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.

Who is the church serving, if not its people?

That would be God! @Formerglorystory66

Well yes, that rather goes without saying doesn’t it?

But what is a church without a congregation? Or a shepherd without a flock?

@Formerglorystory66 Well, you did ask the question 😀
The Church is more than just bricks and mortar, it's the collective 'body of Christ', made up of believers. People seem to think churches are just glorified village halls nowadays.

And it needs seats in the Lords to do this?

The C of E would not cede its relationship to the UK state voluntarily.

I think that the separation between the C of E and the UK state will happen in my lifetime but the timing is not right at the moment.

People saying that the church should stay out of the law and politics - the relationship between the C of E and UK law and politics is a long, tangled up historical affair. It is not as simple as the C of E saying "oops, we clearly don't belong here any more".

As the law stands in the UK and in accordance with C of E law/teaching, civil marriage is open to couples of same or opposite sex. Anyone regardless sexual orientation is welcomed and accepted. The C of E doesn't condone a "pray away the gay" mentality the way some churches do, for example.

It is Holy Matrimony which is not available to same-sex couples in the C of E and this is a church matter not so much a civil one. Part of the reason the C of E is so reluctant to change its teaching on same sex marriage is (aside from some homophobic bishops who continue to state that same-sex marriage is not what God would condone) because this will cause a schism in the Anglican communion (the global community of which the C of E is part, which to a large extent takes its lead from the C of E). Such a schism would leave many churches in the global south completely homophobic and thus there would be zero refuge at all for gay Christians in those geographies. Welby is walking a difficult line and UK Christians are angry but the issues is quite deep in how it plays out globally.

My question was unmistakably rhetorical.

And my point is that the people who make up the church ie the clergy and the congregation, are society! So how can the church, in addition to representing God, not represent itself?

Argh! So many semantic, legal and political arguments designed to separate us from the core issue of prejudice against gay people.

And undoubtedly the situation is complicated globally but ultimately one has to get off the fence and affirm what is truthful and right. Do we as Christians believe that the love of a gay couple who have lived together for forty years is less valid somehow than the love of their heterosexual counterparts who live across the street? Of course it is not!

Apparently Welby would disestablish the church over this

www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/01/better-c-of-e-is-disestablished-than-risk-split-justin-welby-reportedly-says

Good! Bring it on, I say!

Well he certainly is dedicated to his homophobic position.

David K. Bernard. What a cunt.

@TeamRR Oh yeah? Know him personally do you?

You don't have to know someone personally to know they're a cunt. I know the kind of views he has.

@TeamRR Please do go on.

Not C of E but many popes died of syphalis and they didn’t contract it from sitting on the toilet.

within the c of E at least 400 clergy committed sex abuse on children and were ‘forgiven’ and allowed to move on - not reported to the police and not stopped and given free reign to abuse again C of E

4000 cases of abuse from C of E clergy last year

the church has no right to make decisions - the church is not there to serve god and is unaccountable only to god. They have no right to sit in parliament. They certainly have no right to internally ‘police’ themselves.

many many church elders, or people in church responsibility abuse, have affairs and then pull out the trusted line ‘but I’m only human and the devil attacks us all’.

jesus made no judgements on women the c of e has sought to silence them.

I know of a wife who was repeated raped by her husband advice from local c of e church was to ‘relax and enjoy it’

in fact if you look at historical translations the word for men is the same as people.

you can pick and choose what you follow

rules are made to control

the Church of England if one of the wealthiest organisations in the U.K. - billions in the bank - money people donated to feed the poor.

it should be distributed and not placed in banks in Iceland as investments

and yes the Church of England should serve the community - they pay their wages -

and they do not take care of the poor etc many have great salaries and pensions etc

About?

I find it hypocritical that a vocal minority shout about love and tolerance while hating on Christians and enforcing their viewpoint on others in the same breath.

Fair enough, @Bruuuuhhhh, but do you understand that others find it equally hypocritical when Christians preach that God is love, and that people shouldn't judge each other, and then proceed to reject certain types of love because they judge them to be inappropriate or sinful or whatever? It's the ultimate hypocrisy in my view, and it's one of the things that makes it very difficult for me to respect some people of faith (not just Christianity.) I have every respect for those Christians who truly practise the teachings of love and non-judgement etc, but none for those who use their faith to justify judgements about how others choose to live their lives. I don’t believe in God, but I have read the bible from cover to cover, and I don't recognise those "Christians" as representing any of the values that Jesus supposedly stood for. Quite the opposite, I fact.

How you came to the conclusion that poor David is a cunt as you so elegantly put it.

I do understand that and it would be fitting for people like a pp mentioned about who flat-out rejected somebody based solely on their sexual orientation. No one is beyond the love of God and it is not our place to judge.
I probably didn't make it clear but like I said I'm bisexual - it's part of who I am, not something I've chosen (as some might argue). However, even though I'm attracted to men and women I've chosen to only ever have relationships with men. This has not been easy but from my reading of the Bible it's the right decision for me as a believer, but I get that others in the same situation might feel differently. I guess it goes back to the old adage, love the sinner not the sin (although I find that phrase jarring).

Mostly the whole 'gay people are teting to indoctrinate children and gay marriage will lead to paedophilia' thing he has going on.

You say it hasn't been easy to restrict yourself to relationships with men because of your beliefs, but do you not see that it must be infinitely more difficult for people who are gay and not bisexual? Are they supposed to just stay celibate? Get into relationships with people to whom they are not remotely attracted?

I really struggle to understand your position, as you say that being bisexual is not a choice and it's just the way you are, but why would a loving god create people who are gay or bisexual if same sex relationships are considered to be sinful. That would seem like the height of cruelty. How could a love created by god be sinful? I just don't understand.

I also don't understand how you say that it's not your place to judge, but the church is judging. And it is judging that marriage between two people of the same sex is unholy in some way. Surely if there was truly no judgement, that would not be a matter for the church to decide - it would be between each individual, their own conscience and God. By deciding that same sex love is somehow inferior to opposite sex love, that is the very essence of a judgement. That's why I find the whole thing immensely hypocritical. Why not let people follow their own individual conscience and leave God to judge whether they're sinful or otherwise!

Honestly I don't get it. I'm a Lesbian and a polytheist witch. I left Judaism as a child due to the sexism and frankly abusive nature of their god. Christianity and Islam have the same issues.
Why does SToksvig care? It's not her religion. I'm very happy with mine. Leave other people's religion alone if it's not affecting your rights.
I'm sick of constant LGB demands....we are asking for a backlash.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves While it's not our place to judge, as Christians we are first and foremost to listen to God's word, keep his commands and try to become the best versions of ourselves. As to the hows and whys, Isaiah sums it up quite nicely -
“Woe to him who strives with him who formed him, a pot among earthen pots! Does the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’ or ‘Your work has no handles’? Woe to him who says to a father, ‘What are you begetting?’ or to a woman, ‘With what are you in labor?’”
Thus says the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and the one who formed him:
“Ask me of things to come; will you command me concerning my children and the work of my hands?
All will be revealed eventually.
I can see how being only same sex attracted would be more difficult in this scenario but there have been gay priests who've come to the same conclusion I did and have chosen celibacy. Marrying someone you don't love and aren't attracted to is always a recipe for misery and I don't see it as a legitimate suggestion.
If we're really going by the book, any sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful and against God's intended design for humans.

Thanks for responding @Bruuuuhhhh. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. I get the idea that "good" Christians should listen to God's commands, whatever they interpret those to be. What I don't get is why others should impose their interpretation on other believers. Surely it should be between the individual and their God? And if some Christians genuinely feel that their loving same-sex relationship is acceptable in the eyes of God - and I know that many really do believe that - then what right do other Christians have to judge whether that interpretation is correct or not? As soon as we get in to that debate, the whole idea of not judging inevitably goes out the window. You can't label someone else's choices, which they believe to be in line with God's teachings, to be "sinful" without judging. Why is one person's interpretation any more valid than another person's? And who gives them the right to judge?

As for the Isaiah quote, it makes no sense to me, really. It just sounds to me like another way of saying that we have no idea why God makes such seemingly cruel decisions sometimes, but just shut up about it and don't ask difficult questions. A loving father would explain kindly why he sometimes had to make difficult decisions. He would help his child understand. Only an abusive parent, in my view, would deliberately hurt their child and then insist that the child blindly accepts that the parent is doing it for the child's own good.

“Does the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’ or ‘Your work has no handles’”

I ask God WTAF he has made in me all the time; this doesn’t seem to have damaged His and my working relationship.

I’m with @MrsBennetsPoorNerves - not sure what Isiah was on about.

@erinaceus, I get the Isaiah quote, I think. It's like what would you do with an answer to that question? The meaning, I think, will come with living it out. Like when we suffer - you think why? It's terrible. But then when you get through it your life experience is strangely richer.