Oof. I noticed the same paragraph from +Wright; for me the argument about “deregulation of sex gives us AIDS” was the trigger.
Rather than lamenting the death of liberalism and bemoaning the rise of secularism, it’s time it was given a fair chance – and indeed, given that modern society is rightly empowered to pick & choose its churches to attend, or not, the only shame is that it takes time for society to realise the progressive movement is well named.
I think the Archbishop of York is the Anglican Entertainer, and that the current Bishop of Durham is going more bonkers with every sermon… http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/12/drum-says-liberalism-is-to-blame-for.html …and this suggests that a few liberals ought to hang on in order to keep some sense in the machine. Interesting how the once regarded liberal Rowan Williams is now regarded as conservative in those Guardian comments. I must find out how he does is version of detailed narrative theology so well inside his bubble. Personally I’d redesign the Church and its constitution. http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2009/01/old-church-new-church.html Plenty of room for entertainers and nutters, of course, as most… Read more »
Michael Jameson
15 years ago
Revd John Bowden started a network of local groups (now called OTT) in about 1990 as a Trust funded by and arising out of the Student Christian Movement. A few still survive but these are not networking properly and there is no real structure or well-defined aim. The CofE consists of its parishes, run by dioceses and co-ordinated through synodical govt by Church House, Westminster. There is a need for pathfinding bodies like these guided by conservative bishops.
JCF
15 years ago
“the Church’s culture wars of the 1990s are over. The women won … Gay people lost.” I find this nonsensical (or, at best, untenable). Hatred of gay people is rooted in misogyny (which is the basis of the conservative order Brown states has captured the CofE). Women, being mysterious and dirty (but most of all, simply “other”), ought to be “on the bottom” (in a variety of ways). Men on top, women on the bottom is “Divinely-Ordained Order.” LGBT people most *obviously* upset that order, and pay the price. Conversely, as Brown notes, there may be a toleration of some… Read more »
Joan of Quark
15 years ago
I agreed with most of +Durham’s sermon about the incarnation, but when he started talking about politics…. Gah, where to start? “Mrs Compound Interest is having a bad hair day…” MRS? The personification of the credit crunch is female because, obviously, about 1% of hedge fund managers are female, so clearly to blame for.. oh wait, it’s the hair metaphor. Men don’t think about trivia like hair days, good or bad. Riiight. I “failed liberal project” but I did OK in the cause work. Seriously, I don’t know if it’s just me or a whole generation who have this visceral… Read more »
Ford Elms
15 years ago
“Either in Christ there is NEITHER male nor female, NEITHER straight nor LGBT” Just to be counter for a minute, this presupposes that the difference between gay and straight is on the same level as the difference between men and women. It isn’t. Now what the difference is is another matter entirely. But being gay versus straight is NOT the same as being male versus female. If we do not speak clearly as to how they are different, we allow the conservatives to do it, and they do it by saying that the difference is that one chooses to be… Read more »
Robert Ian Williams
15 years ago
All of you are in denial as to the effectivenes of the Sugden-Giddings alliance. Effectively they have prevented not just Jeffrey John, but bishops in the mould of Colin Slee.
JCF
15 years ago
“this presupposes that the difference between gay and straight is on the same level as the difference between men and women. It isn’t.”
Um, I think you’re the one presupposing here, Ford.
We don’t even understand the chromosomes, genes, proteins and hormones which create varied genders, much less those which created varied sexual orientations!
What we do understand, is dwarfed by what we don’t. I make no presuppositions—but only call to respect our COMMON Imago Dei (in each and every UNIQUE manifestation) all redeemed by Christ. 🙂
James
15 years ago
JCF, we may not understand the genetic basis of sexuality, but we can tell that homosexuality is not strongly determined. Studies of identical twins have shown that only about 40% of twins of homosexuals are also gay. This is more than the general population, but it is far less than you would expect if a ‘gay gene’ did exist. I’m not sure if these are twins separated at birth, or twins brought up in the same environment, so I can’t really comment on developmental or environmental influences,but it’s not strongly genetic.
James
15 years ago
I should add the obvious point that sex is very strongly determined genetically. I haven’t seen any studies, but I would guess that roughly 100% of twins are the same sex.
Ford Elms
15 years ago
“We don’t even understand the chromosomes, genes, proteins and hormones which create varied genders, much less those which created varied sexual orientations!” Which is the point. We understand clearly what makes a man a man and a woman a woman. We know the genetics, we know the anatomy, we know now how the genes work to produce either gender. We know none of these things about sexuality. I know my sexuality as an undeniable fact. I am gay. Simple. No choice. I also know that I am not what the conservatives say I am. I am not a pedophile. I… Read more »
Erika Baker
15 years ago
” I haven’t seen any studies, but I would guess that roughly 100% of twins are the same sex.”
Ouch!
Only if they’re identical twins.
Non-identical twins are as randomly the same sex as other brothers and sisters.
And although sexuality may not be defined genetically, it would be really nice if you started to listen to people who tell you they really didn’t choose it.
Father Ron Smith
15 years ago
“Are senior C.of E. bishops conservatives?”
Another silly Question – “Is the Pope a Catholic”?
Erika Baker
15 years ago
Ford “We do not need to make sexuality the same kind of thing as gender in order to respect the Imago Dei in everyone. In fact, I would suggest that by blurring the two, we run the risk of doing the exact opposite” I don’t understand this argument. If you do not choose something, for whatever reason, then it is part of how you were created. You might think of theological arguments why one part of God’s creation should be restricted to certain roles, and you can therefore oppose women’s ordination. But that’s the only level of argument you could… Read more »
Ford Elms
15 years ago
“we can tell that homosexuality is not strongly determined.” Speak for yourself! “..it’s not strongly genetic.” Well, a quick Google turned up this http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html Which says the numbers are around 50% for monozygotic twins, and 20% for dizygotic twins. So you have to define ‘strongly’. And no-one suggests that there is a “gay gene” that, if you have it, you’re gay and if you don’t, you’re not. Well, no-one exceot conservatives who only bring it up to sneer at it. But there is a huge distance between something that is purely genetically determined on the one hand and something that… Read more »
Ford Elms
15 years ago
“If you do not choose something, for whatever reason, then it is part of how you were created.” The issue is how that creation takes place. We have a set of genes that turn on and off at certain times in our embryological development. If they do not turn on, then one is female. Female is the “default gender”, so to speak. We can delineate relatively specifically what it is that is happening. But sexuality isn’t like that. There are likely certain genetic predisposing factors. But then there are also environmental factors, not merely to do with how we are… Read more »
Joan of Quark
15 years ago
True, maleness and femaleness seem to have more fixity, except that as soon as we get beyond the basics of what male and female mean (e.g. people with Y chromosomes very unlikely to get pregnant) we don’t have very much to go on. Once women were “protected” from the longer distances in running competitions (weaker sex, don’t you know) and from learning Greek in school (might fry their fluffy-kitten-oriented brains) – these days the generalisations are rather that women’s physiology is adapted for endurance events like marathons, and average women’s brains are wired up for linguistic fireworks (all those left-brain/right-brain… Read more »
In the “bad old days” “safe” churchmen were appointed by the PM to be quiet & sit in the Lords & vote the party line.
I can’t help thinking that they did far less damage to the Church that way …
drdanfee
15 years ago
I must say that in browsing various right midddles to far right Anglican/CoE comments on various blogs, I do have a renewed and surprise sense that the CoE is so presumptively rightwing in so many statements and streams, not least its bishops. Even Rowan Williams who has roots and credentials as a thinking progressive seems to go all to jelly when faced with any occasion when he otherwise might show some progressive intellectual leadership as we face the new and the not yet known and the unknowns – these days the hot buttons of embodiment, sex, gender (not equivalent), and… Read more »
Father Ron Smith
15 years ago
” Looking at the five most senior or important bishops – Canterbury, York, Durham, London, Rochester – not one could be described as liberal in temperament or theology.” – Andrew Brown’s Blog in ‘The Times’ Has Andrew Brown missed something here? Rochester more important than Winchester? I don’t think so -even though both are on a par in their support of GAFCON and the dissidents of the Communion. Andrew’s take on the rise of conservatism in the Church of England is, I think, overstated. The Church has moved, almost inexorably it must be admitted, towards the inclusive message of the… Read more »
I see that such is the drift of the Church that Don Cupitt gave up attending in 2008, having given up leading worship in the early 1990s. Gone are strategies of subversion, being bloody minded and the rest.
Oof. I noticed the same paragraph from +Wright; for me the argument about “deregulation of sex gives us AIDS” was the trigger.
Rather than lamenting the death of liberalism and bemoaning the rise of secularism, it’s time it was given a fair chance – and indeed, given that modern society is rightly empowered to pick & choose its churches to attend, or not, the only shame is that it takes time for society to realise the progressive movement is well named.
I think the Archbishop of York is the Anglican Entertainer, and that the current Bishop of Durham is going more bonkers with every sermon… http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/12/drum-says-liberalism-is-to-blame-for.html …and this suggests that a few liberals ought to hang on in order to keep some sense in the machine. Interesting how the once regarded liberal Rowan Williams is now regarded as conservative in those Guardian comments. I must find out how he does is version of detailed narrative theology so well inside his bubble. Personally I’d redesign the Church and its constitution. http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2009/01/old-church-new-church.html Plenty of room for entertainers and nutters, of course, as most… Read more »
Revd John Bowden started a network of local groups (now called OTT) in about 1990 as a Trust funded by and arising out of the Student Christian Movement. A few still survive but these are not networking properly and there is no real structure or well-defined aim. The CofE consists of its parishes, run by dioceses and co-ordinated through synodical govt by Church House, Westminster. There is a need for pathfinding bodies like these guided by conservative bishops.
“the Church’s culture wars of the 1990s are over. The women won … Gay people lost.” I find this nonsensical (or, at best, untenable). Hatred of gay people is rooted in misogyny (which is the basis of the conservative order Brown states has captured the CofE). Women, being mysterious and dirty (but most of all, simply “other”), ought to be “on the bottom” (in a variety of ways). Men on top, women on the bottom is “Divinely-Ordained Order.” LGBT people most *obviously* upset that order, and pay the price. Conversely, as Brown notes, there may be a toleration of some… Read more »
I agreed with most of +Durham’s sermon about the incarnation, but when he started talking about politics…. Gah, where to start? “Mrs Compound Interest is having a bad hair day…” MRS? The personification of the credit crunch is female because, obviously, about 1% of hedge fund managers are female, so clearly to blame for.. oh wait, it’s the hair metaphor. Men don’t think about trivia like hair days, good or bad. Riiight. I “failed liberal project” but I did OK in the cause work. Seriously, I don’t know if it’s just me or a whole generation who have this visceral… Read more »
“Either in Christ there is NEITHER male nor female, NEITHER straight nor LGBT” Just to be counter for a minute, this presupposes that the difference between gay and straight is on the same level as the difference between men and women. It isn’t. Now what the difference is is another matter entirely. But being gay versus straight is NOT the same as being male versus female. If we do not speak clearly as to how they are different, we allow the conservatives to do it, and they do it by saying that the difference is that one chooses to be… Read more »
All of you are in denial as to the effectivenes of the Sugden-Giddings alliance. Effectively they have prevented not just Jeffrey John, but bishops in the mould of Colin Slee.
“this presupposes that the difference between gay and straight is on the same level as the difference between men and women. It isn’t.”
Um, I think you’re the one presupposing here, Ford.
We don’t even understand the chromosomes, genes, proteins and hormones which create varied genders, much less those which created varied sexual orientations!
What we do understand, is dwarfed by what we don’t. I make no presuppositions—but only call to respect our COMMON Imago Dei (in each and every UNIQUE manifestation) all redeemed by Christ. 🙂
JCF, we may not understand the genetic basis of sexuality, but we can tell that homosexuality is not strongly determined. Studies of identical twins have shown that only about 40% of twins of homosexuals are also gay. This is more than the general population, but it is far less than you would expect if a ‘gay gene’ did exist. I’m not sure if these are twins separated at birth, or twins brought up in the same environment, so I can’t really comment on developmental or environmental influences,but it’s not strongly genetic.
I should add the obvious point that sex is very strongly determined genetically. I haven’t seen any studies, but I would guess that roughly 100% of twins are the same sex.
“We don’t even understand the chromosomes, genes, proteins and hormones which create varied genders, much less those which created varied sexual orientations!” Which is the point. We understand clearly what makes a man a man and a woman a woman. We know the genetics, we know the anatomy, we know now how the genes work to produce either gender. We know none of these things about sexuality. I know my sexuality as an undeniable fact. I am gay. Simple. No choice. I also know that I am not what the conservatives say I am. I am not a pedophile. I… Read more »
” I haven’t seen any studies, but I would guess that roughly 100% of twins are the same sex.”
Ouch!
Only if they’re identical twins.
Non-identical twins are as randomly the same sex as other brothers and sisters.
And although sexuality may not be defined genetically, it would be really nice if you started to listen to people who tell you they really didn’t choose it.
“Are senior C.of E. bishops conservatives?”
Another silly Question – “Is the Pope a Catholic”?
Ford “We do not need to make sexuality the same kind of thing as gender in order to respect the Imago Dei in everyone. In fact, I would suggest that by blurring the two, we run the risk of doing the exact opposite” I don’t understand this argument. If you do not choose something, for whatever reason, then it is part of how you were created. You might think of theological arguments why one part of God’s creation should be restricted to certain roles, and you can therefore oppose women’s ordination. But that’s the only level of argument you could… Read more »
“we can tell that homosexuality is not strongly determined.” Speak for yourself! “..it’s not strongly genetic.” Well, a quick Google turned up this http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html Which says the numbers are around 50% for monozygotic twins, and 20% for dizygotic twins. So you have to define ‘strongly’. And no-one suggests that there is a “gay gene” that, if you have it, you’re gay and if you don’t, you’re not. Well, no-one exceot conservatives who only bring it up to sneer at it. But there is a huge distance between something that is purely genetically determined on the one hand and something that… Read more »
“If you do not choose something, for whatever reason, then it is part of how you were created.” The issue is how that creation takes place. We have a set of genes that turn on and off at certain times in our embryological development. If they do not turn on, then one is female. Female is the “default gender”, so to speak. We can delineate relatively specifically what it is that is happening. But sexuality isn’t like that. There are likely certain genetic predisposing factors. But then there are also environmental factors, not merely to do with how we are… Read more »
True, maleness and femaleness seem to have more fixity, except that as soon as we get beyond the basics of what male and female mean (e.g. people with Y chromosomes very unlikely to get pregnant) we don’t have very much to go on. Once women were “protected” from the longer distances in running competitions (weaker sex, don’t you know) and from learning Greek in school (might fry their fluffy-kitten-oriented brains) – these days the generalisations are rather that women’s physiology is adapted for endurance events like marathons, and average women’s brains are wired up for linguistic fireworks (all those left-brain/right-brain… Read more »
In the “bad old days” “safe” churchmen were appointed by the PM to be quiet & sit in the Lords & vote the party line.
I can’t help thinking that they did far less damage to the Church that way …
I must say that in browsing various right midddles to far right Anglican/CoE comments on various blogs, I do have a renewed and surprise sense that the CoE is so presumptively rightwing in so many statements and streams, not least its bishops. Even Rowan Williams who has roots and credentials as a thinking progressive seems to go all to jelly when faced with any occasion when he otherwise might show some progressive intellectual leadership as we face the new and the not yet known and the unknowns – these days the hot buttons of embodiment, sex, gender (not equivalent), and… Read more »
” Looking at the five most senior or important bishops – Canterbury, York, Durham, London, Rochester – not one could be described as liberal in temperament or theology.” – Andrew Brown’s Blog in ‘The Times’ Has Andrew Brown missed something here? Rochester more important than Winchester? I don’t think so -even though both are on a par in their support of GAFCON and the dissidents of the Communion. Andrew’s take on the rise of conservatism in the Church of England is, I think, overstated. The Church has moved, almost inexorably it must be admitted, towards the inclusive message of the… Read more »
I see that such is the drift of the Church that Don Cupitt gave up attending in 2008, having given up leading worship in the early 1990s. Gone are strategies of subversion, being bloody minded and the rest.
http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2009/01/don-cupitt-and-me.html