Sandi Toksvig v Justin Welby

[AuroraSaab]

I agree. Most vicars/churches don't have a problem. There are lots of gay church going Christians (and Muslims, Hindus etc) and the respective faiths seem quite happy to say one thing (officially) and practise another. I'm glad they do.

I suppose part of it is our idea that the C of E is still the epicentre of the Christian community when actually, as someone pointed out earlier, numerically it's a very small player these days. I suppose we hope it would take the lead on stuff like this, when the reality is it is pressured to fall into line with the prevailing view, which remains conservative on these issues.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Don't disagree with the sentiments, but, I do wonder, why address this to Welby?, he is head of an organisation with approximately 85million followers (according to Google), the Roman Catholic Church has approximately 1.2Billion followers (Google)......, not to mention various other Religious groups. To get immediate large scale improvement, it would seem to make sense to target the largest groups first?

Perhaps Justin Welby is more aware of Sandi Toksvig than the Pope is.

I am assuming that Welby has made some recent statement that Toksvig believes is worth commenting on.

EDIT: He has.

 

[matticus]

I suppose we hope it would take the lead on stuff like this,

Indeed.

 

[Once a Wheeler]

I thought the Christian church taught that everyone is a sinner. This is one of the reasons I do not belong to it.

 

[matticus]

I thought the Christian church taught that everyone is a sinner. This is one of the reasons I do not belong to it.

I guess they see the alternative as some people thinking they are perfect.

 

[Unkraut]

Brilliant from Sandi.

There is so much questionable or outright wrong in Toksvig's statement it is difficult to know where to begin.

I agree, it's about not causing a schism with the African/US churches.

I have been following this on Anglican Unscripted which reports regularly on things Anglican. The parts of the Anglican communion that are trying to revise the teaching on homosexuality are confined largely to parts of the C of E in England, Wales and Scotland, the Episcopal Church in the States, and in Canada. They are taking on board the values of the society around them.

Many African countries, fed up with Western bishops who are becoming woke and in effect drifting into apostacy have declined to attend the conference. The Global South of the Anglicans is growing in numbers (Northern Mexico among the poor is one example) and influence, and is theologically conservative, and is attending. They are now starting to outnumber the theologically liberal bishops, who are presiding over a dying church in the West. They are tired of financing this nonsense, and of compromise. There are parts of Africa where 'becoming a Christian' means putting your life on the line, especially where there is Muslim insurgency. They therefore take it very seriously.

I'm not sure Welby can hold the whole thing together, and he is in a long line of Archbishops who have made this their priority over faithfulness to the 'faith once for all delivered to the saints'. I suspect he might be better off realising the core is conservative, and let the theological liberals go there own way.

 

[cookiemonster]

Justin Welby's response.

 

[cookiemonster]

There is so much questionable or outright wrong in Toksvig's statement it is difficult to know where to begin.

What exactly did she say that's wrong?

I have been following this on Anglican Unscripted which reports regularly on things Anglican. The parts of the Anglican communion that are trying to revise the teaching on homosexuality are confined largely to parts of the C of E in England, Wales and Scotland, the Episcopal Church in the States, and in Canada. They are taking on board the values of the society around them.

Many African countries, fed up with Western bishops who are becoming woke and in effect drifting into apostacy have declined to attend the conference. The Global South of the Anglicans is growing in numbers (Northern Mexico among the poor is one example) and influence, and is theologically conservative, and is attending. They are now starting to outnumber the theologically liberal bishops, who are presiding over a dying church in the West. They are tired of financing this nonsense, and of compromise. There are parts of Africa where 'becoming a Christian' means putting your life on the line, especially where there is Muslim insurgency. They therefore take it very seriously.

I'm not sure Welby can hold the whole thing together, and he is in a long line of Archbishops who have made this their priority over faithfulness to the 'faith once for all delivered to the saints'. I suspect he might be better off realising the core is conservative, and let the theological liberals go there own way.

So, a priest/vicar saying that a same sex couple that are together in love is 'woke' and against Jesus' teachings which were, let me remind you, all about love and care for others. You do know that Jesus never mentioned sexuality at any point. Why, it wasn't really all that important.

That doesn't mean we should just sit back and approve rampant homophobia and hatred because of a bunch of hate filled priests in Africa have not read the bible properly.

 

[All uphill]

There is so much questionable or outright wrong in Toksvig's statement it is difficult to know where to begin.

I have been following this on Anglican Unscripted which reports regularly on things Anglican. The parts of the Anglican communion that are trying to revise the teaching on homosexuality are confined largely to parts of the C of E in England, Wales and Scotland, the Episcopal Church in the States, and in Canada. They are taking on board the values of the society around them.

Many African countries, fed up with Western bishops who are becoming woke and in effect drifting into apostacy have declined to attend the conference. The Global South of the Anglicans is growing in numbers (Northern Mexico among the poor is one example) and influence, and is theologically conservative, and is attending. They are now starting to outnumber the theologically liberal bishops, who are presiding over a dying church in the West. They are tired of financing this nonsense, and of compromise. There are parts of Africa where 'becoming a Christian' means putting your life on the line, especially where there is Muslim insurgency. They therefore take it very seriously.

I'm not sure Welby can hold the whole thing together, and he is in a long line of Archbishops who have made this their priority over faithfulness to the 'faith once for all delivered to the saints'. I suspect he might be better off realising the core is conservative, and let the theological liberals go there own way.

I think I understand your position @Unkraut

If I have it correctly it is that:

I have access to the only true set of values through a particular interpretation of the bible.

Because of the truth of these values it is OK for people like me to impose them on others where we have the power to do that.

Where we don't have the power to impose our values we will pray for poor sinners who don't see things our way.

Do you see how that comes across?

 

[matticus]

So, a priest/vicar saying that a same sex couple that are together in love is 'woke' and against Jesus' teachings which were, let me remind you, all about love and care for others

I read the post as saying that many African christian communities are taking that view, and thus have declined to attend the conference.

He's summarising the variety of views across the globe, not stating his own beliefs.

 

[Unkraut]

You do know that Jesus never mentioned sexuality at any point.

He [Jesus] answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

This defines marriage.

"You have heard that it was said, `You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

The thought may not be as serious as the act, but it still counts. Similarly with murder and anger. It's from the sermon on the mount.

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander.

The word translated 'fornication' is porneia, and this includes all the sexual sins listed in the OT, including but not limited to homosexuality. Piers Morgan came a cropper on this when interviewing Michael Brown when he (Morgan) claimed Jesus never dealt with homosexuality. Brown knew better!

I think I understand your position @Unkraut

If I have it correctly it is that:

I have access to the only true set of values through a particular interpretation of the bible.

Everyone has access to the law of God as revealed in the bible. I think you go wrong when you make understanding this dependent on interpretation. Toksvig says the same thing - extremely fallible interpretation. I don't think the passages on homosexuality as a rule require much interpretation if you 'take each word at its primary literal meaning unless the context indicates otherwise'. Some knowledge of the original languages can help, but is not essential. What the text says is what counts. Other parts of the bible do need more careful explanation - divorce, why did God harden Pharoah's heart etc.

The revised interpretations are novel - the sin of Sodom being lack of hospitality goes back to 1954, and many relating to the other passages only 20 years or so. There hadn't been much difficulty getting at the meaning for the previous 2000 years. You can find examples of Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton being against gay marriage less than 20 years ago.

Because of the truth of these values it is OK for people like me to impose them on others where we have the power to do that.

Adultery is immoral, but not a crime. I don't think the bible mandates the government to make homosexuality a crime. I don't like it that some African countries have such laws often inherited from colonial times, but I also don't like western bullying to have them removed.

Israel under the law of Moses was a theocracy, but that, including the penalties of that law, ended 2000 years ago (if Christianity is true), and there is no theocracy now (or unless Islam is true and Judaism false). Notwithstanding some American evangelicals might wish there were!

 

[All uphill]

He [Jesus] answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

This defines marriage.

"You have heard that it was said, `You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

The thought may not be as serious as the act, but it still counts. Similarly with murder and anger. It's from the sermon on the mount.

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander.

The word translated 'fornication' is porneia, and this includes all the sexual sins listed in the OT, including but not limited to homosexuality. Piers Morgan came a cropper on this when interviewing Michael Brown when he (Morgan) claimed Jesus never dealt with homosexuality. Brown knew better!

Everyone has access to the law of God as revealed in the bible. I think you go wrong when you make understanding this dependent on interpretation. Toksvig says the same thing - extremely fallible interpretation. I don't think the passages on homosexuality as a rule require much interpretation if you 'take each word at its primary literal meaning unless the context indicates otherwise'. Some knowledge of the original languages can help, but is not essential. What the text says is what counts. Other parts of the bible do need more careful explanation - divorce, why did God harden Pharoah's heart etc.

The revised interpretations are novel - the sin of Sodom being lack of hospitality goes back to 1954, and many relating to the other passages only 20 years or so. There hadn't been much difficulty getting at the meaning for the previous 2000 years. You can find examples of Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton being against gay marriage less than 20 years ago.

Adultery is immoral, but not a crime. I don't think the bible mandates the government to make homosexuality a crime. I don't like it that some African countries have such laws often inherited from colonial times, but I also don't like western bullying to have them removed.

Israel under the law of Moses was a theocracy, but that, including the penalties of that law, ended 2000 years ago (if Christianity is true), and there is no theocracy now (or unless Islam is true and Judaism false). Notwithstanding some American evangelicals might wish there were!

Thanks for your reply @Unkraut

And if the bible isn't the word of a god?

 

[newfhouse]

Thanks for your reply @Unkraut

And if the bible isn't the word of a god?

 

[Unkraut]

And if the bible isn't the word of a god?

If the bible isn't the revelation of God, the creator, because he doesn't exist, then it can be simply ignored or you can do pick n mix. If the reverse is true it is folly to ignore it.

You then have an amoral universe. Worth quoting again from Dawkins: The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. (My bold)

Judeo-Christian ethics, sex ethics in the case of this thread then have no authority, are simply opinions handed down. You can no longer say homosexuality - or adultery - is immoral. It just is. It's how life evolved. By the same token you can no longer complain about homophobia (or any other ~phobia) because this too is the result of purposeless, random impersonal forces, not something chosen.

This liberation from the 10 commandments and other sundry laws has a price tag in that you also have to allow the same freedom to incestual relationships and paedophiles. I appreciate the vast majority of people still draw the line here, but there is no real logical reason to do so. The only real issue left is consent, not the desires.

The point with the Anglican Church is that if it is to stay faithful to its defining documents, its ethics have been given it 2000 years ago and are not up for change and negotiation. In the Anglican worldview they are God given. The society in which it finds itself in the West is increasingly following a line of anything goes, what the individual decides based on feelings and what makes them happy trumps the collective values of society handed down from previous generations either from religion or law. Weather vane ethics that follow the latest fad.

 

[Wobblers]

If the bible isn't the revelation of God, the creator, because he doesn't exist, then it can be simply ignored or you can do pick n mix. If the reverse is true it is folly to ignore it.

You then have an amoral universe. Worth quoting again from Dawkins: The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. (My bold)

Judeo-Christian ethics, sex ethics in the case of this thread then have no authority, are simply opinions handed down. You can no longer say homosexuality - or adultery - is immoral. It just is. It's how life evolved. By the same token you can no longer complain about homophobia (or any other ~phobia) because this too is the result of purposeless, random impersonal forces, not something chosen.

This liberation from the 10 commandments and other sundry laws has a price tag in that you also have to allow the same freedom to incestual relationships and paedophiles. I appreciate the vast majority of people still draw the line here, but there is no real logical reason to do so. The only real issue left is consent, not the desires.

The point with the Anglican Church is that if it is to stay faithful to its defining documents, its ethics have been given it 2000 years ago and are not up for change and negotiation. In the Anglican worldview they are God given. The society in which it finds itself in the West is increasingly following a line of anything goes, what the individual decides based on feelings and what makes them happy trumps the collective values of society handed down from previous generations either from religion or law. Weather vane ethics that follow the latest fad.

You are ijmplicilty claiming two things:
- that Christianity has a system of ethics
- that this ethical system is absolute.

To deal with the second first, it must be noted that there exists a large number of moral systems. That alone calls into question any claim that any one system is absolute, given that every system contradicts every other.

A rather more fundamental issue is one of consistency. Any ethical system must be consistent, in that its rules are universally applicable to all entities. (This is one of the fundamental ideas underpinning Kant's concept of the categorical imperative.) This includes god. Yet the bible is filled with many examples of a vengeful god smiting sinners: the biblical flood being perhaps the worst example. It hardily need be said that this rather contradicts the ten commandments, far less Christian morality. [1]

You've failed to make any case for either claim. As such, the rest of your arguments fail any test of reasonableness.

[1] And before you argue that god is entitled to such actions, no he's not. That is merely a "might is right" argument. Which is not a system of morals, as it cannoit be consistent. You're insisting that you possess an absolute ethical system: this requires universal application to all.