Why is Sandi Toksvig so interested in the C of E?

[Sausagenbacon]

and why does Justin Welby bother with her?

www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/26/sandi-toksvig-laments-untenable-church-of-england-stance-on-gay-marriage

She's not a christian, but feels entitled to have a chummy chat with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is wet enough to indulge her.

I'm not particularly invested in the subject, and I am an Anglican, but I do think there is something frankly, pitiful about it.

I expect an article in next week's Guardian with a sad-faced Sandy talking about how the local Mosque/Synagogue won't marry her and her partner, and how 'unsafe' she now feels. Or not.

I haven't said that your experiences have no value. On the contrary, I've said that I'm glad that you have found meaning in whatever you have been through.However, I have also said that you can't extrapolate from your own experience to assume that everyone finds meaning in their suffering. Sometimes it is empty weeks meaningless. I don't see why acknowledging that should make your suffering any greater. Unless it is making you doubt whatever you have told yourself, and I'm sure that your faith is stronger than that.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves, it the accusation that I am minimising suffering, in finding value in my own suffering that suggests my own suffering has no value. Just because I have faith does not mean I don't suffer! Or have not suffered. And just because people don't find the meaning in their own suffering currently does not mean they don't have any potential to find meaning in it ever. There is a time and place though to discuss this. It's often best not to personalise it all too much , I think.

@faretheewell that's a very simplistic and reductive view of mental ill health - the bottom line is that we don't actually know what causes and perpetuates it. Genetics, environment, experiences and substance misuse all have a part fo play, as does inflammation. It's a complex picture.

How is it simplistic @pointythings? The body is not simplistic, the mind body interrelationship is not simplistic. Just because I acknowledge there is a relationship does not mean I think it is simplistic or that we fully understand it.

It seems that you are continually looking for fault with what I am saying. Is there any point in me defending, explaining or even having a conversation with you? If what I say is so readily dismissed.

But you're the one personalising this, not me. I have passed no comment on how much you have or haven't suffered. How could I possibly know? I am genuinely glad that you have been able to find meaning in your suffering. However, I am really struggling to understand how you can be so blind to the fact that many other people do not find any meaning in suffering and that their lives are not enriched by it in any way. And I also can't understand why you don't see that it is offensive to imply that they could find meaning in it if only there wasn't something wanting in them, e.g. a lack of faith or whatever.

I am making no judgements about your life whatsoever. I am genuinely happy for you that your faith has clearly helped you to find your way through some difficult times, and I respect that. However, I'm also quite shocked by your apparent lack of ability to understand that it simply isn't like this for everyone. Many people never find meaning in their suffering, and that isn't because of anything lacking in them, or because they haven't tried hard enough to find it, or because they haven't had enough faith or whatever. That is simply their experience, and it would be nice if you could respect that too.

@pointythings

So for me, it is not about 'reducing pain to the physical' as you said with regard to Jesus' healing of the blind man because what is physical and what is mental is not so clear cut. Also just because we as human beings do not fully understand something does not mean there is no hope. Hope, in fact, exists exactly in these kinds of situations because otherwise we would be talking about known facts.

@faretheewell my issue with the story of the blind man is not about whether his affliction was physical or otherwise, it's far more about the performative nature of his healing - he was rendered blind so that God could show off Jesus' powers of healing. That is a massive moral failing.

But you're the one personalising this, not me. I have passed no comment on how much you have or haven't suffered. How could I possibly know? I am genuinely glad that you have been able to find meaning in your suffering. However, I am really struggling to understand how you can be so blind to the fact that many other people do not find any meaning in suffering and that their lives are not enriched by it in any way. And I also can't understand why you don't see that it is offensive to imply that they could find meaning in it if only there wasn't something wanting in them, e.g. a lack of faith or whatever.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves
I'm doing nothing of the sort. You are projecting a personalisation upon me and implying that me having my own experiences and talking about them means that I judge others against them. I don't. Just talking about possibilities. You can't judge the suffering of others either, in either way.

Some people will relate with my experiences. Some people will relate with what you have described. Some people will also possibly change their idea over what is possible reading either or both our accounts.

But nobody is denying that it's possible for people to find meaning in their suffering. What you seem unwilling to acknowledge is that, just because it has been possible for you doesn't mean that it's possible for everyone.

If I have misunderstood, and you do in fact acknowledge that many people will, through no fault of their own, never feel that their lives have been in the slightest bit enriched by their suffering, then I will stand corrected and I apologise. However, if you do accept that fact, then I would ask you why you think God would allow such suffering to be inflicted on those individuals, and how allowing such pointless suffering reflects the actions of a loving God.

he was rendered blind so that God could show off Jesus' powers of healing. That is a massive moral failing.

@pointythings

Was he? Or maybe he just was blind not because of his or his parents' sin but due to the laws of cause and effect which whilst being very powerful Jesus' power can overcome. Jesus' healing in this manner, at this time highlights all this. So is meaningful. Like if you designed a complex system, which was good but if one thing went wrong everything was out of sync. Timing and order would be crucial in terms of putting it right. Each individual part might not have any idea concerning what was going on.

And you did seem to make a distinction between physical and mental pain here:

You are also reducing pain purely to the physical by describing it as a marker of 'something wrong'.

What you seem unwilling to acknowledge is that, just because it has been possible for you doesn't mean that it's possible for everyone.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves, so I have to apologise for my hope? This is why I feel hope is offensive to people and IRL I am careful about voicing it. Which I think is sad.

I'm not sure if you have a problem with reading comprehension or what. Where on earth have I said that you should apologise for your hope?

I'm not asking you to apologise for anything. You can hope that others will find meaning in their suffering all you like. I'm not in the slightest bit offended by that.

What does offend me is your reluctance to acknowledge that, in some people's experience, suffering is just that. Suffering, without any meaning or life enriching aspect to it at all. Refusing to acknowledge this minimises their very real lived experience. Suggesting that it's somehow their fault they have been unable to find meaning because they have been lacking in faith merely adds insult to injury.

You don't have to apologise for your beliefs at all. Your faith clearly helps you and I respect that. However, I am irritated by your lack of respect for the experiences of other people.

What does offend me is your reluctance to acknowledge that, in some people's experience, suffering is just that. Suffering, without any meaning or life enriching aspect to it at all. Refusing to acknowledge this minimises their very real lived experience. Suggesting that it's somehow their fault they have been unable to find meaning because they have been lacking in faith merely adds insult to injury

But I do acknowledge their experience. And thoroughly believe that's what it is. Take it at face value. But I can hope for something more positive for them in the future. It ain't over till it's truly over. And even then the Roman Catholics believe in further possibility for a transformative experience even after death...

But I would not voice that to someone in the midst of suffering^. That would be something I would pray for. And only talk generally about. Not to a person in the midst of their suffering without prior knowledge they would find this helpful. Someone in the midst of suffering often only needs affirmation and support, initially at least. I am only talking about this because this is a general thread where more private thoughts for contemplation can be aired in a relatively safe space.

Well, it's good to hear that you wouldn't voice it to someone who was suffering, at least. If you're hoping that they're going to somehow find meaning in an afterlife of some kind, for which there are no guarantees, then I guess I can't argue with that. You're entitled to your beliefs. I don't share them.

I think voicing a belief that it will somehow all make sense in a glorious afterlife is different, however, from claiming that our current lives are somehow enriched by suffering, which is what you seemed to be saying earlier. Perhaps I misunderstood, I'm not sure. While I accept that it is undoubtedly true for some people that suffering somehow helps to enrich their current lived experience, that categorically isn't the case for everyone, so I think you have to be careful in voicing this belief even in a general sense, because it can seem as if you're trying to minimise the horror of what some people actually have to live through. And your belief that they will somehow feel better about it in the afterlife will offer no comfort at all to those who don't believe that there is anything after death.

Added to which, of course, are the various views held by many Christians - I'm not making assumptions about you personally - about who gets to enjoy that glorious afterlife when it all suddenly makes sense and who doesn't. Many of your fellow believers would argue that you only get to partake in that if you sign up to a specific set of beliefs in the here and now. Which, all in all, leaves an awful lot of people at the end of it all with meaningless suffering that achieved nothing at all.

I think voicing a belief that it will somehow all make sense in a glorious afterlife is different, however, from claiming that our current lives are somehow enriched by suffering, which is what you seemed to be saying earlier. Perhaps I misunderstood, I'm not sure. While I accept that it is undoubtedly true for some people that suffering somehow helps to enrich their current lived experience, that categorically isn't the case for everyone, so I think you have to be careful in voicing this belief even in a general sense, because it can seem as if you're trying to minimise the horror of what some people actually have to live through. And your belief that they will somehow feel better about it in the afterlife will offer no comfort at all to those who don't believe that there is anything after death.

You were right in that I do certainly believe people's lives can be enriched whilst experiencing (in spite of/ even because of) suffering is correct. I have lived it and stand as an example in that respect. And I really do not believe I am anything special. So yes, I also do have hope others can experience as I have.

Beliefs do come into it. How we frame our experiences and find purpose within them makes a huge difference. It's why I feel offended at people suggesting there is no meaning to be had. I have experience being 'written off'. That is not nice.

The flip side is, of course, minimisation. I have experienced that also. People quite close to me forget sometimes I have had, not insignificant, cancer. Or say silly things like it was worse for my DH. I don't blame them because I don't share my suffering much with them because I find it makes it worse to 'stay in that space' and more of a predominant experience. Doesn't mean the suffering isn't there.

Last post @MrsBennetsPoorNerves

We've got badly sidetracked in any case - personally, back on topic, I'm glad that Sandi Toksvig has raised the C of E's attitude towards equal marriage with Justin Welby. If a religion has the privilege of being the national faith, that should come with duties and responsibilities too - which should include abiding by the laws of the land. Same sex marriage is legal in the UK, end of.

That said, I do think that disestablishment is the best solution here because no country should have a state religion that has a say in government. Sandi Toksvig has already pointed out that the only other nation that does this is Iran, and do we want to emulate them?

I wouldn't care much if it came to schism either, though. Let the African branch of Anglicanism do its Stone Age worst. They'll catch up at some point, especially since their stance on homosexuality does not come from roots of African culture but from roots of colonialism. They'll see that at some point.

@pointythings
The House of Lords is a House of Lords. Does inherited privilege, or royal warranted privilege, have a place in law making? As long as they do, I can see why the church does as the church has been there commenting on what the royals/ gentry have been up to since time memorial. It serves as a balance to them.

The House of Lords IMO serves as a balance to whoever the populace vote for. Which as the latest shower show is much needed.

It's not enough and all dysfunctional, in of itself, of course. But that's the history. And it's not easy to unravel and solve.

Personally I would prefer for the House of Lords to be replaced with an elected chamber, but only if the UK moves to Proportional Representation. The last thing this country needs is more of the same.

As someone who was born in a country where the nobility barely exists any more, much less has any privilege, I want the current HoL gone - even though in the last few years they have acted as a sensible check and balance against a Tory government gone mad.

And within the church there are very definitely cultural and political influences. As the discussion upthread concerning Welby's motives illustrated.

But this is not simply solved by obliterating the church. The problems are cultural as well as belief based. You can't solve them by sweeping beliefs under the carpet.

We don't need to obliterate the church. It just needs to stop being a pillar of the state and operate in the same way it does in other countries.

We do need laws to be secularly based. That doesn't mean legislation is going to be perfect; it's not. What it does do is take the 'because God says' out of the process, and that will be a big step forward.

People can believe what they want, but the law must be above belief.

People can believe what they want, but the law must be above belief.

It is in one sense. It operates no matter the beliefs of individuals. The laws that are common across societies are also common in religious beliefs. You cannot divorce law from beliefs in that respect.

There are only two possibilities. Either God is powerless to prevent human suffering or he chooses to let it happen. It has to be one or the other, unless it is the third option which is that God doesn't exist. I don't see how the rest of your comments address this issue in the slightest.

So, my answer to you was basically that God, in the form of the Holy Spirit, is working to minimise and heal suffering and that also Christians have a duty to help those in need to further reduce it. So God is neither powerless or choosing to let it happen unchecked. My example of Jesus healing a man born blind was aimed at those saying God inflicts suffering because of an individual's sin. The fact that bad things happen to good people is enough to tell us this isn't the case. The other point is was trying to make is that sometimes our internal pain is self inflicted and can act as a catalyst for a change in behaviour, towards ourselves or others.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves 👆

The laws that are common across societies are also common in religious beliefs. You cannot divorce law from beliefs in that respect.

This is only true up to a point. Certainly in Western nations, the laws common to religious beliefs (i.e. anti LGBT, subjugation of women) have diverged from the laws that are enacted in society, where we now have laws around equality. This is a good thing and we should not allow religion to force society to backtrack on this.

Changes of this nature are also happening outside the West, albeit at a slower pace. I see this as fundamental human goodness overcoming the ancient prejudices embedded in religion. It would be nice if religions adapted, but that is a bit like wishing a giant ocean cargo vessel had a shorter braking distance. It'll take time to overcome the inertia.

I see this as fundamental human goodness overcoming the ancient prejudices embedded in religion. It would be nice if religions adapted, but that is a bit like wishing a giant ocean cargo vessel had a shorter braking distance. It'll take time to overcome the inertia.

Christ addressed ancient prejudices, let's not forget. He was born to an unmarried mother, in a stable with the animals and placed in a feeding trough. Look at who He defended, who He healed. He was put to death as a result of a campaign from the religious leaders at the time. Christians see Christ as God. It is the human relationship and understanding of God that is lacking not the whole belief system.