ABOUT ARCHBISHOP JUSTIN'S SPEECH TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS

Earlier I had thought of commenting on at least parts of  Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby's speech yesterday in Parliament's House of Lords, in which he announces that he cannot support the bill that would allow civil marriage for couples of the same sex in England and Northern Ireland.  Since Colin Coward, in his post at "Changing Attitude", covers what I would say and more, only in far better words, I decided to let him have the floor. Colin is, after all, over there in England, and he is gay, so his response carries more weight than would mine.

Before I move out of the way, there is one point I'd like to make.  (Are you truly surprised that I could not maintain complete silence on the matter?) Justin says he is sorry about the church's treatment of the gay community:

...it is also absolutely true that the church has often not served the LGBT communities in the way it should. I must express my sadness and sorrow for that considerable failure.

Then he proceeds to insist that discriminatory treatment must continue with regard to marriage equality.  Does his apology for past actions inoculate the church from charges that it is still not serving the LGBT community as it should at the present time?  I don't think so.  Does Justin give a thought to the people he serves who will be most affected by the vote?  I am not gay, and I can only imagine the pain his words cause LGTB persons. 

On to a snippet from Colin, but please read his entire post.

Archbishop Justin’s solution to the intractable problems that introducing same-sex marriage would create is to add a new and valued institution alongside marriage for same gender relationships. Dear Archbishop, have you thought this through – have you asked those of us who are gay and represent many LGB&T Anglicans? How would you create a new and valued institution that is the equivalent of marriage but isn’t marriage.

Exactly, Archbishop.  Have you asked?

UPDATE: The Bill has now had its second Reading in the House of Lords. The Bill will now get to Committee stage where it will be scrutinised in detail and amendments may be proposed. The proposed amendments will then be discussed in a Third Reading. If the Bill passes that too, the next stage will be Royal Assent (a formality) before it becomes law.

Thanks to my friend Erika on Facebook.

Read More

JUSTIN WELBY WANTS MORE PROTECTIONS AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE

THE Archbishop of Canterbury will call on the government this week to make further concessions in the same-sex marriage bill to protect those with moral objections to gay and lesbian weddings.

In a significant intervention during a debate in the House of Lords, Justin Welby is expected to urge ministers to ensure that faith schools and teachers who do not wish to promote gay marriage in class will be able to refuse to do so without penalty.

Welby, the head of the Church of England, is likely to reiterate the objections of the church to gays and lesbians being allowed to marry and his support for traditional marriage.

What about Justin Welby's pastoral duty to all the members of the Church of England?  What about Justin's earlier words of praise for gay relationships?  "You see gay relationships that are just stunning in the quality of the relationship."  And yet, he will say that the people in England "with moral objections" need to be protected from same-sex couples in "stunning" relationships being allowed to marry.  How likely is it that teachers in faith schools will be forced to promote gay marriage?  Such fear as is demonstrated in the concerns of Christian opponents of same-sex marriage, including Justin Welby, is quite troubling.   For heaven's sake, if you want protection against same-sex marriage, then don't marry a person of the same sex.

The link is to a teaser, as only subscribers to the Sunday Times are able to read the entire article.

Thanks to Ann for the link.

Read More

THE FAITH OF BARONESS THATCHER

IT IS hard to imagine a prime minister doing such a thing now, and even then it seemed rather surprising. In May 1988 Margaret Thatcher went to the General Assembly of the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland and gave what would soon be called the Sermon on the Mound. It was an impassioned statement of a certain form of Christianity. The Conservative leader stressed individual salvation over social reform, the legitimacy of moneymaking when combined with altruism, and the “responsibility that comes with freedom and the supreme sacrifice of Christ”.

In religion, as in so much else, Mrs (later Lady) Thatcher was a bundle of paradoxes. She was the last British prime minister openly and emphatically to acknowledge the influence of Christianity on her thinking, in particular terms not fuzzy ones.
....

Precisely because she had such well-defined ideas, Mrs Thatcher was almost bound to have stormy relations with England’s established religion. In her time, the Archbishop of Canterbury was Robert Runcie (pictured above), an Oxford contemporary who irked her considerably. A decorated tank commander, he commemorated the Argentine dead at a service following the Falklands war; he produced “Faith in the City”, a left-wing tract on urban blight; and he chided the government for demonising its opponents. Mrs Thatcher preferred the chief rabbi, Immanuel Jakobovits, who shared her view that self-improvement, not subsidies, would relieve poverty.

She helped to ensure that Archbishop Runcie was succeeded by George Carey, an unpretentious evangelical who this week remembered her as a person of “uncomplicated but very strong faith”.

Thatcher's political philosophy, nurtured by her view of Christianity that little resembles the Gospel, put the baroness squarely on the side of pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps and not looking to the government for support.  Her speech makes for quite an interesting read, and it's easy to see why she and Runcie did not get on, and why she wished to insure that he was not followed by another archbishop who would write "left-wing tracts" against war and sympathizing with the plight of the poor and unemployed.   Thatcher speaks of the Kingdom of God in her speech:

The New Testament is a record of the Incarnation, the teachings of Christ and the establishment of the Kingdom of God. Again we have the emphasis on loving our neighbour as ourselves and to "Do-as-you-would-be-done-by".

I believe that by taking together these key elements from the Old and New Testaments, we gain: a view of the universe, a proper attitude to work, and principles to shape economic and social life.

We are told we must work and use our talents to create wealth. "If a man will not work he shall not eat" wrote St. Paul to the Thessalonians. Indeed, abundance rather than poverty has a legitimacy which derives from the very nature of Creation.

Thatcher's view of the Kingdom of God sounds very like the prosperity gospel preached today.  All Christians are meant to be prosperous, and those who are poor - well it's their own doing.
  

Read More

BISHOP IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND TALKS STRAIGHT

 

No pun intended in my title.

The Bishop of Buckingham, the Rt Rev Dr Alan Wilson, said the Church’s ban on offering blessings for civil partnerships was being flouted by several parishes across Britain.

He said this was because some felt the blessings were “logical, natural and compassionate”.

His comments come amid tensions within the Church over its opposition to the Government’s plans to legalise same-sex marriage.

The newly enthroned Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Justin Welby, has underlined his opposition to the plans.
....

He said: “At the moment the policy is, 'Don’t ask, don’t tell’. We all know that in many dioceses there are one or two places these gay blessings have been happening. It’s hypocrisy, although it is understandable.
....

He added: “It is very difficult when an institution is too frightened of its own shadow to engage with the real world.

“True leadership is about coping with reality. On the ground, parish churches often deal with these things really well.”

From across the pond, Alan's courageous words continue to inspire and bring the fresh air of clarity to the discussion of blessing same-sex partnerships in the Church of England.  We find no mincing of words, no muddying the waters, no wishy-washy attempts to straddle the gap, but rather an expression of simple pastoral care and compassion for gay couples and a plea for the church to end the hypocrisy.

Read More

BBC INTERVIEW WITH JUSTIN WELBY PRIOR TO HIS ENTHRONEMENT

Included in the interview are statements by Justin Welby that I find troubling.  The partial transcript below is mine, and I don't vouch for every word as correct.  One word is missing, because, even after listening a number of times, I could not understand what the archbishop said, so I left a blank. A reader supplied the word.

After the question about the decreasing numbers of the English who attend church, the interviewer asks:

Question: Could the source of that be that the church seems so out of touch with the mainstream on a number of issues, especially sexuality?

Response: The Church of England holds very firmly and continues to hold the view that marriage is a lifelong union of one man and one woman.  At the same time, at the heart of our understanding of what it is to be human is the essential dignity of the human being, and so we have to be very clear about homophobia.  You don't by muddling these ideas.  You don't suddenly provide the answer to dwindling congregations.  There's a very big difference between the ideals that we hold to that are essential to us and also pastoral practice.  In pastoral practice, you work with people as they are, as you hope they work with you, as you are yourself, and we are all conscious of our failings.  Anyone who goes around saying, I'm so ideal that I've got it absolutely right, and we can throw out those people we disagree with is completely out of order.  That's just not the way it works.

I confess my first reaction was, "And they let you get away with this?"  In the two questions and answers that I so laboriously transcribed, Justin seems to be doing what he said mustn't be done, namely muddling ideas.  To accept the idea that a straight person can have a marriage, but an LBGT person cannot, is homophobia, at least as I see it.  Why must the church hold "very firmly that marriage is a lifelong union of one man and one woman"?  Because of tradition?  The church changed its practice about a number of traditions.  To name only two: slavery and divorce.

Is it because of the few verses in the Scriptures that appear to refer to same-sexuality?  Surely Justin knows that the case against same-sex paetnerships and same-sex marriage in the Bible is quite weak.  None of the passages refer to faithful, loving, committed relationships of two persons of the same sex. Don't take my word for it; read Tobias Haller's book titled Reasonable and Holy.  Jesus never mentions same-sexuality in the Gospels, but he explicitly condemns divorce.  I'm mystified about what the church would allow in the way of pastoral practice.  It would seem very much like turning a blind eye, which Justin denied when the interviewer mentioned it.

Question: Do you worry sometimes that the concept of equality is beginning to displace Christian values?

Response: Equality as an aim and end in itself is something of a myth because people are not equal; they're different, and if we try to make them equal, we take away the extraordinary richness and diversity of human beings in all kinds of ways, and that's a huge mistake to make.  How you treat people can be equal without saying that you'll all be the same.

Balderdash!  Actually, a stronger word, not suitable for polite company, came to mind.  Justin Welby knows full well that those of us who advocate for equality for LGTB persons do not intend to "take away the extraordinary richness and diversity of human beings".  Why would he say such a thing?  We advocate for exactly what the archbishop says he wants: equal treatment under the law and in the church.

Since I had limited energy for transcribing, I picked out the archbishop's answers that troubled me most, but I believe the interview is a poor performance that sheds little light on Justin's admittedly evolving views on same-sexuality.  Unless he wishes to spend a good deal of his time answering questions about the issue, he must do better.

From the BBC.

Read More

BUT WILL SHE WEAR HER MITRE?

Katharine Jefferts Schori

The Episcopal Church
Office of Public Affairs
Tuesday, February 19, 2013

At the invitation of Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop and Primate Katharine Jefferts Schori will attend the enthronement celebration on March 21 at Canterbury Cathedral.

“I look forward to joining with other primates of the Anglican Communion for the investiture of the next Archbishop of Canterbury,” Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori said. “It is a particular delight to welcome Justin Welby in this role, as we have come to know him over the last several years, both in The Episcopal Church and among the primates.  He enters this role at a time of opportunity and challenge, when many people hope for continued growth and maturation within the Communion.”

During the trip, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori will attend the Anglican Communion Primates Standing Committee, of which she is an elected member.

Archbishop Welby is the former bishop of Durham.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is considered one of the four instruments of Communion of the Anglican Communion; the others are the Lambeth Conferences, the Primates Meetings and the Anglican Consultative Council.

Inquiring Episcopalian minds want to know...about the mitre, that is.

UPDATE: My question in the headline is moot.  The Primates who attend the enthronement ceremony wear the rochet and chimere.

Rowan Williams' enthronement

Thanks to Lapin at Facebook for the photo, which is from the ACNS.

Read More

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LIKELY TO BECOME LAW IN BRITAIN

The good news:

Parliament took a historic step towards embracing full equality for gay people when MPs voted on Tuesday overwhelmingly in favour of equal marriage at the end of a charged Commons debate that exposed the deep rift over David Cameron's modernising agenda at the heart of the Conservative party.

The 225-vote majority, greeted with rare applause in the public gallery, was marred for the prime minister, who suffered a humiliating rebuff when more than half of the Conservative parliamentary party declined to support the government on an issue he has personally invested in.

The Church of England lags behind the secular government and the people of the country in its response to "Equal Civil Marriage". 

The Church of England cannot support the proposal to enable ―all couples, regardless of their gender, to have a civil marriage ceremony.

Such a move would alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as enshrined in human institutions throughout history.

Note that the church's response is to civil marriage.  If, as is likely, the bill passes in the House of Lords and goes to the PM, no authority will force any church or clergy to officiate at same-sex marriages, but churches that wish to do so may move forward.  In fact, as an added protection, the law would ban the Church of England and the Church in Wales from performing same-sex marriages.

The statement that "the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman" is "enshrined in human institutions throughout history" is nonsense.  Throughout history, marriage has had many different expressions, even in the Scriptures.

The further explanation of the church's position includes the following:

The Church‟s understanding of marriage

1. In common with almost all other Churches, the Church of England holds, as a matter of  doctrine and derived from the teaching of Christ himself, that marriage in general – and not just the marriage of Christians – is, in its nature, a lifelong union of one man with one woman.

As Molly Ivins would say, "You can't make this stuff up!"  The church allows divorce.  Maybe the explanation should be corrected to only one man and one woman at a time.  I favor the acceptance by the church of divorce and remarriage in certain circumstances for pastoral reasons, but to use the teaching of Jesus on marriage as a "lifelong union of one man with one woman" in order to condemn same-sex marriage, about which Jesus never said a word, is less than honest and not at all pastoral.

The new Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby weighed in with his opinion:

Speaking about the vote, the 57-year-old archbishop said: "I stand, as I have always stood over the last few months, with the statement I made at the announcement of my appointment, which is that I support the Church of England's position on this.

"We have made many statements about this and I stick with that."

What else could he say?  I guess...  Archbishop Justin said earlier, he will "listen to the voice of the LGBT communities and examine my own thinking."  One can only hope he has not given up on the plan.  The position of Archbishop of Canterbury is a bully pulpit.

Read More