About gay vicars.

[VivaLeBeaver]

Now I admit I'm not religious so I don't really get the argument of breaking church law, etc.

But I think its crazy that in this day and age a vicar can be refused a licence to practice by the local bishop because he's gay.

I thought Christians were meant to be tolerant, compassionate, etc.

Its even more crazy when he wouldn't be working directly for the diocese but for the local hospital.

bbc news story

[Bardette]

It's not really to do with being modern or up to date. The society of the new testament was much more debauched than nowadays which is why Paul had to write about it.
The laws in the Bible were not written to spoil people's fun but to protect them from harm.

[Minnieisthedevilmouse]

Annie that made me laugh. Not seen that film for years. Dad made me watch it when a kid!

[headinhands]

protect them from harm

A few chapters on microbes and bacteria would have done a lot more for our well being than the homophobic stuff. I wonder if Dettol aren't missing a trick here, maybe they need to branch out into a product that stops people having sex with people of the same sex seeing as it's so protective.

[Minnieisthedevilmouse]

More debauched...? What weak imagination have I! Thought this fairly 'open'?!

Blimey I just heard several boards on mn implode in primness. Pearls scattering everywhere. Pants flying (ahem) in all directions.

[headinhands]

And what harm does homophobia protect people from??

[headinhands]

much more debauched

I thought we were royally screwed up and were all off to hell in a handcart?

[alemci]

no not at all head. Jesus came to transform the ot and he talks about it in mathew 5 v 17-19. Christians do question things and the bible hence the massive split in evangelical circles on such issues. Steve Chalke made waves.

Bardot you make alot of sense

[EdithWeston]

If you want gay clergy, then you need to go to the AngloCatholic churches, for it seems that nigh on all of them are gay (ask if they are Staggers).

[Catsize]

I have written 30,000 words on this very subject and it still baffles me.

[BuggersMuddle]

Meh. I'm an atheist, raised Catholic.

My view is that religions can pretty much hold whatever view they like (no thought police) but that behaviour must be law abiding. So you can consign people to hellfire and damnation from the pulpit, just don't punch them in the street or advocate that your followers do.

There are two reasons for this:

• I'm a big fan of free speech and in general, I think the percentage of hatemongers is low, so I would rather not curtail others.
  

• I would be fairly pleased if some outdated religious organisations, rather than modernising at a snail's pace, withered and died, with new organisations started afresh if that's what people need.
  

I do think the CoE needs to adopt a coherent position on both women and sexuality if it wants to survive in the UK. I do also recognise that part of the reason it doesn't do so is because of the wider world church although I do find myself wondering why they want to maintain cohesion with some of the ultra-conservatives.

[Minnieisthedevilmouse]

Money.

Has to be.

[headinhands]

Is Jesus happy with the violence in the OT?

[Realitybitesyourbum]

What I don't understand is the people who think homosexuality is wrong and sinful take their viewpoint from Leviticus and pauls preaching, both texts written in very specific times to very specific cultural issues.
How is it ok to widely proclaim those bits of the bible as we must believe them literally and not try to understand them in context and cultural background, but not do the same to the other bits of the bible that are just as clear but are widely ignored.

Barrette, do you believe in women are ceremonially unclean after their period? And that you must present two doves to be killed afterwards? Do you believe you have to present yourself to a priest if you have a boil? Jesus said if you want to follow him, give away all you have to the poor and follow him.....do you do all these things and believe them to be gods word? Do you cover your head when you are in church, Paul said that too. Why can you ignore some things and are fixated on others?

And I am a Christian....

[FairPhyllis]

OP this particular case has more to do with church polity and discipline than what individual Christians believe about gay relationships (this Anglican for example would like to see same sex marriages in church).

If you choose to be an ordained minister in a particular denomination then you are broadly agreeing to submit to church discipline for clergy. At the moment the rules for clergy in the Anglican church are that (among other things) you can't contract same sex marriages. In practice there are many gay partnered clergy who happily live together - the issue is that a line has been drawn, the line happens to be same sex civil marriage, and anyone who steps over it can expect to be disciplined. In general clergy are held to a higher standard of conduct than lay members.

The point of being a church (in the large scale sense) is that you only make big theological decisions like this collectively. The Anglican church is not yet at the point where it can collectively vote to approve gay marriage. What this priest has done is to force his bishop's hand on this issue - probably deliberately to generate support for the issue.

Making decisions or taking actions that change the theology and practice of the church unilaterally isn't how we work - a RC priest wouldn't be able to say 'Well I feel that priestly celibacy is not God's will after all despite having signed up for that so I'm getting married to a woman' and expect no comeback.

I have a lot of sympathy for gay clergy who are in this position - it's not fair on them or their partners not to be able to take advantage of the legal rights of marriage and I hope this case can be resolved in a way that lets this priest continue his priestly vocation. BUT - being ordained is hard. It often requires you to make big sacrifices.

(I am actually also pretty certain that if as an ordained Anglican minister you married an opposite sex partner in a civil ceremony without your bishop's agreement you would be subject to some kind of discipline.)

[settingsitting]

"What I don't understand about the conservative anti-gay, anti-women lot is why they are so hung up on these issues. Aren't there more important things to worry about, like declining congregations, poverty, assisted suicide and all sorts of other stuff? "

I try and be bothered about all of it. Keeps me busy!

[settingsitting]

Slavery in the bible was not how we think of slavery. When it is described in the bible, it is described how we would think of a servant.
I am sure that there is more to it that people can read up about elsewhere.

[alemci]

I did put a link earlier setting which drew that conclusion

[edamsavestheday]

but you can still beat your slave/servant almost to death, according to the OT. Which is nice.

[Bardette]

Protection from harm isn't just about germs and bacteria. Promiscuity is damaging to bodies, to minds and to hearts, doesn't matter if it is heterosexual or homosexual.
Loving, monogamous homosexual relationships were unknown in New Testament times, I actually have more problem with the priest living with another man than him being married.
People doing wrong is damaging to themselves and others - if it wasn't for promiscuity and illegal drug use for example ,the spread of AIDS would stop.
You have to look at the reasoning behind the rules and make decisions on modern situations based on that.
Homosexuality within a loving relationship is very different from the type of thing referred to in the Bible.

[settingsitting]

Loving, monogamous homosexual relationships were unknown in New Testament times

It cant have been because of what is written in the new testament.

[edamsavestheday]

Saying promiscuity causes AIDS is perilously close to blaming HIV+ people for the disease. AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease. Some of the people who acquire AIDS will have had lots of partners, some will have had only one. (And what business is it how many they have had, anyway? I had a few boyfriends before I met dh, does that make me 'promiscuous'? We've been married 17 years, does that make me not promiscuous despite a promising start?)

[Bardette]

If people were monogamous then HIV would not be able to spread.

[alemci]

I think the more partners you have the more you leave yourself open to sexual diseases etc and there was a possible
link to cervical cancer for women who became sexually active at a young age.

I think sex has become devalued in modern society and is seen as recreational rather than an important commitment to another person.

[BackOnlyBriefly]

I feel some sympathy for the Vicar, but not a great deal since he knew what the church was and was/is ok with supporting it as long as he gets to break the rules. All he has to do is leave and get a proper job.

Love the attempts to disown the OT by the way. I'm ok with that too. After all that's the end of the 10 commandments isn't it. They were in the OT with all the silly bits that no one takes seriously now.

[BackOnlyBriefly]

If people were monogamous then HIV would not be able to spread.

If people didn't have children there'd be no more childhood diseases. I blame parents.

if god hadn't invented disease....