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.

Plus their absolutely are gay Jewish people and gay Muslims fighting that fight within their own religious institutions

I also think that any faith (Cofe and others) that happily take state money to operate state schools but can use them for indoctrination and discrimination really do open themselves up for questioning and criticism. And the very very vast majority of those schools are CofE or Catholic.

Don't want the scrutiny from those who pay for it? Don't take the money.

The word arsenokoitai (Corinthians), like the word arseonokoitais (Timothy), are both hapax legomenon, meaning they don't occur anywhere else in other contexts - usually an author's work, the written form of an entire language or a single work. These two words don't appear in any other ancient or classical Greek literature, or elsewhere in the bible, so apart from these two passages there is no context for deciding what they mean. It's not like we can go and look at some other Greek text where it's also been used to see what the meaning might be. Paul made up the words, and we're not quite sure what they mean.

It's like taking 'butterfly' (compound word in English) and saying 'well butter is a creamy dairy product, and 'fly' is from the verb 'to fly' therefore butterfly must mean flying butter'. If the word butterfly only occured once in one published book in all of English literature and you had no other means to see what it might mean, its easy to see how it can be mistranslated.

As for Romans 1:26-27, I find it better to read the verses beforehand. The passage starts 'Becuse of this', which indicates the previous verses need to be taken into account. Personally, as someone who's been a Christian since I was a child, I've never made idols, or worshipped them. I've also never exchanged my 'natural desires'... I've never been interested in men. If you're bi or gay and born that way, then what's changed? Nothing.

It makes no difference if they are Christian or not

Really?!

Maybe there should be a separation between crown, church and state if it means the Church of England can retain some integrity, rather than compromising and attempting to be all things to all people. I would also be on board with representatives of other faiths having their say in government and the running of the country - this seems a much better option than having a completely secular outlook.

@AnorLondo
This discussion is like the Penrose stairs. You keep repeating the same tired buzz words. If you knew me you would know I am none of those things you keep accusing me of!
Also, there are different denominations within the Church for a reson and it's unrealistic to expect them to reach a unanimous decision on every matter of faith.

@tabulahrasa
Not sure what you've been reading either but I would question the motives of those biblical scholars and whether they themselves are believers and if that is the case, do they consider the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. It would make a massive difference to me if they're coming at it from a purely academic perspective.

Maybe there should be a separation between crown, church and state if it means the Church of England can retain some integrity, rather than compromising and attempting to be all things to all people. I would also be on board with representatives of other faiths having their say in government and the running of the country - this seems a much better option than having a completely secular outlook.

Why?

Who decides which faiths get a look in, and which don't? Why should faith groups get special treatment - their members are all voters who help to choose our governments? Why should people of faith get a second dip? If the faith groups want a say, why don't they put up MP candidates?

I know people have got used to preferential treatment for Christians in some state services and practices. But that doesn't mean it's objectively good.

The C of E is entitled to its views, as is any religion- they are based on an interpretation of the Bible. However, if that is their stance on this, you know very well the Bible says many things which the C of E no longer holds to be true because they are outdated and inhumane practices.
It says adultery between two people married to others, should be punished by stoning to death the two parties who commit it, a priest's daughter who has sex before marriage should be burned at the stake, murderers should be killed as punishment, homosexuality should result in the death penalty for both parties, sex before marriage between a betrothed couple should result in the death penalty for both.

@LuluBlakey1
This is the main reason why -

Also the passage in the Bible when Jesus says "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her". Plus others.

@JassyRadlett What do you feel is so wrong about it? Which Christian moral teaching are so so keen to get rid of in society?

I would advocate for a few Rabbis and Imams in the House of Lords for starters.

If you knew me you would know I am none of those things you keep accusing me of!

I know that you keep twisting your knots to defend the idea that homosexuality is wrong, and that you look for justification on a far-right hate site. It is not a stretch to think that you are in fact homophobic.

Whatever. The way things are going I would be surprised if the CofE allows equal marriage in the next couple of decades. There are plenty in the clergy and congregation who want it. * *

Yes, really!

While the church continues to enjoy a privileged position in our society, with its representatives automatically being invited to sit in the House of Lords, then I don't think it can ever be argued that the rest of us don't have a valid interest in how it operates. Of course we do!

If the church wants to give up its current privileges in order to maintain its integrity and independence and ensure that it only needs to answer to the preferences of its members, then that would be entirely fair enough. I would absolutely support them in pursuing this.

Extending the Cof E's constitutional privileges to other faiths is not a terrible idea in theory, I suppose, but I can see it being very messy in practice. We definitely don't need more Lords so I guess the question would be how to share the existing religious seats fairly to ensure that the whole population is represented. Might be a bit of a minefield, though, deciding which faiths/factions should be represented and to what extent, who would represent them etc. It would also be necessary to offer equal representation for people of no faith, e.g. the Hunanists etc. Much easier in my view to just get rid of the religious seats altogether!

If we can find a way of ensuring that the Houses of Parliament are truly reflective of the population as a whole, then there will naturally be people of all faiths represented in that. No need to try to artificially engineer it. For the time being, though, we have one faith which takes precedence over all the others. Naturally, the rest of us will have an interest in how this privileged and powerful institution operates.

This.
She is a member or even founder of the Women’s Equality Party - she is supportive of the gender critical point of view and finds it concerning over the lack of lesbians portrayed in public life - how many lesbians as celebrities do we know? Not many - bisexual yes, but not that many lesbians - I find it concerning. The number of girls identifying as non binary and then saying they have a girlfriend. She is a spokesperson for homophobia and violence against women.

Whichever teaching makes Christians think 'we should get preferential access to a third of state schools' for a start.

I think privileging any group over others in the institutions and practices of the state is fundamentally wrong. It's divisive, it sets up winners and losers and gives the idea that some faiths are particular sanctioned or acceptable.

I believe passionately that people are fundamentally equals should be treated equally in the eyes of the state and the eyes of the law. An established church does not permit for this - some groups have privileges and access denied to others on the basis of faith.

Why should people who believe in a god or gods get special rights, access or privileges above those who don't believe in any gods?

she is supportive of the gender critical point of view
Is she? I got the impression she was fully TWAW.

“Not sure what you've been reading either but I would question the motives of those biblical scholars and whether they themselves are believers and if that is the case, do they consider the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. It would make a massive difference to me if they're coming at it from a purely academic perspective.”

Some are Christians, some aren’t... I could give you a reading list, but it’d take me a while to find and it’d be very very long... I did a religious studies degree.

I'm quite curious why the religion of the scholar would alter the view of its veracity, though.

It shouldn’t do tbh, well it would be hard to study the bible with any real critical thought if you had very strict views very much to either side, ie you think it’s literally with no metaphor, allegory or translation issues, or you think it’s an completely invented work of fiction.

But Christian’s who are more along the lines of its God’s word written by humans and non Christians who study it as a historical document reflecting the society it comes from rub along fairly well.

Thanks - and I'm sorry that I quoted you while my response was really to the PP who suggested that somehow the evidence would be different based on who had presented it.

Oh I figured you weren’t asking me, but thought I’d give my answer as well.

It's from a place of knowledge! Thank you.

Ever heard of confirmation bias?

I’ve not read the whole thread, but:

Sandi has a history of getting involved at the start of movements which represent important societal issues. She was there at the start of the Women’s Equality Party; when same-sex marriage became legal she was part of an enormous celebration of same-sex marriage (including her own) at the Southbank Centre in London.

The relationship between the Church of England and England is is cemented. The two are intertwined in geography, history, theology, education, law, politics, the military, even healthcare and more. You can argue that this ought not be the case in 2023 but you can’t argue that it isn’t the case.

Sandi is an accessible figure and Welby to an extent a popularist, part of why he is taking the church in the direction he is in regards same-sex marriage. Their conversation and her short video make sense to me from both sides - hers as a media figure and the C of Es as well. As Sandi says, the direction of travel for the CofE is the right one but the timelines between the CoE and UK society are desperately out of sync. As I said to a friend when the announcement came from the Bishops a couple of weeks ago, it would appear “the C of E is desperate to alienate anyone under fifty…”

Welby is trying to hold onto the entire Anglican communion, no easy task when opinions are so divided. I do not think that he got it right on this occasion, but I would say that. I do think he is aware what he is doing.

The very last thing that a church should be doing is representing society!

The very last thing the church needs is blatant hypocrisy too. Sorry but so many C of E vicars are gay it’s just ludicrous for the C of E not to acknowledge or bless the loving gay relationships within their priesthood or their congregations.

And the church has to represent current society to some degree surely? Or it would lose all relevance entirely. Who is the church serving, if not its people?

Then perhaps it should cede its formal role in that society.

Indeed.

Then it should stay out of the law and politics.