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.

exactly this.

I think this speech outlines the dilemmas within the C of E well.

www.churchofengland.org/media-and-news/press-releases/general-synod-bishop-londons-living-love-and-faith-presentation

I said it upthread and I think it is worth saying again. There are many Christians who won't be particularly comforted by atheistic arguments regarding this or any other issue pertaining to the church. Simply because by definition atheists have no care over what could be considered 'Godly' or 'right with God'.

Yet, I passionately believe the church needs to welcome all people - we are all equally human and if the church's perspective is ever to be understood by wider society this doesn't happen by exclusion.

Societies can change very rapidly. And this can create new divisions amongst some as well as greater connection amongst others. You only need to look at how quickly the definitions of what it means to be a woman or man have changed with regards to recent trans activism. Yet are people who struggle with understanding these new (to them) perspectives trans phobic? Should they be shunned by wider society?

I do think there is a deep longing within us for unity yet we do have different perspectives, different experiences and differing physiologies. No one can know exactly what it is like to experience life as someone else and how this can change a perspective or belief or lack of belief.

So the only way to move forward with all this is in love and respect for each other and hope that this is possible.

My personal belief is that God is love - and I do not think that excludes the love between same sex couples. I don’t think that allowing gay couples to marry in church would take anything away from my marriage (which also happened in church) - quite the opposite, in fact. I think that allowing gay marriage in church would celebrate the love people have for each other, and I cannot see how that is a bad thing.

A faith that is more about rules than love doesn’t sound like a faith I’d want to be part of.

@SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius, I agree. But the question is how do you then love people with vastly opposing views and bring them together in one church? Keeping the dialogue open. With a hope for unity?

Yes. Love is the answer. And respect and hope. But how would that look in a church which is available to 'whosoever will believe...'?

And my marriage wasn't even in a church. But is recognised by the (C of E) church.

There are plenty of issues which individual Christians disagree on. But to come together we must put that aside and consider what is agreed upon.

Otherwise there is just further division and fragmentation, physically and spiritually. Which isn't really an environment where we can love and care for each other very easily.

I really hope I didn’t come across as judgemental, @echoesacrosstheether - I think some Christians believe that allowing gay marriage in church would in some way dishonour or taint their church weddings - I was trying to say that that isn’t the universal view even among people who did get married in church.

I hope that makes sense.

No worries @SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius. I understand this. It has been a concern I think voiced by certain groups.

I can also see how people who are trying very hard to ascertain what God wants for their lives and studying the Bible can come up with opposing views. It is complex. Which makes me think of how context changes what the right thing to do is. God remaining the same but acting according to what is right in individual situations, all reported through the perspectives of individual people and interpreted by individual people. Not easy for a human being to predict. We have to grown and learn in understanding. So I sympathise with other points of view too.

But we also have to be careful. People of the church have justified hideous acts upon 'heretics' in order that it might 'bring repentance'.

@Avalavalanche
Well, I didn't and that's the last I'll say on the matter. Maybe try to actually read my posts properly and I didn't link their website, the mistake was citing my source material.

What do you worry is going to happen? Lynch mobs and the like?

@Bruuuuhhhh hadn't thought of that. Was mainly referring to mistakes from the past in that post. But yes, conflict can easily escalate. Protests can get violent. History, including recent history, shows us that. People who would otherwise be open to the teachings of the church can be totally excluded and alienated from them. Equally some people are happy to sow decision and hostility amongst church members. There is balance to be had but sadly this is not easy.

Sow division not decision.

There are some who don't like that they've decided to bless same-sex couples. Should they not have allowed that, in order to appease them?

religionnews.com/2023/02/16/we-cannot-walk-with-you-unless-you-repent-african-archbishops-tell-church-of-england/

@toffeecrisps I can't tell whether or not you're being serious. Given the persecution of LGBT people in many countries on the African continent, no, we should not appease them. Let them schism. In fact I would support stronger action internationally for countries that outlaw homosexuality. It's not 1523 any more.

I easnt saying we should, I was responding to a poster who seems to think the CofE shouldn't allow same sex marriage in case it causes a schism.

@toffeecrisps fair enough, I fully agree. Let's just do schism and get it over with.

@pointythings & @toffeecrisps

Sorry helps if I type a post!

But schism? I can see the dilemma. It might make it very different for the people in those countries where the church is increasingly conservative. The church cannot ignore this. So they want to keep a continued dialogue.

But anyway they are going to bless same sex couple relationships.

@echoesacrosstheether I think there is a place here for the international community, to be honest. While national self determination is important, that has to be balanced with how a country treats its people - and that means looking at human rights. It's why I feel that Russia and China should never have been allowed to host the Olympics, and Qatar should not have been allowed to host the World Cup. Meanwhile we need some proper dialogue about how we treat people fleeing persecution because of their sexuality (the UK way of doing it is not an example to follow). There isn't an easy fix, but the direction of travel needs to be towards promoting human rights everywhere.

The church don't want to exclude anyone as far as I can tell. The problem is the teachings are not straightforward, there are complexities and not everyone agrees.

I sympathise, as I said upthread I think I would be terrible in leadership on this matter because I can sympathise (but not necessarily agree) with both sides. We are still talking about people, human beings, struggling to gain understanding. I don't think demonising anyone helps.

The church don't want to exclude anyone as far as I can tell.

But they are nevertheless choosing to excluse gay couples from something that straight couples are permitted. A blessing is just a sop to their conscience. It really isn't complex either - religious schism is as old as humanity. This matter is one where there isn't an outcome where someone doesn't lose out. Looking at the Anglican community and the countries is operates in, they are places where homophobia is still rampant - so let them have their own church and their homophobic self-determination. With consequences from the international community, and preferably with a proper welcome for people who choose to leave rather than be persecuted, jailed, tortured, correctively raped - you name it.

I have zero sympathy for people who think that kind of behaviour is righteous because of their faith.

@pointythings, indeed. But not having sympathy is not an option for me, I just do have. I cannot look at them and discount their humanity. But, yes, atrocities are committed and have been. And believe me, I will not minimise the horrific nature of that either.

This is akin to a very thorny peace process. What must be remembered is that there are very ordinary people stuck right in the middle of this in no man's land. Like in the First World War they would probably be happy to stop fighting and enjoy playing a game of football together and share Christmas together.

There is no easy straightforward solution that I can see.

And what is more what hasn't escaped my attention is that some of those people lobbying for trans rights would see some of the gender critical posters on here just as discriminatory as the conservative churches on equality for same sex couples. Social movements can exert considerable power...

So who are the victims and who are the perpetrators?

It's a difficult one, and I do hope that there will be social change in those countries where being gay is currently illegal and dangerous. But you have to accept that most of that danger has religion as a root cause.

On the trans issue I sit somewhere in the middle: I think the whole 'there are only two genders' thing is a nonsense because there are living cultures right here in this world where this is not the case. Gender is a social construct. Sex is a matter of biology. What we do with that is at the heart of it. I favour investing in redesigning the world we live in, with safe spaces for women who need them, third spaces which are designed with safety and comfort in mins (and let's face it, everyone would benefit from that) and spaces in the healthcare and justice system that would make life difficult for predators. What I struggle with is the extreme depiction of transwomen as a group as people who are largely sexual predators. Because of my DC I move in those circles a lot and it just ain't so.