Equal marriage

[MrGongGong]

Is there supposed to be a comma after "were"? If not, as those contributing here would appear to be under the age of consent in your eyes, their contributions must surely be at best questionable, n'est-ce pas?...

Or maybe ARE ?

;-)

[Sydney Grew]

. . . It's as if you wanted to apologise for slavery, but if you did, you would seriously upset the Christians who still believed slavery was part of the natural order of things.

That wouldn't be so bad; they'd just have to get used to it, or break away and form a new slave-owning Church themselves.

But worse, you would upset non-Christians who also believed in slavery, and they, thinking that the local Christians had given up their belief in slavery because you had, would set upon them and kill them in case the rejection of slavery should spread to them and infect them.

That's the situation the archbishop finds himself in, if the stories about what happened in Nigeria are true. . . .

Well and effectively summarized! It reminds us of the situation in Europe under Nero in 64 A.D. and subsequent centuries does it not. In other words the Africans are two thousand years behind in the slow slow race towards civilization. Did not Enoch Powell warn us? A new multitude of martyrs is foreseeable. The impotent Dr. Welby can wrestle all he likes as he cycles off to communion, but the persecution will not stop until a second Constantine arises among the Africans themselves.

[ahinton]

It's more complicated than that.

Fair comment.

It's as if you wanted to apologise for slavery, but if you did, you would seriously upset the Christians who still believed slavery was part of the natural order of things.

This is where Christian practice (and the practice of any other religion, I suppose) has to move with the times or risk splintering or ultimately disintegrating altogether.

That wouldn't be so bad; they'd just have to get used to it, or break away and form a new slave-owning Church themselves.

Maybe, but to do that under the name of Christianity would be at best somewhat suspect, would it not?

But worse, you would upset non-Christians who also believed in slavery, and they, thinking that the local Christians had given up their belief in slavery because you had, would set upon them and kill them in case the rejection of slavery should spread to them and infect them.

Which - were that to be the case - illustrates, if nothing else, the fact that Christian practice and slavery are incompatible, just as slavery itself (for all that it's by no means a thing of the past, even in today's "enlightened" West) is incompatible with religious practice worthy of the name in 21st century society. That said, would it really be anything new for the Church wilfully to risk the possibility of upsetting non-Christians when it regards the pastoral welfare of its shareholders I mean its flock as its principal priority?

That's the situation the archbishop finds himself in, if the stories about what happened in Nigeria are true.

If that is so, what it tells me is that the Archbishop - like many other heads of the Christian Church in other countries - needs to call into question the very extent to which his religious authority can have any material impact in parts of the world where Christian practice is interpreted in ways so very different to those which he would wish to associate with his own country - which in turn raises the question of the extent to which Christianity and its practice has become factionalised rather than being the kind of universal global phenomenon as which they are customarily painted.

And I have to say I would pause and consider foregoing my right to get married in church, which I wasn't about to exercise anyway, if it would save African Christians from being massacred.

Well, that's very noble and laudable of you in principle; that said, I fear that, if the stories about what happened in Nigeria are indeed true and if the Church cannot, or feels that it should not, seek to wash its hands of such events, foregoing that right might well be a worthy sacrifice on your part but if, on the other hand, the Church in the West felt that it could contrive to exonerate itself from responsiblity for what it regards as a local problem outwith its remit, one might question whether one would want to get married in such a Church in the first place. Marrying in a Christian Church - i.e. with its blessing - is, after all, a choice on the part of those Christians who marry; it's not compulsory. The problem so far, however, is that such choice extends only to those of opposite sex wishing to marry; Christians (and others) of the same sex wishing to marry will have to exercise their legal right to do so elsewhere, which seems to me to be yet another aspect of growing divisiveness within the Church that it will omit to address at its future peril - or at least in terms of the questionability of continuing the established Church/State relationship.

[ahinton]

the Africans are two thousand years behind in the slow slow race towards civilization

...by which you presumably mean "Western civilisation" - and we all know what Mohandas Gandhi is credited as having said about that!

Did not Enoch Powell warn us?

About what? And to what extent can the "warnings" of someone of his ilk expect to be taken seriously today, notwithstanding his undoubted intellectual brilliance? We all know what those infamous "rivers" did for his career. He might have been able in part to make up for the effect of that self-made problem had he been more persuasive in convincing others that true global asset values were a tiny fraction of the artificially contrived ones that have been imposed upon them in the public consciousness, resulting in everyone - individuals, corporations, governments et al - being borrowed way beyond their ability to repay - but he didn't and is now widely discredited.

A new multitude of martyrs is foreseeable

I'm not so sure about the "new", not least because martyrdom is hardly exclusive to the "Christian" world.

The impotent Dr. Welby can wrestle all he likes as he cycles off to communion, but the persecution will not stop until a second Constantine arises among the Africans themselves.

This is broadly true, yet such a thing is surely far less likely to happen than that the Christian Church splits and factionalises and becomes as impotent as you describe its Archbisop of Canterbury as being; just as martyrdom is not an exclusively "Christian" province, so is the persecution of one group by another - in fact it would require quite some mental exercise to think of where that kind of thing never happens.

All that said, as wrestling while cycling is at least as dangerous a practice as consuming alcohol while driving, it might be useful were it to occur to the equally impotent Mr Cleggeron and his henchpersons to introduce a law criminalising the former as has already long since been implemented in respect of the latter...

[french frank]

where Christian practice is interpreted in ways so very different to those which he would wish to associate with his own country - which in turn raises the question of the extent to which Christianity and its practice has become factionalised rather than being the kind of universal global phenomenon as which they are customarily painted.

I'm clearly misinterpreting what Justin Welby said. I thought he meant that Christian communities would be wiped out in some African countries by non-Christians.

[ahinton]

I'm clearly misinterpreting what Justin Welby said. I thought he meant that Christian communities would be wiped out in some African countries by non-Christians.

I'm not sure that you are, necessarily and, in any case, I did not raise the matter of what he said in the first place. I can nevertheless appreciate in principle the difficulties in which he might appear to find himself over this, whatever he might have meant; it's probably best to address this one to jean, I would think.

[jean]

Never mind necessarily - ff is not misinterpreting what Justin Welby said at all. And nobody needs to address me about it, because it's all in the link I posted earlier in the thread.

You probably just misread the article I linked to.

.

[ahinton]

Ff is not misinterpreting what Justin Welby said at all

I didn't assume that she was, which is why I suggestd as much.

and nobody needs to address me about it, because it's all in the link I posted earlier in the thread.

Indeed, but whether anyone might want to address anything about it to you for any reason, given that you did indeed post that link, that would surely be up to them!

I think you just misread the article I linked to.

You think who did that? My own comments were not intended to be read as being on the article particularly but on the more general ramifications of widening divergences of thinking within the Christian Church.

[MrGongGong]

Knots was R D Laing's finest work, wouldn't you say ?

[jean]

My own comments were not intended to be read as being on the article particularly...

But you were replying specifically to a post of mine which was directly on the article, and so perhaps your comments should have been.

[ahinton]

To return to jean's quote, which is as follows:


African Christians will be killed if the Church of England accepts gay marriage, the archbishop of Canterbury has suggested. Speaking on an LBC phone in, Justin Welby said he had stood by a mass grave in Nigeria of 330 Christians who had been massacred by neighbours who had justified the atrocity by saying: "If we leave a Christian community here we will all be made to become homosexual and so we will kill all the Christians."

"I have stood by gravesides in Africa of a group of Christians who had been attacked because of something that had happened in America. We have to listen to that. We have to be aware of the fact," Welby said. If the Church of England celebrated gay marriages, he added, "the impact of that on Christians far from here, in South Sudan, Pakistan, Nigeria and other places would be absolutely catastrophic. Everything we say here goes round the world."

This reasoning has until now been kept private, although both Welby and his predecessor, Rowan Williams, anguished about it in private.

OK, so let's unpack this, as the cliché would have it.

First off, one might argue that certain Africans risk being killed on such grounds anyway, given that the C of E is the established Christian Church in England and the British government has legalised same sex marriage. In order to comply with the law, therefore, C of E effectively "accepts" same sex marriage to the extent that it is sanctioned by law and its mere refusal to carry out same sex weddings is not of itself signify refusal on its part to "accept" the law that now enables such marriage. How might it propose to treat individual same sex couples who wish to remain Anglicans despite having married outside the Church they are now obliged them to do? Will it refuse them admittance to Church services, decline to baptise any children that they might adopt, forbid them from taking Communion and the rest? Whilst I do not know the answers to such questions, I take leave to doubt that the Church has not asked them of itself and taken positions on them even if it has not yet made them public but, if the Church does decide to admit same sex married couples to services, baptise any children that they might adopt, offer them Communion et al (and refusing to do so would hardly be "Christian", would it?), its "acceptance" of what is already the law will be seen as something more than merely tacit.

What "reasoning [my italics] has untiil now been kept private"? Where is the reasoning / rationality in the assertion by those who apparently seek to justify having massacred those Christians that, were they to "leave a Christian community" in the area concerned, they "we will all be made to become homosexual"? Do not these people know that same sex marriage is something that is now offered to homosexual couples in Britian who wish to marry, that it is not compulsory and that no one becomes homosexual for the express purpose of being able to marry someone of the same sex?! In short, no one will, or could, force anyone to "become" homosexual for any purpose or none.

Welby refers to "something that had happened in America" as another instance of motivation for attacks on groups of Christians in Africa. What was that "something"? The Guardian journalist doesn't tell us.

Welby then speaks of the adverse outcomes for Christians in countries far from Britain if the "Church of England celebrated gay marriages", but does he really believe that such risks might arise only if the Church actually conducted same sex marriage ceremonies? Might such Christians also be vulnerable because British law endorses same sex marriage and if the Church were to decide to accept participating gay married couples into its congregations in the ways that I outlined above, even though it continues to refuse to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies?

The Guardian piece that jean quoted continues:

Welby also condemned homophobia in England. "To treat every human being with equal importance and dignity is a fundamental part of being a Christian," he said.

Fine - but how is his round condemnation of homophobia likely to go down with those who presume to justify massacres of Christians on the grounds of their evident assumption, however absurdly illogical, that failing to condemn homosexuality means that people will be "made to become homosexual".

Never mind SG's proposed second coming of Constantine; I submit that we already have St. Peter here, in the form of a rock and a hard place...

[french frank]

You think who did that? My own comments were not intended to be read as being on the article particularly but on the more general ramifications of widening divergences of thinking within the Christian Church.

But your comment was a reply, specifically, to Jean's comment, which you quoted:

That's the situation the archbishop finds himself in, if the stories about what happened in Nigeria are true.

So the question about differing attitudes between individuals within the Church and the Church having to face up to this that or the other were slightly baffling.

I took Jean to be saying that the risk of atrocities in Africa were a price that might not be worth paying (presumably that would weigh on the Church as a whole, not merely on its head, if they occurred).

[french frank]

Ignore mine - Jean has answered this point: I will leave her to pursue this if she feels it should be pursued.

[ahinton]

So the question about differing attitudes between individuals within the Church and the Church having to face up to this that or the other were slightly baffling.

Why so? I think that we're all broadly in agreement that Welby and his Church face a dilemma over this, not least because he heads the established Anglican Church in a country that has now legalised gay marriage and he presumably appreciates that his position requires him to figure out how the Church should address that fact in practice and, in so doing, take on board the risks that Christians in certain other countries might face now that the law concerned has changed. I for one do not envy him his task.

I took Jean to be saying that the risk of atrocities in Africa were a price that might not be worth paying (presumably that would weigh on the Church as a whole, not merely on its head, if they occurred).

Indeed, but I'm not convinced that the Church is in reality in any position to influence this one way or the other; with the law in the country in which it has it seat being what it is, what could it hope to be able to achieve without risking the wrath and ire of those who are prepared to carry out massacres in Africa and selsewhere on the grounds that any kind of endorsement by the Anglican Church of a law that permits gay marriage is somehow tantamount not merely to accepting but also to encouraging homosexuality and the marriage of homosexual couples? It does not seem immediately apparent that those prepared to commit such genocide on such grounds are easily amenable to subtle negotiation. Again, he seems to be in a most unenviable position.

[jean]

...I will leave her to pursue this if she feels it should be pursued.

She has lost the will to live.