Evangelicals prepare to split with liberals in Church of England

Splits between Anglican liberals and conservative evangelical traditionalists now seem to be coming to a head in the Church of England, especially in the diocese of Southwark, which covers South London. Church of England liberals support women priests and bishops, the acceptance of lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender people, and modernisation of teachings on sexual morality. Evangelicals are opposed to all these and follow a traditional, biblical, orthodox line.

a woman's place is in the house of Bishops

One long-simmering crisis will come to the boil this summer, when the Church of England Synod has to decide whether to accept the proposed law to allow women to be consecrated as bishops; the evangelicals last year were defeated in their attempt to have roving (male) bishops serve the parishes that reject being ministered to by a woman bishop. If Synod approves having women bishops, some evangelicals could walk away; if the proposals are watered down to suit the evangelicals, the majority of laity, clergy and bishops could reject the proposed law completely, rather than compromise the equal authority of women bishops. Women and the Church are urging the bishops to make no changes.

Southwark evangelicals set up Good Stewards Trust to keep money away from liberals

Good Stewards Trust -a collection bag on a crossSome of Southwark diocese’s conservative evangelicals plan to syphon off much of the money from their wealthy, largely suburban and middle class parishes, into a charitable trust that’s been set up. The Trust would then only hand this money to parishes that reject homosexuality and liberalism and have signed the orthodox worldwide Anglican Jerusalem Declaration.They want to keep their cash so it cannot go to the diocese and be used to support any liberal parishes or activities.

The Good Stewards Trust is led by Rev Paul Perkins of St Mark’s, Battersea, which hosted an international meeting of Anglican conservative bishops this April. His accomplice is Rev James Paice, of St Luke’s, Wimbledon Park.

Evangelicals blocked gay-friendly candidates for Southwark bishop

(more…)

Traditional marriage and families debunked

Conservatives’ concerns about marriage seem to be based on a past that is fabricated from their own anxieties and obsessions. George Monbiot in today’s Guardian debunks traditional marriage and the heterosexual nuclear family as recent myths. Christine Odone in today’s Daily Telegraph, for example, is upset about the sidelining of heterosexual marriage because a conference she was due to speak at has been cancelled.

 

Myth, Ritual and the Quest for Family Values

‘Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman.” So says the Coalition for Marriage, whose petition against same-sex unions in the UK has so far attracted 500,000 signatures. It’s a familiar claim, and it is wrong. Dozens of societies, across many centuries, have recognised same-sex marriage. In a few cases, before the 14th century, it was even celebrated in church.

This is an example of a widespread phenomenon: myth-making by cultural conservatives about past relationships. Scarcely challenged, family values campaigners have been able to construct a history that is almost entirely false.

The unbiblical and ahistorical nature of the modern Christian cult of the nuclear family is a marvel rare to behold. Those who promote it are followers of a man born out of wedlock and allegedly sired by someone other than his mother’s partner. Jesus insisted that “if any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters … he cannot be my disciple” [Luke 14 v26, 27]. He issued no such injunction against homosexuality: the threat he perceived was heterosexual and familial love, which competed with the love of God.

This theme was aggressively pursued by the church for some 1,500 years. In his classic book A World of Their Own Making, Professor John Gillis [cover illustration above] points out that until the Reformation, the state of holiness was not matrimony but lifelong chastity. There were no married saints in the early medieval church. Godly families in this world were established not by men and women, united in bestial matrimony, but by the holy orders, whose members were the brothers or brides of Christ. Like most monotheistic religions (which developed among nomadic peoples), Christianity placed little value on the home. A Christian’s true home belonged to another realm, and until he reached it, through death, he was considered an exile from the family of God.

Read George Monbiot’s full article at The Guardian

 

You may also be interested in these postings at Queering the Church

Hywel Williams’ Superb History of “Christian” Marriage

“The Problem With Marriage”: Gay Minister, Marvin Ellison.

The Christian Case Against Marriage: “Family Idolatry”

Dr Jeffrey John’s Theological Case for Marriage Equality

Enhanced by Zemanta

Marriage and Procreation: A Reality Check

Now that Barack Obama has ensured gay marriage is back in the news cycle around the world, I am once again hearing from the religious right the repeated insistence that we must continue to resist marriage equality, because every child needs a mother and a father. (Yesterday I heard one Evangelical spokesman declare this to be a “right” of every child).

????????????????????

What’s the connection? Even with Obama’s support, in most parts of the world, gay marriage is still not an option, but there are still countless children who do NOT have a mother and father, often because they have been let down by the biological parents who created them.  A related claim is that we need  ”traditional” marriage for procreation, a claim that is so deceptively familiar and plausible that it is seldom challenged – but is in fact no more than a flight of fancy, born of the 1950′s obsession with the nuclear family, the house in the suburbs, white picket fence, two and a half kids and a dog.

Let’s consider the reality, instead.

Marriage is not required for conception

Even in 1994 the British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles clearly demonstrated the vast gulf between myth and reality. Summarizing the findings, the theologian Jon Davies notes that 60% of all conceptions occur outside of marriage.

“The age of first intercourse is getting lower; more women are having “underage sex” (18.7%)…..Marriage has lost both its sexual and its procreational monopoly…..The majority of people cohabit before marriage, and marry late. The average age at which a woman has her first child is 29, and 33% of all births, and 60% of all conceptions, take place outside marriage”

- Davies, Sex These Days

(In a comment to the original version of this post, Chris Morley supplied the updated statistic:

The latest statistics for children born outside marriage in the UK have risen from the 33% in 1994 quoted by Jon Davies above, to 46% of the children born in 2009.

I have been unable to connect to his link, but found an even later figure at the Office of National Statistics:

In 2010 nearly half of all babies were born outside marriage/civil partnership (46.8 per cent) compared with 46.2 per cent in 2009 and 39.5 per cent in 2000. This continues the long-term rise in the percentage of births outside marriage/civil partnership which is consistent with increases in the number of couples cohabiting rather than entering into marriage or civil partnership.

I find it intriguing, and relevant for this discussion, that the ONS groups together births within marriage, and those within civil partnerships).

)

The sharp contrast between 60% of conceptions, and 33% of births, outside of marriage, reveals something really important: almost half of all conceptions either do not result in births at all, or end in birth to married parents. This implies that a substantial proportion of parents who happily cohabit for years before conception, decide to marry once they know that they have offspring on the way. Marriage is decidedly not required for conception – but (at least in 1994), two thirds of couples clearly believed it was necessary for the rearing of children – a different matter entirely.

It is also important to note that the quoted figure of 60% is for all conceptions. For those parents who marry between conception and birth (and stay married), any subsequent conceptions and births will be inside marriage. So second and later children in a family will have a substantially lower rate of conception outside of marriage – and first births a correspondingly higher rate.

Marriage does not guarantee a mother and a father.

Even if we accept that the rearing of children is best done by their biological parents, in marriage, the simple fact of marriage does not in any way guarantee that this will guarantee this. Some marriages simply break down in divorce, separation or death, so that many children are raised by single parents, or by a complex network of biological parents and step-parents, and sometimes in a succession of different family structures. For still other children, the simple incapacity of their biological parents to provide suitable loving care leaves them in need of fostering or adoption.

Inevitably, some of the alternative parenting couples who end up raising children after the breakdown of the biological parents’ marriage, or after the children have been placed in care, will be same-sex couples. If it is true that married parents benefit the children and provide a stronger environment for their rearing – that also applies to the children who are being raised by same – sex parents.

Gay marriage: good for the children.

Davies, Jon & Loughlin, Gerard: Sex These Days: Essays on Theology, Sexuality and Society 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Christian Case Against Marriage: “Family Idolatry”

Possibly the most egregious argument used by the religious right to oppose homoerotic relationships and LGBT equality or inclusion in Church, is that they are in contravention of Christian family values, “as found in the Bible”. This claim is entirely without any valid foundation.

For example, consider this extract from the Church of Ireland’s Canon 31.1, currently the subject of  a resolution before the General Synod of the Church seeking to re-affirm it, and resist pressure for change:

‘The Church of Ireland affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching that marriage is in its purpose a union permanent and life-long, for better or worse, till death do them part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity’.

- Church of Ireland, Constitution

WOW! “According to our Lord’s teaching”? What a whopper.

The resolution that quotes from the canon above is offensive in it’s procedure, as well as its content. Instead of being submitted in good time, allowing adequate time for synod members to prepare and debate rationally, it was snuck in by the back door, as a late resolution.  (See  Gyronny Herald for more). But I’m not going to get into the details of the C of Ireland discussion – I leave that to those with better knowledge of it than I. Instead, I want to look at the substance of the claim – and with help from Dale B Martin’sSex and the Single Savior, test it against what really was “Our Lord’s teaching“.

(more…)

University of Notre Dame Renames Marriage

The paranoia of Catholic bishops and their claque over the supposed “redefinition” of marriage has some bizarre consequences. At Notre Dame, for example, an editor’s anxiety to reserve the word “marriage” to sacramental marriage, between a man and a women, has led him to change the wording of an alumnus’ announcement that he had been married, to “united in a ceremony”.  In doing so, they have unilaterally renamed civil marriage – effectively, redefining marriage, is it exists in the regulations for Washington DC. It is, furthermore, plainly discriminatory: there is no indication that the same editor has ever renamed opposite- sex civil marriages as “commitment ceremonies”.
Chuch Colbert has the story at Windy City Times, following a piece on the continuing struggle at ND for LGBT inclusion and approval of a gay straight alliance. Here are some extracts:

LGBT name game at Notre Dame Magazine

by Chuck Colbert
Even as advocates at Notre Dame pressed school officials to make the university gay friendly, a policy change at the Notre Dame Magazine signals a step backwards.
The magazine, which is distributed free of charge to tens of thousands of alumni worldwide, does not allow use of the word “marriage” in the classnotes section to acknowledge legal same-sex wedlock.
The new block-out policy came to light in the most recent issue of the magazine (Spring 2012) in a letter to the editor.
“When I was married in the District of Columbia on June 18, 2011, my friend and classmate Lorie Masters was kind enough to write about this joyous occasion in the classnotes section of the winter issue. You, however, saw fit to change the word ‘marriage’ to ‘united in a ceremony,’” wrote a 1981 law school alumnus, Allyn Amato of Alexandria, Va.
He continued, “Not only is your editorial policy intellectually and logically flawed, it is also downright insulting both to my husband and to me. We are married and have exactly the same legal status as any heterosexual couple married in the District of Columbia.”
“The attitude evidenced by your editorial policy is, in my view, most decidedly hypocritical and anti-Christian. Please answer me this question: Had I married a Jewish or Muslim woman outside the Catholic Church, would you have edited the column in the same manner? I think not,” wrote Amato.
Editor Kerry Temple explained how the change came about. “Until three or four maybe five years ago, the magazine’s classnotes section carried news of same-sex unions and called them marriages,” he said in e-mail correspondence.
“Then some very vocal alums protested and the result was a meeting of administrators during which it was decided not to use the word marriage, but to use other terminology, such as civil union or partnership ceremony,” said Temple.
“The rationale was that for the vast majority of our readers the word marriage means the sacrament of matrimony,” he added.
And yet the issue here is civil marriage and not sacramental marriage—civil rights, not sacred rites.
This sad incident highlights one of the numerous internal contradictions in the orthodox Catholic teaching on homoerotic relationships. The documents make clear the importance of treating us with “respect, compassion and sensitivity”, avoiding opposing unjust discrimination and avoiding any encouragement of malice or violence in speech or in action. But attempts to keep strictly to the rest of the teaching, on the “disordered condition” and its resultant condemnation of marriage equality, lead inevitably to actions which are themselves offensive or insensitive, discriminatory – and may well encourage hurtful speech and behaviour. In attempting to follow through logically with strict adherence to the bishops’ line on marriage, the editor is in clear contravention of the other, often – neglected strand in Catholic teaching.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Celebrating Our Relationships

One of the dangers in focussing too much in the controversies over same – sex marriage, whether in church or as civil marriage, is that of ignoring or marginalising other forms of relationship – such as civil partnerships. In our workshop session for the Cutting Edge Consortium conference on opposing faith-based homophobia, Martin Pendergast and I discussed the place of religious celebration of same – sex relationships – without focussing specifically on “marriage”. This was my contribution.

Relationships in Historical Perspective

I began with some observations from history. With or without formal recognition, same – sex relationships have always existed, in all periods and all geographic regions, and have often been formally accepted, institutionalized and honoured.

One striking demonstration of this, comes from examining early religious ideas, from before the time of the great monotheistic religions. In our bible, and in Christian theology, we are told that we are made in the image and likeness of God. In the earliest religious imaginations, before people could conceive of a single, all – encompassing deity, it may be more accurate to say that humans made gods (and goddesses) in their own image, possessing specific powers but otherwise conceived in very anthropomorphic terms, with human emotions, appetites and weaknesses.   It is striking that in nearly all the early mythologies that constructed a pantheon comprising a range of divinities, there are several examples of gods or goddesses who had relationships (or mere dalliances) with human or divine same – sex partners. Some even have specific recognition of gods who are patrons of homosexual love.

Xochipilli, Aztec patron of homosexuals

(more…)

Irish Catholics Overwhelmingly Support Reform on Sexuality, Ministry

An Irish opinion poll has shown that most Catholics want priests to be allowed to marry, support women’s ordination, want bishops to serve fixed terms, and disagree with Church teaching on homosexuality.

Almost nine in 10 Catholics in Ireland want priests to be allowed to marry

An overwhelming majority of Catholics in Ireland want priests to be allowed to marry, according to a survey conducted on behalf of the Irish priesthood’s unofficial representative association.

The Association of Catholic Priests’ opinion poll, released on Thursday, found that 87% of Irish Catholics said priests should be allowed to marry.

The survey of 1,000 Catholics questioned over a fortnight in February by Amarach Consulting also discovered that 77% of believers said women should be ordained.

And 60% of Irish Catholics disagreed with the hierarchy’s hardline on homosexuality. Only 9% of those polled “agreed strongly” with Catholic traditional teaching that homosexuality was immoral.

The report for the rank and file of Ireland’s priesthood also revealed the à la carte attitude of most Catholics towards their faith in the republic. Only a third of Catholics said they attended mass once a week, although only 5% said they never went to mass.

Possibly as a result of the fallout from the Irish hierarchy’s mishandling of the paedophile priest scandals, 55% of Catholics want their bishops to serve fixed terms. Under the current system, they remain in the role until they are 75.

- Guardian.co.uk.

Nearly one in four priests believe their faith has been altered by the handling of abuse cases in the Church. About 61% do not feel the hierarchy understands the challenges they face. 

“They [the bishops] don’t seem to know the questions, never mind suggesting answers,” one priest remarked.

And, he said, while the handling of abuse cases in the Church had altered some priests’ faith, it was their faith in the Church, not the Gospels.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Maine Voters “Strongly In Favour” of Gay Marriage

Polling Evidence indicates that Maine voters will approve the return of marriage equality in November.

The most recent poll, by the Maine People’s Resource Center, shows a clear majority of voters supporting legal recognition of gay marriage in Maine, by a margin of 58% to 39%. This shows an increase in support, compared with two earlier recent polls from March and December, which showed winning margins of 54/41 and 54/42, respectively. It is also a marked increase on the support in polling before the vote to overturn marriage equality, in 2oo9.

At least as significant as the extent of support, is the depth and strength of support.  In marked contrast with earlier years when it was the opponents who were more fired up, and felt strongly on the issue, a substantial plurality of voters (44%), say that they are strongly in favour of re-instating the law. Just 28% are strongly opposed.

Do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose
allowing same-sex couples to be legally married in Maine?

Total favor: 58.2 Total oppose: 39.2

A Public Polling Policy survey released last month also found a majority (54%) of Maine voters in favor, while 41 percent said gay marriage should remain illegal.

Support for the institution among Democrats has increased 7 percentage points since 2009, from 71 percent to 78 percent, the PPP survey found. Support has also grown among independents, from 52 percent to 57 percent. Republican support, however, remains where it was three years ago.

The polls come on the heels of the announcement that the Diocese of Maine will not campaign against the referendum. Instead, the Roman Catholic church will teach Catholics about how it defines marriage.

- On Top magazine

 

With polling evidence so heavily against them, it’s not surprising that the Catholic diocese is not rushing in to raise and spend church money on this, the second time around. Nobody likes to back a losing horse.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Gay Marriage – Religious Ceremonies Euro Court Nonsense

Some Catholic blogs by orthodox heterosexuals are spouting a lot of nonsense, following a recent European Court of Human Rights decision.

That case was about a French lesbian couple who both wanted to be officially recognised as the parents of the daughter of one of the women. The woman who was not the child’s mother, applied to become an adoptive parent. They lost the case when it got to the European Court, because lesbian and gay people in civil partnerships (like this French lesbian couple) don’t yet have all the Human Rights that heterosexual married couples have. It was a complicated case but the details don’t matter at all to understand the rubbish coming from many Catholic and other Christian blogs.

[But if you are interested in why this lesbian adoption case failed, here's a brief summary from an expert gay and lesbian human rights lawyer; and a more detailed expert view at the UK Human Rights blog.]
defending the sanctity of marriage

Nonsense from Catholic ‘law expert’ in Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail

What matters for us is what the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail said. This has started a feeding frenzy among orthodox Christian bloggers, the sort of blogger who revels in feeling persecuted by the human rights lobby. These bloggers imagine they are fiercely defending the sanctity of marriage and the religious rights of Churches and ministers repulsed by homosexuality.The Telegraph later corrected some of its mistakes.

“Compulsory religious gay weddings in Churches

From reading the Mail and Telegraph’s ‘expert’, many Christians are now absolutely convinced that the European Court’s decision about one French lesbian’s adoption rights actually means that Judges will force churches and religious ministers to provide religious weddings to a queue of human-rights-quoting lesbian and gay male couples.

(more…)

Have your say at a gay marriage consultation

Public meetings are being held by a LGBT community organisation over the next week or two to find out what lesbians, gay men and bisexual and transsexual people think about the government’s plans for lesbian and gay civil marriages.

There were also meetings in Birmingham and Exeter but those have happened already; sorry not to have found these details sooner.

Have your say on same sex marriage

Information about the government’s proposals    Now you have your say on plans for Gay Civil Marriage Equality

 

London        Monday 2 April         4pm – 6pm       free, refreshments

Studio, W Hotel, 10 Wardour Street, Leicester Square, London, W1D 6QF 

Information and online booking

Brighton       Wednesday 4 April      4pm – 6pm       free, refreshments

Community Base, Conference Room, 5th Floor, 113 Queens Road, Brighton BN1 3X6

Information and online booking

Durham         Tuesday 10 April       2pm – 4pm         free, refreshments

Committee Room 1a, Durham County Council, County Durham

Information and online booking

(more…)

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Switch to our mobile site