimately changes most people’s views on the topic.
The man’s ignorance about the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth is breathtaking.
#3 Hello, um, ‘Marcus Pius’ [what is with that btw?]
I thought you might pop up. What do you know about Alpha? Have you been on it or spoken to the people on it or the children of what you term Con Evos? Your experience may or may not be right, however it is not relevant to the issue at hand which is the attempt to consecrate another gay partnered bishop in the US.
You also conflate the Anglican Communion’s view of the episcopacy with homophobia, which of course it is not. It is a question of what example bishops should set their flock; one in accordance with the Christian view that within marriage between a man and a woman is the only sexual relationship we know is approved by God, so far as we can discern it from the Bible. This is the doctrine of the church so far as the Church of England, the Anglican Communion, the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and a good number of other churches. And that is not just a view of “Con Evos”. Now if you want to argue for changing that position you are going to have to do a good deal better in your argument than assert what you reckon particular people think and actually make a theological argument. But I suppose that requires thought and effort?
Sorry that should read “This is the doctrine of the church so far as the Church of England, the Anglican Communion, the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and a good number of other churches have received it“.
The writer seems to feel that there is something about faith such that those who believe ought to listen to what Jesus said and put it into practice. And yet the language the church has handed him to understand the life in Christ – is so thin it provides a moment of sincere bathos in his article – live and let live.
I am reminded of how Thomas Merton writing of his time at Oakham School in England, describes how the chaplain’s lesson on religion consisted more or less in vague ethical remarks, an obscure mix of ideals of English gentlemanliness and notions of personal hygene. Merton describes the chaplain’s “greatest sermon” on 1 Corinthians 13, in which he suggested that “charity” could be replaced by “by all that we mean when we call at chap a ‘gentleman.”” So that charity meant – good sportsmanship, fair play, the decent thing, dressing properly, polite table manners and not being a bounder. None of them objectionable things – but he rightly wonders – was Jesus scourged, beaten, crowned with thorns, nailed to a cross and left to bleed to death in order that we might all become gentlemen?
For Heaven’s sake, this babble isn’t worth your attention. We have heard all of this before, and it is nonsense. Larry
FWIW I don’t think it is babble. It’s an account of how a church could become at such a loss about its calling that sincere and long standing worshipers could seriously believe that “live and let live” was a truthful summary of the christian way of life.
I think live and let live has a value for how many of us are without one pecadillo or another, however I suppose the point comes where you have to say, is the church really doing anybody any favors if it abandons its teaching on what we are called to in relationship with God; not only that, but we say the opposite is true, and moreover we are going to say that God blesses the opposite, and that new truth will be upheld by bishops who themselves live in new truth relationships?
fwiw, I think ‘marcus pius’ is an improved descriptor of the blogger formerly known as [name withheld].
Oh dear — Fr. Mark is saying the same old stuff as he has before.
RE: “but those young people you refer to attracted in by Alpha etc, are mostly deeply embarrassed by the Con Evos’ stand on sexuality.”
You wouldn’t know.
RE: “Young people in the pews do not by and large share their male leaderships’ obsession with gender/sexuality issues . . . ”
Heh — “in my experience” they do.
So we’re equal now. You have your experience with liberal “young people” and I have mine with conservative “young people.”
RE: “This is the demographic time-bomb . . . ”
The “demographic time-bomb” is that the conservatives are actually reproducing. ; > )
RE: ” . .. the children of the Giddings/ Sugden generation do not share their homophobic prejudices . . . ”
Right — they share their recognition that same-gender sexual relationships however are immoral and wrong and those who practice such things should not be leaders in the church.
RE: “And, of course, Con Evos have as many gay children as anyone else themselves . . . ”
And that amounts to 2-3% of the population.
It’s an account of how a church could become at such a loss about its calling that sincere and long standing worshipers could seriously believe that “live and let live†was a truthful summary of the christian way of life.
Isn’t this profoundly tragic?
RE: “But as far as I can recall, the founder of the Church said nothing whatsoever about sexuality — either his own or anyone else’s.”
The author doesn’t seem to have read Christ’s numerous pronouncements against porneia which encompassed all sexual sin, including of course same-gender sexual relations.
But more interesting to me is the author’s construct that it’s only the proud “church leaders” who are concerned about sex, when in reality it’s the “masses in the pews” as well.
Truth is . . . some of the proud church leaders are madly propagandizing for their gospel which is the affirmation of same-gender sexual relationships, and other masses in the pews are opposed.
Two gospels. One organization. And both sides about sex, which is good, since sex, as both sides agree on, is actually important.
What’s amusing is to which some of the gay activists with less integrity pronouncing that “sex is really not that important enough for us to be about” while at the same time, of course, demonstrating the precise opposite by their single-minded obsessive activism about same.
[Comment deleted by Elf – please cut the intemperate personal comments]
[Subsequent comments also deleted with regret]
RE: “what I say is happening.”
; > ) Of course, of course.
RE: “Every day old homophobes die, and young people do not share their prejudices.”
Heh — then I’ll need to get old mighty soon, huh? ; > )
Nope — you’re reading young people dead wrong, Father Mark.
But that’s cool — I don’t need to convince you of what’s accurate. You’ll figure it out soon enough.
RE: “I know you will scream and wriggle and refuse to see it . . . ”
Does smiling count as screaming?
Varlet Elves!!!! Why delete his comment? Sure he’s mad. But that’s understandable given his hopes for his gospel.
Why the fangs, and the cruel claws and the red eyes?
Why slash comments and strew their entrails through the blog?
Is it the Christmas season that brings out the Scrooge-like cruelty?
Let us have some Christmas cheer!!!! Let us put the elves on furlough through this season.
Let us think about an Elf Recipe Thread!!!!
Aaaaaarrrrggghhhhhhhh!!!!!
Another comment taken and tossed away as of no value!
Is there no Balm in Gilead?
None
Amusing, Sarah and Elves. But I’m in favor of injecting a little more seriousness into this thread, because I heartily agree with driver8 above (in his #9) that the sort of drivel and vacuous nonsense that Richard Morrison has dished up here is a very real and serious problem indeed. An that’s precisely because he’s not being idiosyncratic. He sadly represents countless people in the Global North who’ve been so poorly taught, or have themselves chosen to reject whatever decent teaching they did ever get about authentic Christian theology and morality, that an absolutely ridiculous summary of that teaching like Morrison’s can pass for being credible in the public forum.
Alas, it’s the besetting sin of established churches like the CoE and all its misguided state church kin to reduce the Christian faith and life to the lowest common denominator that’s broadly acceptable in society as a means of unifying and sanctifying the state. Thankfully, that whole Christendom approach is now rapidly passing into oblivion as the obsolete monstrosity that it is.
Alas, when I read such trite obiter dicta as Morrison’s assertion that,
[i]”Spoken or unspoken, it’s (the CoE’s) guiding tenet was that theology shouldn’t get in the way of decency and toleration,”[/i] I want to throw up. It’s the absolute antithesis of the kind of Christianity I believe in, which lionizes martyrs, missionaries, and other such “fanatics” (or “enthusiasts” in the old British jargon).
For notice that there’s an unspoken authority being smuggled in here, for who decides what counts as “decency” anyway? Not the historic Christian tradition, but whatever happens to be the accepted social convention of the time. This is merely civil religion. Which is to say, it’s rank idolatry.
Thank God, I’m not English. I absolutely HATE state churches.
David Handy+
Why is it that the Church is so consistently accused of being obsessed with sex? What Morrison is observing is the collision between a sex obsessed culture and the teaching of the Church– not vice versa.
Farstrider what an excellent take on the situation. I had reached a similar conclusion but could not so suciently state it.
Elves: there is a big problem here, though, which is that you invariably get a very skewed discussion on all of your threads. You have 90% of your comments from conservative viewpoints screaming blue murder against gay people (and abortion, and women in power) in a way that sounds completely unbalanced to any of us who have a day job in the real world outside America. Inevitably, your very conservative commenters here start to think they are normal because they are not contradicted, and that is not healthy for anyone, least of all them. And I am not rude in my comments, thank you very much: many of the American conservatives commenting here are routinely direct to a degree that appears staggeringly rude in an old-world context, but I wouldn’t think it right to censor their self-expression merely because of it.
[MP as you are fairly new here we recap: comments which are: overheated; intemperate; ad hominem, whether directed at other commenters or other individuals; instruct readers to leave or join a particular church; are off-topic; are needlessly repetitive; link to outside websites; make [in our view] unsubstantiated or potentially actionable allegations; are offensive or in bad taste; are excessively sarcastic etc, are amongst those liable to be deleted or edited at the Elves’ discretion. In the event of repeated infringement of the commenting policy, comments may be pre-moderated or in extreme cases, commenting privileges withdrawn. T19 is not a forum for venting. That is the general policy which we try to keep to although we do not always succeed. It is always a matter of judgment at the time and bearing in mind other factors such as events going on where the temperature of debate may rise. T19 is one of the few blogs which permits unmoderated comments to be posted directly so commenting is based on trust. We maintain this not just for the members who comment here, but also for the large group who read this blog for information without commenting, but who do complain if comments are out of order. It can be helpful to draft a comment and then to leave it for a minute or two before posting. Any particular issues may always be raised with us by using the email or private message links top right of the page. We hope you and others will please bear this in mind and will assist us in keeping T19 an informative and instructive forum – Elf]
#18. Now, elves, THAT”S funny. Brevity being the soul of wit and all that…. Larry
“I may be overlooking something in the recorded sayings of Jesus Christ. But as far as I can recall, the founder of the Church said nothing whatsoever about sexuality — either his own or anyone else’s.”
Glad to hear he’s not worried about contextualization and cultural matters of religious instruction at all, sort of cuts the props out from under the whole pro-homosexuality argument in one fell swoop.
The argument from ignorance is underwhelming.