Wednesday 18 January 2012

Hot Air and Cold Bodies


No one can read Martin Reynolds' three continuous comments without thinking that in Wales this chap once used to be a friendly neighbour of the here accused Rowan Williams; what Martin Reynolds says is direct and devastating (and surely of 'in the know'), whereas folks like me are writing only on the lines of general principles after so many dubious press reports (in the usual 'not in the know' fashion).


Original reports regarding Jeffrey John and potential legal action were worth ignoring in their interpretation at least, being caught up in notions of ambition up a hierarchy. Is it not the substance of the matter about the fact that a set of rules is created (that are allowed under an exemption from the Equality Act) and yet even these are applied with additional and distasteful discrimination? Why is there no equivalent inquiry of a heterosexual unmarried but partnered as to their current sexual conduct and repentance of previous sexual activity?

And in a credal faith, a mistake is made that the more you believe of the list the more religious you are, and the more you add to the list the more religious you are. So the attitude of discrimination assumes that its existence is evidence of religiosity whereas those who seek equality display secular acceptability. The inclusivity of the widest human fellowship is itself a religious attitude.


Anonymous said...

The issue that I often 'can not get my head around' is that the Church of England is not a secular organisation; so why should it adhere to secular equality laws. For it follows not physical 'laws' (resurrection), biological 'laws' (virgin birth) all imperative to signing up to prior to ordination and membership.

An anachronistic institution can't suddenly be taken to court because of equality, (the Church, though I stand to be corrected, does not actually 'employ' its clergy) if you don't like the Church one can leave - it's that simple, there are plenty of other 'theatres' putting on Sunday morning shows.

Why is it that the most outspoken seem to not be from the CofE but the fringe churches that are predominately from the LGB community... who have already left the CofE and R.C Church?

I'm not what one would call theologically orthodox, so I decided to leave, the outspoken also have this option.

Pluralist (Adrian Worsfold) said...

Well, some Unitarians say to Anglicans that if you don't like it or don't believe it then leave for one of the choices - but then what is the policy on this precise manner when you read something like Martin Reynolds' comments. I would say if a person is liberal and outside that doctrinal structure, then leave, but if it is an issue to be worked out, then don't. If this Covenant comes in, I'll be telling many to get out. That's an example of an issue resolved.

Suem said...

Clearly some nasty underhand work has been going on.