tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post1521628886632185622..comments2024-03-28T08:30:20.260+01:00Comments on The Ugley Vicar: I (well actually, he) told you so: On the inevitability of the ‘Single Clause’ optionAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-20453914676876986982008-06-23T17:07:00.000+02:002008-06-23T17:07:00.000+02:00Chris asked me to post this as he is having proble...Chris asked me to post this as he is having problems doing the same.<BR/><BR/>Fern,<BR/><BR/>I do not assume that all bisexual individuals would be non-monogamous. However if bisexuality was admitted into the church to the same degree of inclusivity that the same-sex lobby demand then it would inevitably lead to pressure for a 'group' form of marriage. See for example<BR/><BR/><BR/>http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0063.html<BR/><BR/>C.Bishop<BR/><BR/>DevonAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-67824363203684297382008-06-21T20:49:00.000+02:002008-06-21T20:49:00.000+02:00Dear Adrian, I have absolutely no idea what GAFCON...Dear Adrian, I have absolutely no idea what GAFCON is going to decide. Personally, though, I'm not at all interested in 'invasions', partly because the theological basis of the English Reformation, itself rooted in the English constitution, is the rejection of extra-territorial authority in the Church.<BR/><BR/>The statement in the Articles that "The Bishop of <I>Rome</I> hath no jurisdiction in this realm of <I>England</I>" is not just a swipe at the Pope, it is a necessary precursor for the existence of a Church of England constituted under the monarch's authority.<BR/><BR/>The 'invasion' of foreign bishops would therefore be just that, even if they are Anglican foreign bishops. (This is not the same as the usual arguments against such interventions, which is that the diocese is somehow 'sacrosanct'. The answer to that one in the English context is that it most certainly is not, since the lawful authority of the diocesan to rule his diocese derives from the monarch.)<BR/><BR/>For this reason alone, I personally would be very reluctant to see 'invasions' happening. But as I say, no one can at this stage have any certainty about what August will bring.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-30846812753578172672008-06-21T20:34:00.000+02:002008-06-21T20:34:00.000+02:00You - and Nigel Atkinson from the past - are descr...You - and Nigel Atkinson from the past - are describing how GAFCON (lets call it Global Anglicanism) will now arrange its invasions:<BR/><BR/>See my own blog:<BR/><BR/>http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/06/how-it-this-schism-can-happen.html<BR/>http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com<BR/><BR/>Adrian Worsfold<BR/>New HollandPluralist (Adrian Worsfold)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-39571580253336169682008-06-21T12:43:00.000+02:002008-06-21T12:43:00.000+02:00John, I may have misinterpreted your writing but w...John, I may have misinterpreted your writing but whenever I've read anything of yours that's touched upon sexual orientation and bisexuality, it has always seemed to me you assume those who call themselves bisexual engage in multiple-partner relationships so that, for example, a bisexual woman would have both a lesbian relationship and a relationship with a man at one and the same time. The poster C. Bishop on this thread seems to have made a similar assumption.<BR/><BR/>You are quite right - the 'healed' homosexual scenario works both ways. If one imagines sexual orientation to be a line with 100% hetero at one end and 100% same-sex at the other, the majority of people would cluster around these two points but a significant number would be strung out (so to speak) across the line. It's these folk, I suspect, who are both the married guys with 2.4 kids who 'discover' they're gay in their forties and the 'healed' homosexuals Anglican Mainstream is so fond of.<BR/><BR/>I'm not a proponent of 'full inclusion' so I can't make their case for them but it does seem to me that a case can be made for 'inclusiveness' on the basis of all persons having to make an "an ultimate, and exclusive, 'forsaking all others' kind of choice" so that the consequent inability of bisexuals to express one part of their sexuality becomes no different from the heterosexual man or woman chafing at the demands of fidelity.Fern Winter, Londonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573314041199802905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-14344755695204874582008-06-20T22:59:00.000+02:002008-06-20T22:59:00.000+02:00PS to Fern. Sorry, I should have made it clear reg...PS to Fern. Sorry, I should have made it clear regarding bisexuality and choice: I am assuming we still retain for everyone the standard that sex outside marriage is sinful.<BR/><BR/>The problem it seems to me that this then poses for 'full inclusion' of the bisexual is that under the present conventions of marriage, at least one side of their sexuality can never be fully expressed.<BR/><BR/>That limit is, of course, imposed on all single heterosexuals as well, but as is often pointed out, they do have the possibility of expressing their sexuality at some stage. The bisexual cannot presently share this expectation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-61124552636530008402008-06-20T22:51:00.000+02:002008-06-20T22:51:00.000+02:00Fern, you wrote, "John, I think you may misunderst...Fern, you wrote, "John, I think you may misunderstand bisexuality. It only means that a person is attracted to both sexes."<BR/><BR/>And you thought I thought it meant ...?<BR/><BR/>The issue with bisexuality for the Church is whether a person must make an ultimate, and exclusive, 'forsaking <I>all</I> others' kind of choice which the marriage covenant has hitherto been considered to require.<BR/><BR/>I don't know, but could it be argued that the bisexual person 'forced' to make such a choice is being denied the expression of an aspect of their sexuality? I simply pose the question. Certainly, though, when the House of Bishops considered this in <I>Issues in Human Sexuality</I>, they ruled that bisexual inclinations could only be finally addressed by abstinence, prayer and counselling. (Forgive me, I don't have time right now to look up the exact wording, but will do it later if you or anyone else wants.)<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, doesn't your '"healed" homosexual' scenario work the other way, too - that some of the supposed 'gay' men who have been married, fathered children, etc, are really bisexuals who, during the heterosexual phase of their lives have found opposite sex attraction to be dominant?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-15857785846548031722008-06-20T22:30:00.000+02:002008-06-20T22:30:00.000+02:00John, I think you may misunderstand bisexuality. ...John, I think you may misunderstand bisexuality. It only means that a person is attracted to both sexes. It doesn't mean that bisexuals have both same and opposite sex relationships at one and the same time or that they alternate relationships, this time with a guy, next one with a gal. Most bisexuals, over time, drift to one or t'other end of the gay/straight spectrum and don't act on their feelings of attraction for the other. <BR/><BR/>Interestingly, I've read of research done on gay men who've supposedly been 'healed' of homosexuality, that suggests a high proportion are actually bisexual and that during the gay phase of their lives, same-sex attraction is dominant but either as the result of therapeutic intervention or merely the passage of time, their latent heterosexual orientation becomes dominant.<BR/><BR/>Madeline, how's Gussie Fink-Nottle? On the matter of listening to LGBT folk, do you think it's possible to listen long enough to be convinced that they're wrong in the interpretation they seek to bring to certain Bible texts?Fern Winter, Londonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573314041199802905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-75114663658239197862008-06-20T18:43:00.000+02:002008-06-20T18:43:00.000+02:00You have not answered John's original question Mad...You have not answered John's original question Madeline. Can you tell us how would you expect for example, a "bisexual Christian marriage" to work?<BR/><BR/>How would you alter the BCP to take into account the fact that one or either of the partners sees fit to have extra-marital sexual relations occasionally because God made them that way? Would you suggest a tripartite service perhaps? --agreed by all of course - a kind of bisexual polygamy? <BR/><BR/>" I take thee to be my lawful wedded husband and thee to be my lawful wedded wife to both have and to hold etc"<BR/><BR/>Would these words do?<BR/> <BR/><BR/>C.Bishop<BR/>DevonC Bishophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17829287043099125786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-17041787801096669232008-06-20T17:50:00.000+02:002008-06-20T17:50:00.000+02:00OK Madeline, that's what I thought you meant. So t...OK Madeline, that's what I thought you meant. So to return to my question, how do you envisage the inclusion of bisexuals?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-16344883205041555122008-06-20T15:27:00.000+02:002008-06-20T15:27:00.000+02:00Ok. I wondered why you said 'bisexual' rather than...Ok. I wondered why you said 'bisexual' rather than 'LGBT'. I mean all of the above. And it's simple. First, we start listening to people we diagree with. The church has listened to Augustinian opinions on sexuality for centuries, and it has listened to fundamentalists since they were invented at the beginning of the 20th century. Now it's time to listen to LGBT people. Then, we get some proper understanding of how to read the Bible, which doen't mean tearing out bleeding chunks that seem to support our own prejudices.madeline bassetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04754901757473592547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-36236808558721180742008-06-20T15:22:00.000+02:002008-06-20T15:22:00.000+02:00Madeline, I think really I'm asking you to elabora...Madeline, I think really I'm asking you to elaborate what you mean by calling for an 'inclusive' church.<BR/><BR/>We face repeated calls for the Church to be 'inclusive' of LGBT people in the sense of including and endorsing the practical outworking of their sexuality - see the LGCM, Changing Attitude and the recent blessing at St Bartholomews.<BR/><BR/>Not everyone means this inclusion when they talk about an 'inclusive church', but that is often what is assumed. So I am wondering first, what you mean by 'inclusive' and secondly, if you mean it to include the practices of bisexual people, just how you believe the Church should endorse and include this.<BR/><BR/>Of course, if by inclusive you just mean 'including women clergy' (ie, <I>not</I> inclusive of LGBT sexual practices) then the issue doesn't arise, and I assume you will continue to be a 'defender of the faith' in this regard, even if the Conservatives on the women's ordination follow your instructions and go.<BR/><BR/>I hope this makes clear what I was asking.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-24425999190135830392008-06-20T14:56:00.000+02:002008-06-20T14:56:00.000+02:00please elaborate.please elaborate.madeline bassetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04754901757473592547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-81738161711088876932008-06-20T14:26:00.000+02:002008-06-20T14:26:00.000+02:00Madeline, I'm not sure if you'll be willing to rep...Madeline, I'm not sure if you'll be willing to reply to this, but does your 'inclusive church' include, in the sense generally used by proponents, the inclusion of bisexuality, and if so, can you tell me (and others) how it is envisaged this should happen?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-84446284867300886012008-06-20T14:09:00.000+02:002008-06-20T14:09:00.000+02:00'Stand not upon the order of your going, but go at...'Stand not upon the order of your going, but go at once.'<BR/><BR/>I've never believed that the last word is the necessarily the right word, so I'm calling it a day on this one. Let others finish carry on if they wish. I agree with your post that started this. No promises were given. None should be. An inclusive Church now.madeline bassetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04754901757473592547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-88147734579704706642008-06-20T11:19:00.000+02:002008-06-20T11:19:00.000+02:00Madeline, I understand where you're coming from. Y...Madeline, I understand where you're coming from. You believe nothing binding was promised in 1993. I don't agree, neither did the compilers of the Manchester Report, but that's what you think and it is quite clear that no further discussion will change that. (Otherwise we will just be repeating "Oh yes they did," "Oh no they didn't.")<BR/><BR/>However, that does not mean that nothing should be offered now, does it? If the Church is not bound to keep the provisions of 1993 in place, it is not bound to abandon them. Indeed, it is asked to consider firming them up.<BR/><BR/>It has that choice, does it not? And the choice therefore must be based on what is good for the Church. I <A HREF="http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2008/05/less-like-church-impact-of-manchester.html" REL="nofollow">argued earlier</A> that going for the Single Clause option would hurt the Church. Others believe it would be good for the Church, but I note it is those who I believe would most harm it who are most vocal in wanting the Single Clause option. Don't forget their <I>declared</I> agenda is changing our view of God and total LGBT 'inclusion'. Look to North America for the ecclesiological model and then ask yourself how bisexuals will be 'fully included'.<BR/><BR/>I believe the biblical commitment of Conservative Evangelicals, though it opposes the ordination of women, provides a valuable safeguard within the Church against some of these other pressures, and as I have said earlier, if we go, the result will not be peace in a united Church, but simply the beginning of the next round. As Adrian (Pluralist) Worsfold keeps pointing out on the Fulcrum website, Fulcrum will become the new Conservatives. And as can already be seen, there is neither the theological strength among them, nor the political will, to take on the mantle currently worn by Traditionalists and Conservatives.<BR/><BR/>Of course, that may be what you want. It is certainly what others want. But I can only warn against it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-38231863308774415952008-06-20T10:48:00.000+02:002008-06-20T10:48:00.000+02:00and I'm cutting and pasting the knock-down reply t...and I'm cutting and pasting the knock-down reply to it.<BR/><BR/>'due notice of ten years is a long way from being the same as in perpetuity. i accept the climb down from that position, and i'd be very happy to see that deadline made law.<BR/><BR/>as for the supporting documents, well, interesting, but balanced by other arguments made at the time that there should be no provision at all, much like the single-claue bill now proposed.<BR/><BR/>in the end, the measure and the act are what matter, and no promises are made.'<BR/><BR/>As far as I'm concerned, you were promised nothing.madeline bassetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04754901757473592547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-73475466212656571572008-06-20T10:39:00.000+02:002008-06-20T10:39:00.000+02:00Peter, in reply I have cut and pasted what Bp Pete...Peter, in reply I have cut and pasted what Bp Pete Broadbent has posted in a cross-linked discussion on the Fulcrum website. It seems to me you are happy to envisage what he proposes as a <I>possible</I> scenario, but I would draw your attention to his last two sentences and then simply ask if you want to say 'Yes it is' to the likes of myself:<BR/><BR/>"Those who are trying to suggest that solemn and binding promises were not given at the time of the Act of Synod seem to rest their argument on the fact that nothing was put on the face of the legislation. But a lawyer (I'm not one) would also wish to adduce evidence from the surrounding material, not merely the Measure and Act of Synod themselves.<BR/><BR/>I would call into evidence: GS 1074 "Bonds of Peace"; GS Misc 418 "Being in Communion"; the documents supplied to the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament; the explicit rejection by Synod in 1989 of the proposal for a 20 year sunset clause; the House of Bishops 1993 Manchester Statement. All of these documents would be enough, I submit, to convince any contemporary witness that we meant what we said about a continuing and honoured place for opponents. (Sorry, they can't be referenced on the internet, or I would do so.)<BR/><BR/>If we now wish to renege on those undertakings, we should at least give opponents due notice. One way might be to say "in ten years' time there will no longer be a place for opponents in the CofE" - that would at least be honest, and give the catholics time to negotiate a uniate arrangement with Rome and/or [Conservative Evangelicals to negotiate] a continuing Protestant Church. But it would also be a huge impoverishment of the CofE. Is that what people actually want? Or do we feel duty bound to continue to make pastoral provision and to honour what we said in the 1990s?"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-14152054817821681782008-06-20T00:58:00.000+02:002008-06-20T00:58:00.000+02:00Well, Atkinson and Beckwith may want to reform the...Well, Atkinson and Beckwith may want to reform the C of E, just as Luther and Zwingli wanted to reform the mediaeval Catholic church. But just as the Catholic church did not agree to be reformed, so now the majority of the C of E does not want to be reformed (or "Reformed"). And so, just as Luther and Zwingli ended up outside the Catholic church, so will Atkinson and Beckwith whether they intend it or not - unless they simply back down.<BR/><BR/>For there was not room for the mediaeval popes, Luther and Zwingli in one church, and similarly there is not room for Atkinson and Beckwith in the same church as the majority of the C of E. They can claim that their separate "coherent ecclesial body" with "our bishops, our clergy, our parishes, our people and our money" is the true reformed C of E and the others are apostate, but formally and legally it will be the majority who retain the name and privileges.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-73808496333680000622008-06-19T17:48:00.000+02:002008-06-19T17:48:00.000+02:00Well John, if you get kicked out (and liberalism i...Well John, if you get kicked out (and liberalism is totalitarian in its determination to be comprehensive) you will be welcome to join those of us in nonconformity.<BR/><BR/>JF in HertsJohn Foxehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07991555670261426773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-40652056787780247972008-06-19T14:50:00.000+02:002008-06-19T14:50:00.000+02:00RE: "always to the discomfort of others and always...RE: "always to the discomfort of others and always at the expense of mercy and grace. . . . "<BR/><BR/>A richly ironic and amusing comment from a woman advocating the withdrawal of mercy and grace for a minority within the COE. <BR/><BR/>But only the right sort of minorities, I suppose, get "mercy and grace." ; > )<BR/><BR/>Sarah HeySarahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04795902595256976361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-40383377426180566082008-06-18T16:28:00.000+02:002008-06-18T16:28:00.000+02:00Remaining loyal to the structures is what every jo...Remaining loyal to the structures is what every jobsworth has done since time began. and every jobsworth defines the structures according to his own preferences and his own comfort, always to the discomfort of others and always at the expense of mercy and grace.madeline bassetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04754901757473592547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-14320243940960340932008-06-18T16:12:00.000+02:002008-06-18T16:12:00.000+02:00Peter, I am constantly amazed at the number of 'li...Peter, I am constantly amazed at the number of 'liberal' people who keep offering to show me the door out of the Church when I remain loyal to the Anglican formularies and committed to the existing structures (witness my chairing of the Saffron Walden Deanery Growth Task Group).<BR/><BR/>As to what Atkinson's proposals about Resolution C mean, you need to read again where he says this: "To go down any other road is to turn our backs on the Church of England and not to live up to our calling to reform it."<BR/><BR/>As to <I>why</I> we should do this, he quotes Roger Beckwith at some length: "... the belief and practice of the Church of England hitherto has been that it is not a proper part of the ministry of women that they should be ordained as presbyters. What we need to secure is that this belief and practice of ours remains a permitted and respected option within the Church if England until such time as the Church of England comes to a common, and wise mind on the matter…once more. If this is to be achieved, it will be essential that the rights given to parishes by the Measure [and now by the Act of Synod] be used to the full. We must not plan negatively, just for breathing space till we die or leave the Church of England, but for a permanent future within the Church of England, and indeed for a campaign to bring the whole Church of England, in time, back to its right mind, on this and many other matters. We must plan for nothing less than to rebuild the established Church on its true basis, the catholic and reformed basis of the Elizabethan Settlement. In the interest<BR/>of biblical and historic Christianity in England and the Anglican world, this is what we must plan to do."<BR/><BR/>Without subscribing to every detail of what either author is saying, that is nevertheless broadly what I feel I should plan to do also.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-27113127081865722242008-06-18T15:45:00.000+02:002008-06-18T15:45:00.000+02:00(Chelmsford)"We will have formed ourselves into a ...(Chelmsford)<BR/><BR/>"We will have formed ourselves into a coherent ecclesial body. We will have our bishops, our clergy, our parishes, our people and our money welded together."<BR/><BR/>So, Atkinson is calling for the formation of a separate church, sorry, "ecclesial body", and you are supporting him? Is this not secession from the Church of England? Not another Great Ejection, but a schism for which you (plural) are responsible?<BR/><BR/>At least this would be a consistent and responsible position for people like you who are clearly opposed to what the majority of the church stands for (for better or for worse), rather than trying to manipulate the majority into making more and more concessions to you. If the C of E is as bad as you say it is, have the courage to step away from it and be your own "ecclesial body", or find an African or Latin American province which you can work with happily.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-32079413689862576412008-06-18T15:00:00.000+02:002008-06-18T15:00:00.000+02:00Quite. These are the vocies of a few individuals, ...Quite. These are the vocies of a few individuals, not the voice of the church, so they have and had no force, nor should they have. They are quite different from binding promises made by the Church. For instance. 'I promise you now, John Richardson, that I will make you the sole beneficiary of my will.' Now, wait for me to die and see the words of the will. The same goes for the words of the Act of Synod. BTW. Don't bother going to court on this promise, there's nothing there.madeline bassetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04754901757473592547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-24404249485192447722008-06-18T14:55:00.000+02:002008-06-18T14:55:00.000+02:00Madeline, as you put it, "empty promises were made...Madeline, as you put it, "empty promises were made".Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.com