Updated
Comment and news looking ahead to this weekend’s meeting of the Church of England General Synod
Philip Jones Ecclesiastical Law The Burden of Legislative Reform
David Pocklington Law & Religion UK General Synod: Burial of suicides, vesture
Ruth Gledhill Christian Today Battle looms in Church of England over ‘blessings’ for gay marriage
John Bingham The Telegraph Church of England bans mankinis in the pulpit
Updates
Harry Farley Christian Today Shared Conversations: Can the Church of England prevent a split over gay marriage?
David Walker ViaMedia.News Bishop’s Packing Essentials for General Synod
Harry Farley Christian Today Apart from a big fight over homosexuality, what else is happening at General Synod?
Archbishop Cranmer Synod ‘No Confidence’ motion looms in secret trial of Bishop George Bell (RIP)
Stephen Lynas The weekend starts here
At the end of Ruth Gledhill’s piece:
‘One leading evangelical, with an open mind on this issue, said: “I’m worried that there is a terrific battle ahead. If they try and force it through, it will be a bloodbath.”‘
Why do people feel the need to use this emotive, rabble-rousing language??
Extraordinary that the “leading evangelical” speaks in those terms about what is coming. I am not aware of one single evangelical who holds anti-gay views who has lost anything material because of the views they hold. I am very aware of the cost to LGBT people around the Communion of those views. Some have paid with lost employment, some with vocations being denied, some with disciplinary actions, some with losing homes and families, and some with their lives. That is where blood has been shed. If change comes to the Church of England it is long overdue. If it results… Read more »
I am sick of middle-class, Anglican political correctness. Just because we have women clergy, the prudes are now hoping to ban mankinis. If evangelicals can wear T-shirts and jeans while strumming their guitars, why can’t we liberals dress as we please in bikinis and mankinis?
It’s comforting to realize that — as the British political system and the pound collapse, not to mention the real possibility of the dissolution of the United Kingdom itself — the Church of England thinks its worthwhile spending its time battling the even more dire problem of clergy wearing “t-shirts with atheist slogans” in the pulpit.
The Bingham piece is very funny but please let’s have no more. If I see another example of such good fun poking from that publication I might have to re-examine my prejudice against it, and I don’t want that prejudice disturbed.
One suspects that the restriction against unseemly dress is aimed, in part, at preventing priests from starting to transition between genders by gradually changing their form of dress. Instead, any gender transition will have to be formalised.
In short, it appears to be a regressive measure aimed at LGBT people.
It should have included the phrase “Dress which is considered seemly if worn by a man will also be considered seemly if worn by a woman and vice versa.”
I had to click on the last link before I realized it was about the Church of England. I suppose it’s perversely comforting that other General Synods are gearing up for the same fight, at the same time.
Thank you, HelenK and JeremyP.
It seems whenever you hear an anti-LGBT equality Christian speak, they always talk about something being “rammed down their throats” or a “blood bath”.
Between LGBTs and those who {hate} “oppose” them, force is being used by one side. It’s not used by LGBTs.
Comments that see everything as specifically aimed against or an attack on LGTB people are so tedious. They are damaging to the legitimate arguments and undermine support for the cause. You would probably find fault with hymn books that have the “wrong” colour of cover. Indeed, I am surprised no-one argues against the term “dress” itself – after all, dresses are still gender-specific. The amendment to Canon regarding clerical attire is aimed at those – usually – evangelicals, who are already in breach by appearing as a matter of principle in jeans or informal attire for Sunday worship, and those… Read more »
Excellent articles by ruth Gledhill and Bishop David Walker. I reckon that if everyone attending this important session of the General Synod applies the same guidelines as Bishop David Walker – about what they ought not to bring into the discussions – then they will proceed with a minimum of rancour and the ethos necessary in order for the Church to face up to, and deal with, the situation before it. My prayers are for this General Synod and for those marginalised by the present culture of sexism and homophobia. Those who are still scared by the prospect of might… Read more »
Mother Hubbard, for Parliament the Joint Committee on Human Rights reviews all legislation for its impact on human rights and often takes an interest in broader equality. The Church of England canons etc are laws of a type. There ought to be a committee in the church which investigates all proposed measures etc and ensures that none of them directly or, as here, indirectly discriminate or affect human rights. It is to the Church’s great discredit that it doesn’t do that because then such issues could be avoided and then there would be no need to comment on them. And… Read more »
“Those who are still scared by the prospect of might happen with the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions”
A blessing or pastoral accommodation is not going to make the issue go away though.
I can see where “Archbishop Cranmer” is coming from and in secular terms it makes sense. In Christian terms though it seems to me a complete muddle. The whole point is that it should make zero difference to a Christian whether someone is an unreserved Saint or whether they are a murderer or paedophile beyond issues of personal and third party safety which are clearly irrelevant after death. Bishop Bell’s posthumous reputation should be utterly irrelevant to the church.