My, my… having been a priest in the C of E I’m sorry to see that things seem to have gone that wrong. As one who currently serves as a priest in America, it’s far worse in TEC. I could also make a similar point in that the clergy (if one can go so far as to call them clergy) make up the religious arm of the Democratic Party.

Ben Wilson, a spokesman for the Church of England, said Taylor was entitled to his opinion. But he added: “One would have thought that as an ordained Church of England minister he would appreciate that it is the political breadth of the church that enables it to engage with people across the nation.

Yes, there was a day in history when one would have thought that.  But reality has over taken us and that former day is long past.

Such breadth that those who, for very good reasons, are unable to accept women priests and bishops are being hounded out at worst, and forced to live in the margins like lepers at best…

Graham’s an Anglo-Catholic with strong pentecostal influences. An autodidact with a rather tough, deprived upbringing who has been variously a roadie, policeman, parish priest and now millionaire writer of children’s fantasy literature. If he jumps ship, the C of E will have lost an interesting, inspiring figure who could connect with a lot of people.

“I, for one, see a need for the Church to again be prophetic to the nation and not be afraid to stand up for what it believes”

So do I: God’s reign of justice, and respect for all those created in His image, demand that the Church does better and becomes a prophetic voice for the inclusion of women and gay people, particularly in the face of their oppression and marginalisation in so many parts of the world (Nigeria and Uganda spring to mind). Until its leadership grasps the necessity of this, it will of course continue to look afraid to stand up for what it believes.

For too long those such as our good Fr Mark have been framing the argument.  This is not about inclusion.  Those who are tempted to sin or who fall into sin and repent or hey or even those still in need of repentence are welcome in Christ’s body.  Where through mutual prayers and the sacremental graces they can become whole and free again.  Best of all there is no limit (before death) as to how many times God will turn His face towards those who cry to him in sorrowful repentence.  He is always merciful and He is always just.  In our dealing with other sinners we never, ever forget this.

What you are asking for is not inclusion it is that the Body of Christ bless sinful behavior.  That it bless in paticular a sinful behavior that in my eyes is not only against Biblical morality but in itself amounts to a form of idoltry and dare I say is at heart pagan worship. 

In my opinion our sexual behavior reflect what we believe about the nature of the Triune God and how He relates with His creation.  Homosexual sex negates that and is a reflection of a pagan view of the universe. 

So yes it is extremely important that Christians don’t allow words such as inclusion, bigotry, inequality, and love get used to hide the truth of this matter.  Souls are at stake.

Paula: “For too long those such as our good Fr Mark have been framing the argument”

I am very much afraid not! What irks me so much is that the people creating all the brouhaha are the people who 1) know least about homosexuality, and 2) are least affected by how the Church deals with gay people. When you later say “Homosexual sex… is a reflection of a pagan view of the universe,” you reinforce my first point. You may as well say, as the Church of the Middle Ages did, that “any sex is a reflection of a pagan view of the universe.”

Really, it is tiresome and just plain daft that the Church’s response to gay people should be so much framed by those with little that is sensible to offer on the issue. Can you imagine the Church discussing the role it would allow ethnic minority members to hold (and this has happened in our history), and yet for the discussion to take place exclusively amongst white people? It is bizarre in the extreme, and not the way to arrive at any sane policy.

Why not live dangerously and actually ask us gay Christians ourselves to be the principal people setting ecclesiastical policy about us? Then you could spend all that left-over energy on agitating about some of the awful things straight people do, most of which are far more pressing social issues.

Why not live dangerously and actually ask us gay Christians ourselves to be the principal people setting ecclesiastical policy about us? Then you could spend all that left-over energy on agitating about some of the awful things straight people do, most of which are far more pressing social issues.

Fr Mark, I will wholeheartedly agree with your latter sentence, providing that it is amended to the more inclusive “some of the awful things that all sinners do”.

As to the former sentence, for those who hold to a catholic understanding of human sexuality that’s like saying that we should live dangerously and let adulterous Christians (or polyamorous Christians) set ecclesiastical policy about themselves.  Or that gluttonous Christians should be asked to craft liturgies to bless their gluttony.  Or that…I think you get the point.

(While you’re on this self-definition kick, you might recall how many gay Christians have been willing to let “ex-gay” Christians define their sexuality.  I suppose the invitation to “live dangerously” really isn’t all that daring and inclusive.)

I am all for “continuing the conversation” regarding pastoral responses to gay Christians - under the rubric of, and recognizing the final authority of, catholic teaching - but the suggestion that the Church should be balkanized into having every self-defined segment make their own ecclesiastical policy is about the most anti-catholic thing that I could imagine.  To say nothing of being completely daft.

Fr. Mark,

I think your pleas are far too little and way too late.  I dont agree with your analysis at all. 

1. Putting non-celibate gays “in charge” of policy regarding gays is wrong headed on several levels.  First, I would not put actively drinking alcoholics in charge of the alcohol, either.  Second, there really is no such thing as “in charge of.”  That many protestant churches put such things up for a vote every few years does not mean that they really are a matter of “policy.”  What drives the Church is not policy, but teaching and mission which are unchanging.  Even the pope would admit he has not the authority to change fundamental moral teaching.  This is what gives the historic churches their enduring moral and spiritual force:  obedience.

2.  There really isn’t anything unimportant or peripheral about the various aspects of the sexual revolution which are all of a single piece.  That God has made us man and woman and that he is imaged in their marital union is fundamental, not peripheral teaching.  It is, in fact, primordial dating to Genesis and its antecedents into pre-history.  That marriage is oriented toward children and family is likewise primordial and irreducible.  Likewise, that sex is for bonding and procreation essential to family life is also fundamental. 

When a society is getting these basics wrong as ours is, all kinds of things begin to not work.  We have high divorce rates, abortion of millions, countless children brought up in emotional insecurity, rampant infidelity.  The price for the sexual revolution is overwhelming.

To set things aright, we have to get these basics right, first.

Father Mark,  first of all I don’t go around thinking of Christians as being black Christians or straight Christians or gay Christians or drunk Christians or embezzeling Christians.  I think of them as Christians.  Some who are struggling more than others with sin. 

I will keep my answer brief by simply posing this question to you.  Why do you think that Pagan cultures were more likely to be either indifferent, tolerant, encouraging, indulgent and/or celebratory towards homosexual behavior (mostly male homosexual behavior) in contrast to Judeo-Christian culture?

Part of what troubles me about T19 is that it is a place where it is not difficult to uncritically beat up on easy targets. The Church of England has throughout my 41 years of ordained life been an easy target. Having been back in England for a couple of years now, if you want a list of its problems and shortcomings I could give you one a mile long. I can well understand why there are people who are not comfortable with being part of it, although I am not sure there are adequate alternatives.

However, much more thought needs to be given before we set about sticking a knife into something, and how we perceive the Church of England is an excellent example. Yes, there are problems, mistakes, and difficulties that the church has and makes. Yes, there are times where I want to pull my hair out about the Church of England, the most recent of them being something that happened in the last few days in the context of the parish to which I now belong. But far from everything is bad, and there are some good and exciting things that are going on in this old church that give cause for present and future encouragement.

There is a huge amount of exciting stuff going on with younger people, with attempting to reach the unchurched, in the whole area of prayer and spirituality, in the development of the intellectual life of the church’s leadership, and these are just a few of the positives. Liturgy leaves something to be desired, but preaching isn’t bad. Cathedrals are fuller than they have ever been, and strong voices for Christ are heard on occasions in national life. The Church of England still has huge drawing power for festivals and national occasions, like Remembrance Sunday that was celebrated yesterday. There was standing room only in the parish where I was ministering, the largest congregation in living memory, and a richness of fellowship and life that had an excitement all of its own.

If you want some really painful stories about the Church of England I can give them to you, but I would also ask you to stop and listen to the good news about the Church of England as well.

Fr J: comparing gay people to alcoholics is the sort of thing that most people have grown out of by now. Your language is not far removed from the demeaning way in which Jews and black people were routinely referred to in Christian circles not long ago. I would remind you that the Anglican communion is supposed to be committed to listening to gay people’s experience: until you are open to doing that, well, surprise, surprise, we’re not going to get very far in helping you to a better understanding, are we?

Paula: “Why do you think that Pagan cultures were more likely to be either indifferent, tolerant, encouraging, indulgent and/or celebratory towards homosexual behavior (mostly male homosexual behavior) in contrast to Judeo-Christian culture?”

I don’t know that is true at all, actually; but I can tell you why Hebrew culture had such a taboo upon homosexual relations, as also on Onanism and childless women. The ancient Israelites saw themselves as needing to populate the land and outnumber their enemies. Therefore any sexual activity not geared to increasing the net number of Israelites was sinful; whereas any activity guaranteed to reduce the number of (potential) enemies, for example slaying and smiting them on a large scale, was to be encouraged. Why on earth would you feel it appropiate to extrapolate from that 3000 year-old situation to today? I don’t suppose you also hold that the ways in which women were regulated in the Old Testament period are still valid, do you?

Father Mark,  I am not able to give you the thoughtful reply you deserve at this time as I am a bit under the weather right now.  Please do not think I am putting you off if I do not reply for a couple of days.  I promise to get back to you ASAP. And if the elves don’t think the thread is starting to stray off topic.

But I will take time to say that your view that the Jewish sex purity laws were only for the need to populate the land and outnumber their enemies is as off base as saying the Catholic Church condemns artificial birth control and abortion so the Pope can rise up an army to subdue non Catholics at a moment’s notice.

Rather both these things have their roots in the nature of God. His relationship with us.  And how sex and religion are more intertwined than most Christians are comfortable with. 

Meanwhile please accept my prayers that you are well and enjoy a good day.