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.

And surely Pontius Pilate handed Jesus over to the Jews so that it wasn't a political execution?

Sandi is - as my dear deported MIL - would say ‘ somebody’s bedfellow’ inference is she has something on Justin who is probably a lovely person - but damaged, vulnerable and easily coerced into being involved in incidents such as this - 👍🏿☘️👍🏿☘️ Don’t get me started on Vinnie Nichols 🤬

who is probably a lovely person - but damaged, vulnerable

Who isn't damaged and vulnerable? Surely that's intrinsic to the human condition.

I agree with all of this. And Sandi knows that as a prominent gay woman she will be given space in newspapers etc.

‘Certain views’? Can I have chapter and verse please? It also has views about female priests and tattoos, amongst other things. What are your thoughts on them?

I fail to see why bishops have have a role deciding the laws in a country that isn’t majority Christian, but it seems to carry on.

Are any of the other religious groups you've mention the state religion of the country in question?

(While we're talking about the Bible very clearly says, remind me what it says about mixed fibres in clothing and intercropping in agriculture.)

We also subsidise religious discrimination against 4 year olds so it's not exactly an outlier.

Good grief.
Play the ball not the man.
damaged, vulnerable and easily coerced This is the type of response I meant upthread - so superior, disdainful and patronising towards anyone they disagree with.

Question is, as an Anglican, why are you so bothered about the CoE's homophobia being challenged? And why is it "pitiful" in your opinion, to do so?

100% this.

Homophobia has no place in society and people should challenge it and doing so in a public manner brings it to the attention of a wider audience.

So you think the only reason he talked to her is because she's blackmailing him?

I think ST - and anyone else - is perfectly entitled to question the homophobia that exists in CoE…. !

I think it's more about you defending the CofE's honophobic stance.

Religion should not be exempt from critical scrutiny and criticism where criticism is due, regardless of what that religion is. There’s not enough transparency in regards to organised religion and thank goodness for the likes of Sandi T for speaking up on a very important issue that the church, as have many other denominations and religions, have been really bad at addressing.

Why should any religion believe it’s self to be exempt from any kind of criticism, especially in this day and age? We need to move on and evolve. Just because something is religious/cultural/ tradition doesn’t always equate to good. Basic human rights trump religion every single time. Thank goodness for people who speak out!

OP the word homosexual only entered the Bible in the forties, and from my research it’s not even a good translation. Theologically there is teaching around the immorality of sex but this is not solely a homosexual teaching. The Bishop of Bristol put out a statement that makes me proud as a Christian, anglican.ink/2023/01/20/bishop-of-bristols-statement-on-the-proposal-regarding-same-sex-relationships/ “I further support a change to the law that would allow for the marriage of same-sex couples in church, and regret that this proposal does not extend that legal change.

Why do you hate Sandi Toksvig so much OP?

’Whether you like it or not, the Anglican Church is founded on the Bible, which had certain views on this.’

It also has views on shellfish, wearing fabric blends, slavery and capital punishment. They seem to have managed to navigate their way around those well enough.

(While we're talking about the Bible very clearly says, remind me what it says about mixed fibres in clothing and intercropping in agriculture.)

It also has views on shellfish, wearing fabric blends, slavery and capital punishment.

@JassyRadlett @Aurorabored
If you've read Acts you would know why Christians don't follow the Levitical Laws now while others are still relevant.

Not my words (from CARM) but hopefully it might clear a few things up -

Leviticus says not to eat shellfish (Lev. 11:9-12), use mixed seed or fabrics (Lev. 19:19), harvest the corners of fields (Lev. 19:9), and that homosexuality is wrong (Lev. 18:22; 20:13).
If homosexuality is wrong because Leviticus says so, then shouldn’t we also obey the other laws about shellfish, seed, fabrics, and fields because that is in Leviticus as well?
If not, then why not?
Why would Christians pick and choose what parts of the Bible to follow?

First of all, not all of Leviticus is written to everyone. There were abominations that applied only to the Jews such as eating shellfish, rabbit, and pork, etc., which were things that typologically represented purity before the Lord. We know this because God says, “Speak to the sons of Israel saying…”
He gives instructions to the Israelites, not to the rest of the nations.
So, we can see a host of things that dealt only with Israel.
However, there are abominations that did not apply only to Israel, but to everyone else also. It is in the latter group that homosexuality is listed.
It is a mistake for people to mix topics intended only for Israel with topics that included the non-Israelites.
Furthermore, when we see that the New Testament condemns the idea of homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27, we could see the continuity between Old Testament moral law and New Testament moral law.
A common mistake made by homosexual proponents when discussing the Old Testament, in particular, Leviticus, is the failure to understand the three main divisions of the Law: civil, ceremonial, and moral. This is important because the civil and ceremonial laws are not in effect now, but the moral law is. Homosexuality is under the moral law category. Therefore, we see that the moral aspects of the Law are still in effect, but not the civil or ceremonial.
Again, there were things addressed to Israel only where God said: “speak to the sons of Israel saying…” These things included atonement for unintentional sins, eating habits, uncleanness, feast days, rest days, etc., which do not apply to us today.
Finally, when we see that the New Testament also condemns homosexuality, it is clear that we cannot just dismiss Leviticus as a whole along with its moral regulations on sexual activity.
Homosexuality is clearly condemned in Leviticus and its condemnation cannot be dismissed by saying we are no longer under Old Testament Law.

A wall of text from fucking CARM does not clear anything up. CARM are fucking horrible.

Erm, we're all f**d then!

Tbh, we are. But Jesus meets us where we're at. And as long as we're not too proud to take it in will deal with us according to what we can take at the time. Whether that means gay relationships are ok, we'll love is good but I can't say whether that means marriage. Procreation obviously won't happen but that's not everything. As the Bible does point out.

Galatians 4:27
"For it is written: “Be glad, barren woman, you who never bore a child; shout for joy and cry aloud, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband.” (NIV)

But I'm not gay so cannot speak from personal revelation on this. It's not what I pray about, sorry not had a personal need to,

Good job I'm not in leadership. However, the C of E are a bit tricksy in terms of who they will marry. I'm totally married to my husband, legally. And prayerfully but we had a civil ceremony. We never even asked because we moved about a lot weren't established within a church community. And bans and all, that. Delays. So civil ceremony. And I said a prayer or two.

I'm with an online church because of all the disconnect between how I feel and the formalities. I can take communion this way, which I want, but would feel I have to jump through hoops, for in most other churches. I don't want to wait for that.

The NT has plenty of stuff that’s ignored too though - money lending, modesty for women (bear in mind it goes so far as to say they shouldn’t be braiding their hair or wearing jewellery), remarrying after divorce is now allowed.

So if it’s ok to pick and choose some bits about others, why not that bit? If it’s ok to change to suit modern society, why not that bit?

One of my university friends was a Christian. He was brought up by just his mum who ended up in a care home when he was 16. When he was 17 he came out to his church and they expelled him and threatened to expel anyone who stayed in touch.

Seems very Christian of them.

I'm not a Christian myself but surely the whole point of the Jesus stories were that he was a good guy to everyone regardless of their background?

I can't understand how people can interpret the meaning of Christianity as 'we should love thy neighbour apart from Bob and Tim from number 42 because even though they're both the most wonderful and charitable people who help others every day they love each other which makes them evil'. Would Jesus have wanted that? Why would someone want to be part of a religion that thinks that's fair? Makes zero sense.

That's horrible @NerrSnerr** ! I am Christian and it makes me want to weep! Tbh I place a lot of faith in Jesus' sacrifice but equally that fact does really change a person IME.

This piece of music, rather art,
really portrays how I feel in terms of the hope offered by Christianity,

But saying that the artist describes themselves as non religious. So agnostic, I suppose. Doesn't bother me at all, though, as it reminds me of God. 🙂