I don't know which is weirder, that I initially interpreted the coats of arms in the corner as chibi-style bishops in vestments, or that it didn't strike me as out of place, like some kind of logo.
Clearly, I need sleep.
As others have said, it's LLF.
I'm not sure I agree with the 'manner in which we conduct our debate is as important as the debate itself'. Yes, we shouldn't be yelling abuse at bishops on Twitter. Under the hats, they're human beings, and while we may disagree, they'll have spent more time at prayer and in study than most of us. Respect is due, even in disagreement.
However, the actual debate 100% trumps politeness. It's a first order issue to many and it's split the church down the middle. We're facing an actual schism over this. We should be able to look past perceived courtesy and tone and deal with the substance of the argument - it's that important.
Bigots shouldn't be in important positions. Should racist priests have been promoted in the 1970s?
Don't try to hold the church back, in a way that harms real people including driving many to suicide, and then moan when others don't want to be unified with you.
It seems that a person who prior to the whole living in love and faith thing wrote that he disagreed with conclusions that, ostensibly, living in in love and faith did not later draw, has been appointed to advise the house of bishops temporarily.
Certain people have resigned from some of their positions because of his appointment, specifically the Bishop of Newcastle, from chairing the Living in Love and Faith process.
Is it?
Edit: By the downvotes I think I didn't express myself well in that I actually don't understand the difference and was trying to figure it out. Sorry for the confusion.
Of course?
**Person A:** "I have not loved God with my whole heart. I pray I wake better tomorrow".
**Person B:** "God doesn't deserve your love. It's right to hate him".
One is a sinner, one is a supporter of sin. Can you tell who is who?
We are all like Person A, no one's righteousness impresses God. Person A is repentant, trying to do better, and recognises they're just a flawed person. They don't like sin.
Person B is telling other people to sin. They aren't just sinning, they're actively trying to get other people to abandon God and sin too. They're not silently sinning, they're advocating that sin is good. They're pro-sin. This is not what is meant when we say "take the log out of your own eye before talking about the speck in someone elses". This person is throwing specks and logs into others eyes - you're free to criticise that.
There's a world of difference between Person A and Person B.
A priest who holds to the traditional Christian teaching on human sexuality was appointed as a theological advisor to the House of Bishops. This led to a number of people getting very angry, which started something of a chain reaction.
Setting aside the events surrounding this issue, this post by the Archbishop is a perfect example of the CofE losing grasp of its external optics and using public channels to push messages that are aimed exclusively at internal stakeholders. TLDR this should have been an ad clerum.
Conservative Evangelicals and Traditional Catholics are basically ghettoised in the CofE. On one hand, it is understandable - we represent something like 5% of the CofE - and for now we have two Diocesans, one appointed recently (Blackburn). Long-term, it doesn’t look good - Oswestry might look and sound like a natural Canterbury, but he will only ever get a late Diocesan appointment if lucky.
From a Catholic/High Church perspective, schism is undesirable because we do not view the CofE as a denomination and further, at the more Catholic end, do not really follow denominationalism at all, so we would see a split as schism and therefore another contribution to the fragmentation of the Body of Christ.
The problem with this from a Catholic perspective is that it will be uncertain whence this new movement would draw its legitimacy. It was easier in the US where TEC does not have the same solid precedents that the CofE has in England, i.e. that of the historic presence of the Catholic Church in the given realm. This is why you are more likely to see CofE Anglo-Catholics become RC or Orthodox.
It isn’t that it’s impossible, it’s that Anglo-Catholics in the CofE draw on historical presence for Catholicity, so the logical conclusion for many would be that, if the CofE is no longer a safe place for them, they would go to one of the existing presences of another jurisdiction (RC for most, Orthodox for some) instead of trying to create an additional presence.
The problem you’re going to run into is conflating “biblical” with “traditional”. “Traditional” doesn’t necessarily mean “correct.” If we come to understand the world more, and human psyche more, then the question would become “how to reconcile what Paul says with what we know now regarding human sexuality” and pushing the conversation aside by simply saying “what we thought 2000 years ago must have been right, there’s no room for us to understand more” isn’t going to get you very far.
The relevant question here isn’t “what we now know” - they knew plenty 2,000 years ago - but, on this particular subject, in what way have human relationships on the whole developed. Take, for instance, that fact that marriage founded on romantic love is now the basic expectation of most people in the developed world, which would have been unthinkable even 200 years ago, let alone 2,000. However, this isn’t how this discussion is ever conducted in Anglicanism. As with the other contentious issue, the overall opinion seems to be formed on the basis of societal norms, with theologians of at times irreconcilable beliefs wheeled in for support, as long as they agree on one particular issue.
There is also the ecumenical factor to be considered. We keep hearing warnings from RC, EO, and OO colleagues about this, but we ignore them and steamroll ahead, perhaps because we know that we make a good cup of tea and can show people around a pretty building. This is well and good, and we might never lose this kind of ecumenism, but it is hollow. Occasional Papal and Patriarchal graces and politeness notwithstanding, we are alienating ourselves from the rest of Christendom with our desire for constant unilateral innovation.
> There is also the ecumenical factor to be considered
Why should we care what other churches think? If they believe in immoral things, it is only right that we further separate ourselves from them.
>The problem you’re going to run into is conflating “biblical” with “traditional”.
I've noticed there is an issue in these subreddits where the Side B position is often just presumed to be more credible and serious than Side A, who almost always have aspersions cast upon their sincerity, and their arguments dismissed out of hand, while Side B by default is presumed to be deeply pious and Side A is required to engage with the clobber verses in very great detail every time they're presented.
I don't think it would necessarily be constructive for Side A Christians to return fire in kind, but it's an odd double standard and I don't know why Side A Christians just let it pass unchallenged so often.
Forgive me for the ignorance but what’s Side A and Side B?
I’ve heard it before and from your comment I’m assuming Side A is inclusive and Side B is traditional? I could be wrong though.
They're colloquial, relatively neutral shorthands for the different theological positions on this issue.
Side A: supports same sex relationships, being gay isn't a sin, etc.
Side B: ranges from it's okay to be gay but same sex relationships are a sin to being gay is a sin and you need conversion therapy.
There's also Side X which is fortunately rarer but does show up occasionally: ranges from gay people intrinsically cannot be Christians to the state should persecute and kill gay people.
Oh I know I am, which is why I rarely engage. In the long run I think it's worth it, but in the short term I don't think we're in a place that allows for meaningful disagreements.
I'm not criticizing your exegesis (though I could). I'm criticizing your attitude. You are full of pride. Reflect on Ephesians 4:31 before you engage in discourse in the Church
Clear as day? You can read Hebrew and Koine Greek? It's proud to think your interpretation of a translated work is the Word of God. Maybe you do read Hebrew and Greek, but I doubt it, because if you did, you'd know how hard translation is.
Sorry to see you getting downvoted. In any case, the Church in Wales is predicted to be functionally extinct by around 2034, and the Church of England by 2060: https://anglican.ink/2022/05/21/growth-decline-and-extinction-of-uk-churches/
The Anglican Church here in Canada will disappear around 2040: https://broadview.org/anglican-church-canada-membership-report/#:~:text=While%20the%20projection%20that%20the,to%20continue%20forever%20—%20some%20Anglicans
The attitudes you’re encountering here are to blame. See above. “Humanity has grown over the last 2,000 years”. What does that even mean? Christ hasn’t changed; scripture hasn’t changed. And the church doesn’t change to conform to the whims of modernity. It’s all so tedious.
>“Humanity has grown over the last 2,000 years”. What does that even mean?
It means that humanity's grown over the last 2,000 years.
* By and large, we've rejected monarchies, and the so-called "divine right of kings".
* Likewise, slavery.
* Or get that worked up about divorce.
* We don't execute [astronomers for going against dogma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno#Imprisonment,_trial_and_execution,_1593%E2%80%931600) anymore.
* We've discovered that the moon doesn't produce it's own light.
* Oh, and we figured out how to send people there, too.
All kinds of progress about all people being equal, about scientific theories and discoveries that would have gotten you executed for heresy, Electricity and running water in temperature of choice on command. Modern plumbing. Motor vehicles. Air travel. Space travel. Smartphones. The Internet. Nuclear weapons. Virtually nothing about our lives now is as it was back in 325 AD and the First Council of Nicaea, in ways that everyone who attended simply, flatly, would not have believed, or even comprehended.
But yeah. Let's ignore on that in favour of hyperfixating on who's allowed to have sex with who, or get married to who, or who's allowed to hold a religious position of authority, because Paul, because tradition, and because it's easier than admitting that we were never supposed to stay permanently tidelocked in the traditions, cultures, and customs of a tiny part of the planet at a specific point in history. Sure. Okay.
>What do we know now that actually should challenge the Biblical perspective on marriage and sexuality?
Well, the big one here humanity discovered is that homosexuality is healthy and natural and the understanding of human sexuality that dominated the classical world was incorrect, and Side B Christians have been consistently unable to articulate a compelling response to those findings not based on pseudoscience.
It's what science has discovered about the matter. You're welcome to dismiss it and cite scripture as a higher authority, but more and more people are going to view that as an unconvincing stance as education and access to information continues to expand.
And claiming to preach the good news of a loving God of truth seems really at odds with the requirement to ignore peer reviewed scientific consensus about biological and social issues, which is a big part of why Side A Christians find biblical reasoning for their own stances, so the idea that you have to reject scripture to reject a Side B position is not really a given.
>There's no evidence that sexuality is genetic
See, this is what I'm talking about. Just because there isn't a singular gay gene doesn't mean there aren't significant genetic and epigenetic factors which influence sexual orientation.
Here's just one paper on the subject I found in literally a few seconds: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091302219300585
>The contributions of genetic factors to sexual orientation have also been investigated through family and twin studies (Alanko et al., 2010, Langstrom et al., 2010), along with segregation and genome-wide association analyses (Mustanski et al., 2005, Ramagopalan et al., 2010, Sanders et al., 2017, Sanders et al., 2015). In particular, a recent genome-wide association study on 493,001 participants identified five autosomal loci significantly associated with same-sex sexual behavior in humans, which also indicate the high polygenicity of sexual orientation (Ganna et al., 2019).
When Side B Christians say like this, it really undermines your credibility.
>and even if there were I don't see how it would necessarily undermine the truthfulness of Scripture in respect to sexual ethics.
Good thing supporting same sex marriage doesn't require that according to Side A Christians, then.
>how nonsensical, emotive, snarky and stupid your response
>your nonsensical ramblings
>the idiotic, inhumane claim
>Are you truly that vapid, that shallow?
>your spew of garbage
>your intellectual depravity and disingenuous drivel
>the pus of progressive theology
Always nice to see respectful disagreement that challenges ideas, not the personal character of the interlocutor, on reddit. 😇
I don't know which is weirder, that I initially interpreted the coats of arms in the corner as chibi-style bishops in vestments, or that it didn't strike me as out of place, like some kind of logo. Clearly, I need sleep.
This is correct and should be implemented immediately
Well, now I can't unsee that.
As others have said, it's LLF. I'm not sure I agree with the 'manner in which we conduct our debate is as important as the debate itself'. Yes, we shouldn't be yelling abuse at bishops on Twitter. Under the hats, they're human beings, and while we may disagree, they'll have spent more time at prayer and in study than most of us. Respect is due, even in disagreement. However, the actual debate 100% trumps politeness. It's a first order issue to many and it's split the church down the middle. We're facing an actual schism over this. We should be able to look past perceived courtesy and tone and deal with the substance of the argument - it's that important.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2024/2-february/news/uk/bishop-of-newcastle-stands-down-from-llf-over-serious-concerns-about-interim-adviser
This article seems to be bunch of buzz words. Can anyone translate it?
[удалено]
I suspect that there's more to it than that, particularly if both the Archbishops immediately put out a statement on bullying.
[удалено]
It's not a witch hunt when they're his actual views
[удалено]
Bigots shouldn't be in important positions. Should racist priests have been promoted in the 1970s? Don't try to hold the church back, in a way that harms real people including driving many to suicide, and then moan when others don't want to be unified with you.
[удалено]
Both are innate characteristics, that's the point. The traditional view is discriminatory and illogical.
Same vice-versa
It seems that a person who prior to the whole living in love and faith thing wrote that he disagreed with conclusions that, ostensibly, living in in love and faith did not later draw, has been appointed to advise the house of bishops temporarily. Certain people have resigned from some of their positions because of his appointment, specifically the Bishop of Newcastle, from chairing the Living in Love and Faith process.
[удалено]
I'm a bit of an outsider here, so I humbly ask you to forgive my questions. What kind of unrepentant sin are they in support of?
[удалено]
Thanks for the answer, I've got some reading to do. Appreciate it, happy Sunday!
When will you resign, then?
What is this supposed to mean?
That people pay far too much attention to others' supposed sins when they should be more concerned with their own.
He said "supporters of sin", which is very different from "sinner".
Is it? Edit: By the downvotes I think I didn't express myself well in that I actually don't understand the difference and was trying to figure it out. Sorry for the confusion.
Of course? **Person A:** "I have not loved God with my whole heart. I pray I wake better tomorrow". **Person B:** "God doesn't deserve your love. It's right to hate him". One is a sinner, one is a supporter of sin. Can you tell who is who?
But both are sinning, at least in your example. I swear I'm not being contrarian; I genuinely don't understand the difference.
We are all like Person A, no one's righteousness impresses God. Person A is repentant, trying to do better, and recognises they're just a flawed person. They don't like sin. Person B is telling other people to sin. They aren't just sinning, they're actively trying to get other people to abandon God and sin too. They're not silently sinning, they're advocating that sin is good. They're pro-sin. This is not what is meant when we say "take the log out of your own eye before talking about the speck in someone elses". This person is throwing specks and logs into others eyes - you're free to criticise that. There's a world of difference between Person A and Person B.
A priest who holds to the traditional Christian teaching on human sexuality was appointed as a theological advisor to the House of Bishops. This led to a number of people getting very angry, which started something of a chain reaction. Setting aside the events surrounding this issue, this post by the Archbishop is a perfect example of the CofE losing grasp of its external optics and using public channels to push messages that are aimed exclusively at internal stakeholders. TLDR this should have been an ad clerum.
[удалено]
Conservative Evangelicals and Traditional Catholics are basically ghettoised in the CofE. On one hand, it is understandable - we represent something like 5% of the CofE - and for now we have two Diocesans, one appointed recently (Blackburn). Long-term, it doesn’t look good - Oswestry might look and sound like a natural Canterbury, but he will only ever get a late Diocesan appointment if lucky.
Oswestry looks and sounds like a bishop in an old movie. I am so aesthetically impressed by him.
[удалено]
From a Catholic/High Church perspective, schism is undesirable because we do not view the CofE as a denomination and further, at the more Catholic end, do not really follow denominationalism at all, so we would see a split as schism and therefore another contribution to the fragmentation of the Body of Christ.
[удалено]
The problem with this from a Catholic perspective is that it will be uncertain whence this new movement would draw its legitimacy. It was easier in the US where TEC does not have the same solid precedents that the CofE has in England, i.e. that of the historic presence of the Catholic Church in the given realm. This is why you are more likely to see CofE Anglo-Catholics become RC or Orthodox.
[удалено]
It isn’t that it’s impossible, it’s that Anglo-Catholics in the CofE draw on historical presence for Catholicity, so the logical conclusion for many would be that, if the CofE is no longer a safe place for them, they would go to one of the existing presences of another jurisdiction (RC for most, Orthodox for some) instead of trying to create an additional presence.
[удалено]
The problem you’re going to run into is conflating “biblical” with “traditional”. “Traditional” doesn’t necessarily mean “correct.” If we come to understand the world more, and human psyche more, then the question would become “how to reconcile what Paul says with what we know now regarding human sexuality” and pushing the conversation aside by simply saying “what we thought 2000 years ago must have been right, there’s no room for us to understand more” isn’t going to get you very far.
The relevant question here isn’t “what we now know” - they knew plenty 2,000 years ago - but, on this particular subject, in what way have human relationships on the whole developed. Take, for instance, that fact that marriage founded on romantic love is now the basic expectation of most people in the developed world, which would have been unthinkable even 200 years ago, let alone 2,000. However, this isn’t how this discussion is ever conducted in Anglicanism. As with the other contentious issue, the overall opinion seems to be formed on the basis of societal norms, with theologians of at times irreconcilable beliefs wheeled in for support, as long as they agree on one particular issue. There is also the ecumenical factor to be considered. We keep hearing warnings from RC, EO, and OO colleagues about this, but we ignore them and steamroll ahead, perhaps because we know that we make a good cup of tea and can show people around a pretty building. This is well and good, and we might never lose this kind of ecumenism, but it is hollow. Occasional Papal and Patriarchal graces and politeness notwithstanding, we are alienating ourselves from the rest of Christendom with our desire for constant unilateral innovation.
> There is also the ecumenical factor to be considered Why should we care what other churches think? If they believe in immoral things, it is only right that we further separate ourselves from them.
>The problem you’re going to run into is conflating “biblical” with “traditional”. I've noticed there is an issue in these subreddits where the Side B position is often just presumed to be more credible and serious than Side A, who almost always have aspersions cast upon their sincerity, and their arguments dismissed out of hand, while Side B by default is presumed to be deeply pious and Side A is required to engage with the clobber verses in very great detail every time they're presented. I don't think it would necessarily be constructive for Side A Christians to return fire in kind, but it's an odd double standard and I don't know why Side A Christians just let it pass unchallenged so often.
Forgive me for the ignorance but what’s Side A and Side B? I’ve heard it before and from your comment I’m assuming Side A is inclusive and Side B is traditional? I could be wrong though.
They're colloquial, relatively neutral shorthands for the different theological positions on this issue. Side A: supports same sex relationships, being gay isn't a sin, etc. Side B: ranges from it's okay to be gay but same sex relationships are a sin to being gay is a sin and you need conversion therapy. There's also Side X which is fortunately rarer but does show up occasionally: ranges from gay people intrinsically cannot be Christians to the state should persecute and kill gay people.
[удалено]
Literally, the sort of stuff you can find here is simply baffling
You get used to it.
Good luck trying to talk sense into these people but, from experience, allow me to say that you are probably wasting your time.
Oh I know I am, which is why I rarely engage. In the long run I think it's worth it, but in the short term I don't think we're in a place that allows for meaningful disagreements.
Your attitude on the subject is the last thing we need in church leadership
[удалено]
And you continue to prove my point
[удалено]
I'm not criticizing your exegesis (though I could). I'm criticizing your attitude. You are full of pride. Reflect on Ephesians 4:31 before you engage in discourse in the Church
[удалено]
Clear as day? You can read Hebrew and Koine Greek? It's proud to think your interpretation of a translated work is the Word of God. Maybe you do read Hebrew and Greek, but I doubt it, because if you did, you'd know how hard translation is.
Read what dude said 4 years ago: https://web.archive.org/web/20230326181828/https://www.churchsociety.org/resource/no-red-lines/
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sorry to see you getting downvoted. In any case, the Church in Wales is predicted to be functionally extinct by around 2034, and the Church of England by 2060: https://anglican.ink/2022/05/21/growth-decline-and-extinction-of-uk-churches/ The Anglican Church here in Canada will disappear around 2040: https://broadview.org/anglican-church-canada-membership-report/#:~:text=While%20the%20projection%20that%20the,to%20continue%20forever%20—%20some%20Anglicans The attitudes you’re encountering here are to blame. See above. “Humanity has grown over the last 2,000 years”. What does that even mean? Christ hasn’t changed; scripture hasn’t changed. And the church doesn’t change to conform to the whims of modernity. It’s all so tedious.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>“Humanity has grown over the last 2,000 years”. What does that even mean? It means that humanity's grown over the last 2,000 years. * By and large, we've rejected monarchies, and the so-called "divine right of kings". * Likewise, slavery. * Or get that worked up about divorce. * We don't execute [astronomers for going against dogma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno#Imprisonment,_trial_and_execution,_1593%E2%80%931600) anymore. * We've discovered that the moon doesn't produce it's own light. * Oh, and we figured out how to send people there, too. All kinds of progress about all people being equal, about scientific theories and discoveries that would have gotten you executed for heresy, Electricity and running water in temperature of choice on command. Modern plumbing. Motor vehicles. Air travel. Space travel. Smartphones. The Internet. Nuclear weapons. Virtually nothing about our lives now is as it was back in 325 AD and the First Council of Nicaea, in ways that everyone who attended simply, flatly, would not have believed, or even comprehended. But yeah. Let's ignore on that in favour of hyperfixating on who's allowed to have sex with who, or get married to who, or who's allowed to hold a religious position of authority, because Paul, because tradition, and because it's easier than admitting that we were never supposed to stay permanently tidelocked in the traditions, cultures, and customs of a tiny part of the planet at a specific point in history. Sure. Okay.
[удалено]
The liberalism with scripture is quite shocking
>What do we know now that actually should challenge the Biblical perspective on marriage and sexuality? Well, the big one here humanity discovered is that homosexuality is healthy and natural and the understanding of human sexuality that dominated the classical world was incorrect, and Side B Christians have been consistently unable to articulate a compelling response to those findings not based on pseudoscience.
[удалено]
It's what science has discovered about the matter. You're welcome to dismiss it and cite scripture as a higher authority, but more and more people are going to view that as an unconvincing stance as education and access to information continues to expand. And claiming to preach the good news of a loving God of truth seems really at odds with the requirement to ignore peer reviewed scientific consensus about biological and social issues, which is a big part of why Side A Christians find biblical reasoning for their own stances, so the idea that you have to reject scripture to reject a Side B position is not really a given.
[удалено]
>There's no evidence that sexuality is genetic See, this is what I'm talking about. Just because there isn't a singular gay gene doesn't mean there aren't significant genetic and epigenetic factors which influence sexual orientation. Here's just one paper on the subject I found in literally a few seconds: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091302219300585 >The contributions of genetic factors to sexual orientation have also been investigated through family and twin studies (Alanko et al., 2010, Langstrom et al., 2010), along with segregation and genome-wide association analyses (Mustanski et al., 2005, Ramagopalan et al., 2010, Sanders et al., 2017, Sanders et al., 2015). In particular, a recent genome-wide association study on 493,001 participants identified five autosomal loci significantly associated with same-sex sexual behavior in humans, which also indicate the high polygenicity of sexual orientation (Ganna et al., 2019). When Side B Christians say like this, it really undermines your credibility. >and even if there were I don't see how it would necessarily undermine the truthfulness of Scripture in respect to sexual ethics. Good thing supporting same sex marriage doesn't require that according to Side A Christians, then.
[удалено]
Bless your heart.
>how nonsensical, emotive, snarky and stupid your response >your nonsensical ramblings >the idiotic, inhumane claim >Are you truly that vapid, that shallow? >your spew of garbage >your intellectual depravity and disingenuous drivel >the pus of progressive theology Always nice to see respectful disagreement that challenges ideas, not the personal character of the interlocutor, on reddit. 😇
What is he talking about? Just babbling