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.

Why does ST feel entitled enough to publicly criticise a religion she doesn't belong to? Would she do it to Islam, Or Judaism?
You could have added Catholicism to this list, OP and the reason would be the same. She's not having a cosy chat with Archbishop Nichols or his oppos in Scotland and Northern Ireland, because the Church of England is the state church. I think we're all pretty much in agreement that it shouldn't be - and as a side benefit it would be able to continue its policies against gay marriage (for as long as a majority of its own members wanted it to) without Sandi turning up to have tea with the Archbishop. Win-win.

Until that happens, she has a right to challenge 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.
When Toksvig came out, she and her family were subject to death threats (and this was before social media). I strongly doubt the CofE's policy makes her feel unsafe, but she is familiar with dangerous homophobia.

well, you learn something new everyday. I think calling someone 'wet' is pretty mild. I didn't say 'spineless' after all. Which I could have done. Fancy being the head of a worldwide religious institution, and thinking that you're at the beck and call of any celebrity that wants some air time!

Yes I agree the founding roots of the CoE are quite ridiculous, spiritually speaking. But weren't the French kings also appointed to lead by God, in that Catholic country?

I found Charles's recent swearing in speech by the Clerk of the Counsel quite illuminating re: the monarch's religious significance:

"By the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of his other realms and territories King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the faith, to whom we do acknowledge all faith and obedience with humble affection, beseeching God, by whom kings and queens do reign, to bless his majesty with long and happy years to reign over us. God save the King!"

I think it’s terrific that such an intelligent and measured person like Sandy Toksvig is asking all of the hard questions. After all, these are the very same questions that thousands of members of the C of E, and Catholics for that matter, are asking.

Surely any citizen of the uk is entitled to have a chat with the Archbishop of Canterbury in his role as head of the established church, if he deigns to meet with them? Why on earth shouldn’t ST meet with him or are gay people excluded from public debate?

For that matter, if the “greatest of all these is love” why doesn’t that encompass gay people?

The Rev Richard Cole’s has written a very good article on this subject in the Independent.

Why so sneery and defensive op?

Just say you're a hateful homophobe OP. Everyone can tell anyway.

Maybe she'll let him try to change her mind about being a lesbian.

Equal opportunities for all, Sandy.

Surely the Christian church is the representation of Jesus on earth?

And who did Jesus embrace during his time here: the poor, the disabled, the ostracised? All of the elements of society who were rejected by the establishment.

Yes, it's one of those things that makes me a republican.

I go through my life not thinking about it for the vast majority of the time and then hear something like that, or the National Anthem, and actually listen to the words...

...and cringe.

Fine. So let's take religion right out of government and the state altogether. Can't come quickly enough. Sick of all the bloody moralising you hear in the lords and that this is c of e situation is even a discussion. Leave bigots to themselves (I also realise the majority of Christians are not in step with the c of e either)

Are they expected to change these views because one part of the church, in very recent times, has become Liberal?

No, they should because it's not the fucking year 1300 any more.

Fancy being the head of a worldwide religious institution, and thinking that you're at the beck and call of any celebrity that wants some air time!
I'd imagine that Welby is acutely aware that he has (at minimum) an optics problem on this issue, and that ignoring Toksvig's request would just have made things worse.

However, you can presumably make your views known via your own vicar that you don't think he should have met with her?

Yep, same here. Hard to believe this is how the State operates in 21st century Britain.

Knoblauch · Today 12:25
Just say you're a hateful homophobe OP. Everyone can tell anyway“

Quite. I know only two Christians. Awful, hateful, judgemental people, both of them.

Are you really this silly or just being goady?

Welby doesn't think he is at anyone's beck and call. Welby wanted to do this interview because it aligns with the plans currently in place to communicate the thoughts of the head of the CofE.

Whether you like it or not, the Anglican Church is founded on the Bible, which had certain views on this. Are they expected to change these views because one part of the church,

The church has long reviewed and changed its views and how much it is 'founded on the bible'. Divorce? Tattoos? I'm sure I remember there being something about shellfish?

Why should it's views on same sex relationships be any different?

Jesus was very big on his followers working to make society a more equal place for everyone

Jesus was very big on his followers working to make society a more equal place for everyone

He didn't attempt to do this through politics or attempting to physically overthrow the rulers of the time, though.

Im atheist so obviously biased but I suspect that the loving lovely, hippy Jesus was nothing of the sort.

What? Jesus was a highly pitical
figure. He rejected both the Roman authorities and the Jewish leaders of the time. He didn’t use the political
system to achieve his life’s mission, but nonetheless his teachings carried with them highly political implications which is why his life ended in a political execution.

political figure

The Puritans were very devout Christians. If they thought the king was appointed by God they wouldn't have beheaded him.

@Sportswomansrest72**

He didn’t use the political
system to achieve his life’s mission, but nonetheless his teachings carried with them highly political implications which is why his life ended in a political execution.

I agree with this. Not using the political system I correlate with not being political. Nonetheless there absolutely were political implications and I wouldn't, indeed don't, deny this.

Maybe just keep your homophobia to yourself 🙄

The Puritans were very devout Christians. If they thought the king was appointed by God they wouldn't have beheaded him.

@Abhannmor indeed.

Fwiw I fail to see how questioning whether a self-appointed non-Christian celebrity has a role is deciding Anglican policy is homophobic. But do carry on.