Plus 1.

On the other hand... prepare yourselves for the coming Christian Spring!

Calilasseia wrote:Fucking hell, Byron, why don't you have your own opinion column in The Guardian? Only this is the sort of post that deserves a much wider audience.

Byron wrote:The church jumped on the homophobia bandwaggon in the 1980s. Far from boldly standing against culture, as the evangelicals claim, Christian homophobia sprung from society's prejudices. Society has, thankfully, moved past it, but the church is frozen in time. Story of its life.

Absolutely.

It always amuses me to hear them argue against gay marriage with the claim "of course we fully support their rights to civil partnerships but ..."

Those of us old enough, with good memories, will recall that throughout the 80s and 90s they were very much against civil partnerships, just as they are against gay marriage now. Society moves ahead, the Church remains one step behind and conveniently tries to erase their own insignificance from memory.

Meanwhile, drip, drip, drip, their membership dwindles.

Thank fuck I re-read the OP title before racing out to stockpile Nescafe.

I've always thought that any differences between the CofE and American churches are more down to the difference between British and American conservatism than anything so prosaic as religious belief.

I think the idea of going to church as a social activity is truer than a lot of people think. Generally, apart from people who want to be in the church hierarchy, I've never met any CofE (or Anglican) member here who proselytises the way the fundie church members do. I haven't had friends who are Anglicans (CofE isn't really big here, called the Church of England in South Africa) tell me they'll "pray for me" as often as people in the happy-clappy churches do. I even think the royals don't actually "believe" in the dogma, they just do the churchgoing thing because, well, they own it don't they. If they don't go to the church when they're the boss and the board of directors, it's not exactly going to encourage other people to go to it. I'm sure they doze through the sermon the way most people do in church.

I asked my DH about that the other day, he was brought up in the Anglican church, was an altar boy and did the whole parading in a white robe thing, as a child. He said he used to think about the soccer game he was going to play in the afternoon, and didn't really listen to all the babbling going on from the pulpit. Also it was a way to meet girls.

So I'm not surprised that young people can't be bothered. I'm almost positive that all those people who attend the services when the royals are at the cathedral or church, actually believe in the same stuff the American fundies preach about. It's mostly about an excuse to wear a cute hat, or show off your arm candy, i.e. a social occasion.

As other people are saying, they are behind the education in private schools, here too. People who want their kids to go to Michaelhouse, St John's etc., here, they do the church attendance thing just so that their kids can be accepted, and that they know what the hell's going on during the services at school.

One of my kids taught at a church school here. When he asked about the rituals during the school service, the headmaster asked him how come he didn't know anything about it. Not wanting to risk his job, he just said he was raised as a Jew, so didn't know much about Christianity. You're expected to be part of the clique if you want to rise socially, especially among the wannabe "upper crust" in Johannesburg.

Also it was a way to meet girls.

I'll go along with that. I always found the girls in church were, er, more interesting, er, sort of demure and full of promise.

Well, that's what my hormones told me...

Alan B wrote:

Also it was a way to meet girls.

I'll go along with that. I always found the girls in church were, er, more interesting, er, sort of demure and full of promise.

Well, that's what my hormones told me...

They used to have weekly socials, so lots of opportunities to meet them. He also joined the Methodist church so he could be in the guild and meet girls. When the Methodists handed him envelopes for money, he left, and went back to the Anglicans only.

Agrippina wrote:I think the idea of going to church as a social activity is truer than a lot of people think. Generally, apart from people who want to be in the church hierarchy, I've never met any CofE (or Anglican) member here who proselytises the way the fundie church members do.

The only friend at school who self-identified as an atheist is now a vicar. He simply followed into the family "trade".

Yep, I'm sure he's one of many.

Calilasseia wrote:Fucking hell, Byron, why don't you have your own opinion column in The Guardian? Only this is the sort of post that deserves a much wider audience.

If you want to give the Church Times a call ...

quisquose wrote:[...] It always amuses me to hear them argue against gay marriage with the claim "of course we fully support their rights to civil partnerships but ..."

Those of us old enough, with good memories, will recall that throughout the 80s and 90s they were very much against civil partnerships, just as they are against gay marriage now. Society moves ahead, the Church remains one step behind and conveniently tries to erase their own insignificance from memory.

Meanwhile, drip, drip, drip, their membership dwindles.

Absolutely, and in doing so, they were in lockstep with social norms. The SCOTUS upholding sodomy laws, the Thatcher government passing Section 28, Bill Clinton putting his signature to DOMA, Britain's parliament (first Commons, then Lords) refusing to equalize the age of consent for gay men. Gay people were barred from military service, could be fired at-will, were denied any official recognition of decades-long relationships, and were generally treated as second-class citizens.

Society has, thankfully, come to its senses, as the dead-weight of tradition was challenged, and homophobia came to be seen as the senseless prejudice that it is.

The church, dogmatic in its thinking, is now ensnared by the monster it shacked up with, a monster that it adapted for its own ends. Gay-bashing is used as a litmus test by evangelicals, the battlefield in a proxy-war over orthodoxy. The smartest (and kindest) evangelicals know that it's a lost battle, and want desperately to move on. But most are terrified that, if they concede this fight, they'll have betrayed their creed, and surrendered to "culture."

So they plant their standard on this doomed plain, and wait.

Alan B wrote:

Also it was a way to meet girls.

I'll go along with that. I always found the girls in church were, er, more interesting, er, sort of demure and full of promise.

Well, that's what my hormones told me...

A global constant. "HTB" is, apparently, known as a dating-agency for preppy evangelicals.

Byron wrote:Absolutely, and in doing so, they were in lockstep with social norms. The SCOTUS upholding sodomy laws, the Thatcher government passing Section 28, Bill Clinton putting his signature to DOMA, Britain's parliament (first Commons, then Lords) refusing to equalize the age of consent for gay men.

And of course at every stage the slippery slope has been employed as at least part of the argument; with gay marriage it's been those that believe it's an inevitable march towards, I don't know, inter-species marriage and polygamy. But if that's so, then the slippery slope started way back with the not-burning of homosexuals, so guess we shouldn't have done that..

Panderos wrote:And of course at every stage the slippery slope has been employed as at least part of the argument; with gay marriage it's been those that believe it's an inevitable march towards, I don't know, inter-species marriage and polygamy. But if that's so, then the slippery slope started way back with the not-burning of homosexuals, so guess we shouldn't have done that..

As mischievous folks enjoy pointing out, it's not like the Bible has an issue with polygamy. In response, "Bible-believing Christians" cease, all of a sudden, to advocate biblical literalism. "Timeless truth" goes out the window as they start to babble about context and ancient mores. When the "Word of the Lord" defends a position that goes against their preferences, your "Bible says it, I believe it" fundie morphs into a liberal scholar. T'is a miracle!

Which does beg the interesting although off-topic question of why homophobia is so easily taken up, if it's not just lazily following every word of the bible. Racism and sexism I get, but not this. The wiki article on homophobia doesn't seem to be much help.

Homophobia was easily taken up because it used to be a mainstream position, bolstered by 2,000 years of tradition, a tradition rooted in Christianity. Its origins lay in Levitical purity codes, themselves rooted in the concerns of desert-dwelling tribes: group-markers, patriarchy, inheritance, extended family, and so on. Like all prejudice, homophobia is inherited, rooted in emotion and received ideas.

The speed with which that tradition's been overthrown in society is remarkable.

For evangelicals, it's now about holding the line on biblical authority. They're already uneasy about having surrendered on gender roles, even if the unease is buried by attacking traditionalists (attack in others what you fear in yourself). In their minds, if they also give up on "sexual morality," they're no different from liberals. Homophobia is their shibboleth.

The easy-going Church of England, set-up as a power-grab by the English monarchy, evolved into a club for second-sons of the gentry, was woefully ill-equipped to resist a Dutschke-style "long march through the institutions" by evangelicals, which began in the late 1960s with Keele. The old-school Anglican hierarchy didn't understand belief and zeal, and was arrogant enough to think they weren't a threat. Anglicanism's a broad church, after all. The patrician bossmen thought the evangelicals should be patronized, not opposed, until it was too late, and they work up to discover that the zealots now ran the place.

And here we are.

Byron wrote:Homophobia was ... rooted in the concerns of desert-dwelling tribes: group-markers, patriarchy, inheritance, extended family, and so on.

I'd question some of this but it'd end in a long off-topic discussion so I'll leave it for now. One for another time.

Did anybody else hear this programme on BBC Radio 4 on Monday?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... f_England/

Analysis -
Last Rites for the Church of England?

Andrew Brown asks if the Church of England has become fatally disconnected from society.

Also available as a downloadable podcast here.

I thought Andrew Brown's thoughts were all over the place, in particular with his thinking that just as many people believe in God now than they did in previous generations, like it means the decline is reversible.

Yeah, listened to that, & agree that Brown was all over the place. I'm not at all sure that he's right about the extent of belief in God, either. The majority may hold to a vague spirituality, but that's different in kind to going along with the dogmas of an organized religion, even nominally.

The Bishop of Leicester's mealymouthed defense of tolerating a bigotry he doesn't personally believe in was repulsive.

quisquose wrote: ... I thought Andrew Brown's thoughts were all over the place ...

Andrew Brown's writings in the Guardian suggest his thoughts are always 'all over the place'.