The 'the rising tide'

I have a most interesting conversation with another cleric at a funeral this morning. Interesting, surprising and just a little shocking and sad-making in fact!
Interesting because what I heard was something I'd suspected but not the way they'd put it.
Surprising because they were female and yet saw the recent synod decisions as negative.
Shocking because, well you don't expect that sort of thing on a Monday (do you?).
Sad-making because it seems we are looking at people with an agenda here - and it doesn't seem to have the Bible included (well, not the majority of it anyway)!

Then, to make it more interesting still I return and now (almost 16:00 and time for a brew) find myself challenged by the image below:

This image is something produced by Mark Regnerus (University of Texas, Austin) as he seeks to answer the question, "What exactly do pro-same-sex-marriage Christians think about sex and relationships in general?"  (click here) So let's put all this in the mix and see whether the unfolding conspiracy theory holds water or is just the ramblings of a mad woman and a sociologist and a gullible (below-average) Vicar who is perhaps more than a little convinced by it all!

My colleague (whose name I never did get) told me that she'd realised that the tide was rising, something that had been confirmed by a friend who'd told her that, "Having accepted women bishops the only remaining barrier to see toppled was same-sex!" 

One of the problems for those who consider themselves to hold with an orthodox (or some would say 'traditional') faith has been the situation whereby when the issue of homosexuality and the Church first came up it seems (to me anyway) that just as a line was about to be drawn in the sand some clever type realised that this would potentially cost the CofE money. And so the first fudge was born and we had the situation whereby homosexuality was definitely 'out' on the altar side of the rail and sort of, well you know, but not totally wrong so keep on coming to church and giving!

All that was needed was a straight (no pun intended) 'Yes' or 'No' and the matter would have been sorted one way or the other but it wasn't! Then women get ordained and this marks a step towards a lessening of opinion regarding the dread subject of homosexuality because women are apparently less inclined to be against it! Empirically I did have a female friend who told me that being part of a marginalised group (women) she could never vote against another (homosexuals) and so if this is consistent I guess the view holds some water.

Now I'm told by some that women in the house of bishops will add weight towards accepting homosexuality (struggle with 'same sex sex/marriage 'sss/ssm' as it all seems a little - off!) and that this now sets the signals to green for a move to remove the final obstacle for being a 'totally accepting and inclusive' Church. Seems to me that some regard the words  'permissive' and 'inclusive' to be as interchangeable as 'sex' and 'gender' - which makes them wrong on a couple of counts!

The scores on the doors from Prof Regnerus all indicate that those who support same-sex marriage are much more likely to be in favour of a lot of stuff that those Christians who aren't that keen on. Don't think that's a shock. Then again neither is it any surprise that non-Christian homosexuals are supportive of lots of stuff that Christians (of all complexions) aren't - even if they support same-sex marriage or are homosexual themselves. What I like about the man is that he's not screaming about slippery slopes or increasing trends - changing attitudes so same-sex marriage are not necessarily the cause of changes elsewhere. But each is discrete and also influenced, and influential, in the processing and adoption of attitudes.

So we should not demonise either - because that's merely a slippery slope in the other direction, innit?

Neither should we use our straightness, gayness or confusedness as a weapon because to do this reduces us to being nothing more than a pawn rather than the focus of God's amazing love - dunnit?

Seems to me that there's few surprises for me today - just confirmation that that which the Bible appears to consider right behaviour sure ain't popular among those who like to please themselves. No shock there either I guess because the whole point of sin is that it's a popular pastime.

The key is surely to find a via media and to be collaborative rather than combative and yet still maintain that which honours God, keeps the Christian living on the right track and is truly open and inclusive without compromising or becoming permissive - especially not in the mistaken belief that permissive means converts (unless we're looking to make them twice as fit for hell as we are ourselves that is).

What a very funny day indeed!

Equal Marriage and the CofE

Taken straight from the church's mouth (so now you can read it for yourself rather than keep pm'ing me):

In her statement to the House of Commons on 11^th December on the Government's proposals for Equal Marriage, the Secretary of State said:

"because the Church of England and Wales have explicitly stated that they do not wish to conduct same-sex marriages the legislation will explicitly state that it would be illegal for the Churches of England and Wales to marry same-sex couples. Mr Speaker, this provision recognises and protects the unique and Established nature of these churches. The church's canon law will also continue to ban the marriage of same-sex couples. Therefore, even if these institutions wanted to conduct same sex marriage, it would require a change to primary legislation at a later date and a change to canon law. Additional protection that cannot be breached."

Press and political commentary on this has given rise to the impression that extra safeguards have been put in place for the Church of England, which give legal protection above and beyond that for other denominations and faiths. Some have said that this amounts to Government deciding to give preferential treatment to the Church of England on the question of legal protection for religious organisations not wishing to perform same-sex marriages. Others have questioned why the Government should explicitly write in to primary legislation that it would be "illegal" for the Church of England to perform same sex marriages when it will not be so for other denominations and faiths, taking this to mean that it places additional legislative barriers in the way of the Church of England in the unlikely event that it should wish to change its current position.

Such questions are understandable, but are based on a misunderstanding of the Church of England's established status and its relationship with Parliament on matters relating to Canon Law.

This is not a question of the Government and Parliament imposing a prohibition or "ban" on what the Church of England can do. It is instead the Government responding to the Church's wish to see the status quo for the Church of England preserved and accepting, as for other churches and faiths (though the legal framework is different for them), that it is not for the Government and Parliament to determine matters of doctrine.

As explained in the Church of England's submission to the Government's consultation in June 2012 (here: http://tinyurl.com/bsn6dxt ), the Canons of the Church of England define marriage, in accordance with Christ's teaching and the doctrine of the Church, as being between a man and a woman.  Because the Canon Law of the Church of England is also part of the public law of the land and cannot be in conflict with statute law, it is important that any legislation for same-sex marriage makes it clear that it does not apply to marriage according to the rites of the Church of England. The legislative drafting of what is needed for the Church of England is necessarily unique because of that; and because Church of England clergy normally have a legal duty to marry people by virtue of their office. The Government, in accepting that the legal effect of the Canons of the Church of England need to be preserved (in line with its assertions about protection of religious liberty), have committed to drafting legislation on same sex marriage accordingly.

The effect of what the Government has proposed is to leave decisions about the doctrine and practice of the Church of England with the Church of England. Any change to the Church of England's doctrine and practice of marriage would require legislation by the Church's General Synod.  In addition to an Amending Canon that redefined the nature of marriage such a legislative package would also involve the General Synod passing a Measure (the General Synod's equivalent of an Act of Parliament) that altered both the statute law concerning marriage according to the rites Church of England and the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer.

All Synod Measures require parliamentary consent. The usual process of parliamentary scrutiny for legislation submitted by the Church is that it goes first to the Ecclesiastical Committee and then has a single debate in each House before the Measure goes for Royal Assent.  As the General Synod's devolved legislative powers includes the ability to amend Westminster legislation it would not require separate, additional legislation on the part of Parliament to enact any change to the Church's practice on marriage. Talk of additional 'barriers to opt-in' for the Church of England following the Secretary of State's announcement is therefore misplaced.

For Parliament to give the Church of England an opt-in to conduct same sex marriages that it hasn't sought would be unnecessary, of doubtful constitutional propriety and introduce wholly avoidable confusion.

In addition, as the Bishop of Leicester said in the House of Lords on 11^th December in response to the Government statement "our concern here is not primarily for religious conscience or the protection of the Church of England's position, but rather a more fundamental concern for stable communities". The arguments set out in the Church of England's submission in June to the Government's consultation (here:http://tinyurl.com/bsn6dxt) spell out those concerns in detail.

The word 'Church'

One of the biggest issues I have been confronted with for some time surrounds the word 'Church'.

Of course the reason for this is the British government's decisions over certain other (yawn) issues and I, for one, am perhaps not just bored to death with it all and the distractions that it brings but also in some small part just a little grateful.

Surprised? (of course you are - so let me explain)

The two 'churches'  that have been most quoted as being in favour of, and wishing to, provide 'religious' services for you know what are the Quakers and the Unitarians.

So we have to perhaps first and foremost ask ourselves what these two groups are and how we should regard them - and the answer to this is:

NOT CHRISTIAN!

So what we actually have is two non-Christian groups (and the use of the word 'church' is valid here in the context of relating it means and bunch of people who hold to the same views, beliefs (for atheists, political types and others all have tenets of belief and understanding). What they are not is (think I've said this) Christian and so it is perhaps not a surprise that they wish to do as they do.

Just to refresh memories (as I have said this before too - take a looks at VtV's past):

QUAKERS

Origins: England

Began in: Mid-Seventeenth Century Founder: George Fox (UK), William Penn (USA)

Membership: c. 200,000 worldwide

Bible: It's a good read and can yield some interesting and quite motivational stuff, but it's no more special than any other book out there. It most certainly isn't the inspired Word of God and although it might be found within a Quaker setting, it would only be one of many other books that might inspire or motivate and be merely equal to the rest.

Beliefs: To use their own words, "Quakers do not share a fixed set of beliefs."
They are essentially another brand of (universalist) Unitarians who meet together and have a 'shared understanding' but no common or unifying creed, concept of God and like the Unitarians find Pagans (of which there seems to be a lot of) rubbing shoulders with atheists and other philosophical and religious thinking.

Everyone has something (the light) of God within them and that all are equal regardless of belief, behaviour or practices.

This is one of the reasons they are pacifistic (another Unitarian characteristic), because all are right there is no need to defend or push one's views, just a need to protect those of others.

So, God is Love and the light of God shines through us all such that we need no person, creeds or books to guide us for we experience our own redemption from within and live it externally (think I've understood this correctly).

Like other groups, the key is on the outworking and so Quakers seek to make the world a better place (not a bad goal) and engage in human rights (because all choices are valid and all people are equally valid too), social justice, environmental issues, the peace movement and above all, the freedom to act and believe as one feels is right.

Conscience is all!

They don't have the Bible, they don't have the Trinity and they don't do anything that would otherwise be considered 'sacramental'.

As a bit of a parting shot, I understand that the name 'Friends' derives from John 15:14: where Jesus says: "You are my friends if you do what I command you." 

A bit of an enigma appearing here as they are doing what someone commands and yet not believing in Him, the One who sent Him, or the third member of the Trinity!

Are they Christian?
Obviously the answer is 'No'.!

I would be amazed at the number of people who assume that the Quakers (AKA Religious Society of Friends) are Christians if it were not for the fact that I also (a long time ago) used to assume the same thing!

Listening to a couple of Quakers on the Radio a while back, it appears that they were canvassing the general public regarding what opinions might be popular for the Quakers to have and were commenting on how popular being a Quaker had been last time they updated their attitudes. All very egalitarian and as damning as it might be applause-worthy (I fear)!

UNITARIANS

Origins:Transylvania and Poland Began in:16th Century

Founder: Francis David

Membership: c. 750,000

 Bible: Although regarded as valuable the Bible is fallible and therefore not regarded as authoritative. Or as one book I read on the issue stated, "It needs to be read with a degree of reason, logic and a pinch of salt. At the end of the day the truth within it is dependent upon that which the reader wishes it to have!"

The Bible is just one of many sources, sacred or secular, which can be used in the services for no one book has the monopoly on religious truth.

 Beliefs: There is a strong belief that there is only one God but it is obvious that this means little in reality. In fact, it appears that views regarding God are such that he is a cosmic force, a convenient name given for natural (and supernatural) forces, a hindrance to any unified existence and an unnecessary encumbrance.

Don't think we even need to consider their views from a Credal or Christian trinitarian setting as there simply isn't one. Jesus ranges from a freedom fighter, a pacifistic visionary and a poet and there's many other takes on Him besides.

The bottom line is that He is neither man made God or God made man, he's merely a bloke.

The Holy Spirit, like Jesus, continues the pattern in their non-trinitarian beliefs (understandable as they don't have a first member (God) either) but fares a little better than the other two (Father and Son) as the new age 'cosmic force' or as an eastern 'spiritual force'. But, at best, He's still an 'it'. Seeing unity in all things, no matter how apparently diverse, this is a group who try to bring all things together in a way that allows for a very wide range of beliefs and doubts. All are free to believe whatever they wish in unity with others and the more diversity there is the more there is an opportunity to also find some unity.

To this end it is possible to find a degree of pluralism that many faiths are embraced and lifestyles validated. So much so that within one group it is possible to find Jews, Christians, Pagans, Atheists, Buddhist and Hindus happily co-existing.

There are no creeds or set beliefs for all, or none, are valid.

There are no ministers, for all lead themselves as they make their own journey and plot their own beliefs because, obviously, there are no exclusive or primary truths. That said, there are core values of love, respect and unity. After all, unity with all things in all things is what they're about.

Seems also that the key evidence of being a unitarian is 'making a difference'.

Their motto should be 'actions not words' as I see it and it is because of this that we see them often in caring professions and roles within society.

Basically, for a bunch who are happy to admit just about everything, they omit or deny quite a bit!

They deny just about everything that is Christian: the Trinity, Jesus' Deity, sin (just ain't there and there's no need for redemption if that's gone - so no need of Jesus).

The Bible's dodgy, flawed, fallible and equal to everything (including Viz!) and yet they still call themselves 'Christian' (which I think in this setting means 'Humane' or 'kind').

Are they Christian? I have to fall back on something Donald Guthrie once said in a lecture:

"Those who believe everything in fact find themselves believing nothing!" and it is here that the answer 'No' becomes rather obvious.

So what's the problem? The government are happy to let gatherings or groups of people to exist in the religions of their own making and let these 'churches' conduct same-sex marriages. Not only that but they wish to make it illegal for Christian churches (ie. Church of England and the Church in Wales) to conduct same.

Personally, I'm more than happy to see that upheld by law - after all it does provide a measure of security as people strive to keep the law (God's and man's).

Simples methinks :-)

Same-Sex Marriage - Rowan and Church 'embarrassed'!

Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has been extremely critical of Prime Minister, David Cameron over the 'embarrassment' to the Church over the issue of same-sex marriage. Rowan points to the fact that the Church has been given firm assurances that no pressure would be brought to bear on it regarding conducting such services. The problem comes about with the fact that all have the right to be married in Church; of course 'marriage' here is taken as a word which relates to the joining of two people (one of each sex).

Of course, changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples means that one could extrapolate this to say that all couples (homosexual and heterosexual) have the right and there is (as Rowan puts it) the potential for a bit of a tangle!

He (Rowan) also says that the Church should have pressed harder for civic equality and it was wrong in not doing so and I not only agree with that but also feel in the civil partnership the means of creating a legally recognised partnership has been given and so see the redefinition of marriage as divisive and unnecessary (not a popular view with some I'm sure). Take this and the fact that the Church of England has (quite surprisingly) nailed its colours to the mast over this issue) and it's obvious that there is a collision on the way - especially when those ConDem(ed) Coalition pair of quasi-believers (Cameron and Clegg) play their 'bigot' cards on this issue.
(note. They aren't the bigots, this term is reserved for those who don't see things their way ;-) )

Seems to me that Rowan has pitched his complaints about right and the efforts of a confused, people-pleasing bunch who fail to see the differences between civil and faith related issues (and condem those of faith who make a principalled stand) are seeking to divide the nation and deconstruct the constitution too! Something which, as our nation becomes increasingly secular will see it losing the elements that have made it socially caring and compassionate.

Well done Rowan, it's good to see some leadership for you as your swan song, your words on public theology and political integrity of late have been an encouragement and a joy. Just a shame you didn't sing earlier and louder!