To think that the C of E church should not take a step back in time

[2beesornot2beesthatisthehoney]

So the bishops have made a statement that sex belongs only in a heterosexual marriage not in a gay relationship, marriage or otherwise , not in a civil partnership and not outside marriage. WTF
In an age where many have turned their back on religion aibu to think that they will alienate even more people
IMO the c of e used to be a broad welcoming church: it has become more and more conservative and evangelical in the last 10 years I don’t recognise it anymore.

I wonder how many translations "the bible" has gone through before being quoted here ? And how many are valid (Putting aside the "how many books in the bible" fun quiz for Mormons ....)

At least Islam learned from that balls up and insists on it being true in Arabic only ....

www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/25/church-england-laughing-stock-among-sex-obsessed-nation-senior/amp/

I mean the idea that Cos are okay because people might not have sex is kind of ridiculous.

Do they think friends are getting CPs or something?

Civil partnerships should be 'sexually abstinent friendships', says Church of England

What universe are they living in?

What universe are they living in?

Gods Universe. As are we all.

Amen.

The Anglican church, being a 'broad church' means that it allows for a broad range of views, hence tying itself in knots over stuff like this. You're never going to get agreement, whereas other denominations, like the URC or Methodists, being 'narrower' can at least form a coherent view on these matters.

The HoB statement also states that straight marriage is the best place to bring up kids, but they acknowledge there are other situations where this can take place, especially where the alternative is long periods in institutional care.
So all the single parents - for whatever reason (widowed / left an abusive relationship / adultery by partner / etc), you're only just one better than putting your kids in care.....
Nice.

The church is way too obsessed with sex, and they need to think through (properly) the implications of what they say and how people will be affected.

The CofE chuch I go to is welcoming, but it saddens me that not all parts of the wider church are the same, but I understand why. I don't agree, but I get it. Whether it will ever change, who knows. It might be better for the Anglican communion to split, becuase it's not an issue that's going away any time soon, and kicking the ball further an further down the road (so to speak) doesn't help.

*Gods Universe. As are we all.

Amen.*

Sure. If you say so.

But not one where people are getting civil partnerships with their friends and gay people are staying happily celibate.

Almost 3,000 people, including nearly 800 members of the clergy, have signed an open letter to the archbishops of Canterbury and York, saying guidance issued by bishops last week saying sex is only for married heterosexuals has made the Church of England a “laughing stock”.

The signatories express “anger and disappointment” at the bishops’ “pastoral statement”, which says a same sex or opposite sex civil partnership should be celibate.

At least some of the clergy have some sense.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/27/laughing-stock-letter-from-clergy-attacks-c-of-es-guidance-on-sex

So updates to my original post last week. As reported above and I missed at the time, an open letter was sent to the Synod criticising the Guidance and the timing of it ( in the middle of a debate about love and relationships ) by a large number of laity, clergy and retired bishops (not sure if any bishops in post signed it).

This morning Welby and Sentamu have apologised for the timing of the guidance, although not it appears its content.

So not really an apology at all. When you consult on something eg during this relationship enquiry, you should have an open mind on the outcome until it is over. If they (the bishops ) already have a closed mind to the content of the guidance by not apologising for the content then it’s clear that it’s not a consultation at all just a whitewash pretending to be a consultation

So the C of E church is still the laughing stock it was accused of being earlier this week and still burying their heads in the sand and not living in the real world concerned about things that really matter.

So the C of E church is still the laughing stock it was accused of being earlier this week and still burying their heads in the sand and not living in the real world concerned about things that really matter.

If you want something relevant to the real world, maybe religion isn't the answer.

My original point was Rossetti that whilst I am an atheist, the church is important to some ( lots of ) people especially in times of crisis and celebration. As the established church that also has a great influence on education in this country it should not be so out of step with today’s society.
Or it shouldn’t be the established church.

We really shouldn't have a state religion in the first place.

If people want to belong to an organisation that moves with the times, the - any - church is a strange choice ...

It seems the URC has though......

I read the guidance when it came out and it was very ambiguous. They're having to walk a very difficult path because they're trying to keep people in the west happy whilst also realising that most of the Anglican Communion is in Africa now. Despite what they said about celibacy at the end of the statement they made clear that they'd support people who weren't celibate.

They do have gay priests. My Gran died and she was supported wonderfully by her priest who was gay and his civil partner who lived in the rectory with him. Seems odd that what the C of E does here, in practice does differ so much from what they do in practice re gay priests.

The thing is though, if people don't like it they have the choice not to be CofE. The Unitarians are entirely gay friendly. I suspect half the people complaining are and never have been and never will be Christians so are largely irrelevant to the CofE in practice. Religious freedom is incredibly important so it does make me uncomfortable when things like this encroach on that. Wokeness is becoming quasi religious at the mo and has some of the hallmarks if oppressive religions which is worrying.

@ThePussyofMrsSlocombe

It's a bit of a shock to hear it, but individual c of e churches are funded by their congregations. I can't speak for the church you went to, but many are closing because of lack of money. If you can't afford to turn on the lights and heating, you can't do much with volunteers. C of E is notorious for the '£5 in the collection every now and again' kind of giving, which doesn't keep the heating on.
If he's like anyone I know, he'll have sweated buckets over that sermon!

I think that society often confuses the Church of England and Christianity.

Christianity is simply a movement of those who follow Jesus Christ - Son of God - there are core beliefs which haven't changed for 2,000+ years. It is based on a personal relationship with God - made possible by the death of Christ on the cross. That core relationship and beliefs are not particularly complex and the Bible outlines the way to live.

The Church of England (CofE) is a human made up institution which is mainly good but has bad bits as well - The C of E doesn't define Christianity - it is a framework within which people worship God. It is a very helpful framework, but it doesn't define Christianity...

It is therefore good to see that the C of E is making a statement that is in accordance with Holy scripture - that is not to take a backward step - but to positively affirm its core purpose of supporting and promoting the Bible and how God says to live.

The Bible doesn't set out to be all things to all people - but to show the right way to live - will that upset some and offend some - yes, because we live in a self-centred world where people are rapid to take offence - in a me, me, me culture where if our every whim isn't met then we cry foul. So, the C of E should not be setting out to 'move with the times' / to 'fit in with current culture' - in fact the very opposite is true, it is counter-cultural - Christians are called to be in the world, but not of the world. To do anything else would be to devalue everything it stands for and make it pointless...

Yes, there are those who see the C of E and the Bible as pointless and not relevant to them - that is the great thing about choice, they have that choice - however the flip-side of choice, is that others choose differently.

Despite a message that is increasingly promoted - the Bible is not anti-homosexuals, it is not anti any set of people - it is pro and anti various activities... Therefore the fact that someone considers themselves to be homosexual is not against the teaching of the bible - the homosexual act though is. This is why celibate homosexuals are not prohibited where active homosexuals are.

I think that society often confuses the Church of England and Christianity.

I think it's more a case that it's the Church of England that has confused itself with Christianity.

I think the article OP posted misrepresented the statement a bit.
The statement was for guidance for Christians, not every person of all faiths and none.
Not everyone believes in God the father, son and Holy Spirit. If you become a Christian, the Bible teaches you to submit your life to God, as a response to how Jesus gave his life for you on the cross, and in the hope of enjoying eternal life in the presence of God after death.
Sexuality is only a small part of what Christians are asked to submit to God. Also finances, life plans, everything basically.
The teaching on sexuality can be difficult for heterosexual people too- single people or married people in very challenging or lonely circumstances.
But the guidance is for Christians who believe in God who loves them and will bless them for these actions.
If you don’t believe in God there is no point following this guidance, why would you, it wouldn’t make sense?
It’s like people being shocked that a Jewish organisation has written guidance about continuing circumcision for Jewish people or a Muslim organisation has written about Muslim believers praying 5x a day or not eating pork (or for that matter about sexuality)
Why is it a surprise that Christianity is not changing to fit the times...if most people don’t believe in the God of the Bible this is not relevant for them anyway?

We don't need to change the minds of those who run the church. We just need to distance ourselves from it. Remove their power to interfere and let them get on with it for however many years the church has left.

But they should not be involved in government with views such as those. (it's time we gave full democracy a try anyway)

"Therefore the fact that someone considers themselves to be homosexual is not against the teaching of the bible" lol I can't be bothered to go through all that again. Read the recent thread or read your bible. You ought to anyway. Won't your god be offended to find that you never bothered to open it?

Yes, there are those who see the C of E and the Bible as pointless and not relevant to them

The c of e is the state religion. Some of their bishops have seats in the house of lords and also campaigned against marriage equality. It is relevant to everyone.

lasttrain, the point being made which you are missing totally is that it is not the being attracted to someone of the same sex that is considered a sin, it is the sexual act. There are many celebrate Christians both heterosexual and homosexual. The point is that sex is not the be all and end all in life and it is perfectly possible to exist without it. I was single and celibate for 33 years and thought I might be for life. That did not make me unhappy. As a Christian, I tried to live my life in as Christlike a manner as possible and celibacy outside of marriage was part of that. Christians who believe that are not homophobic any more than heterophilic. If they act towards others with anything other than love then they are not being Christlike. This does not however mean that we have to agree with how others live their lives, any more than you have to agree with how a Christian lives their life.

This is why celibate homosexuals are not prohibited where active homosexuals are.

Well that's okay then. 🤨 So long as your not an "active homosexual"

"Christians who believe that are not homophobic any more than heterophilic. "

If you believe that gay relationships are wrong and gay people should be celibate just because they're gay you're homophobic.