WATERANGEL

Of course there is a very real possibility of one of the issues going away which will should remove any disapointments. Women bishops is not going to split the church even though it is causing quite a bit of upheaval, gay marriage quite possibily will. 

The big row at the moment is whether the change in the law will attempt to force churches to carry out gay marriages. As has been pointed out but rather cutely not answered by the government, equality legislation is what is forcing the issue and overuling other legisaltion. It remains to be seen what the response of Europe is, the European Human Rights already enshrine man and women alone in marriage to found a family and despite the Prime Minister's claims to the contrary, have pronounced gay marriage not a human right. It therefore remains to be seen what the ECHR will do.

But all this certainly has the potential of causing a separation of church and state, and possibly a mass exodus from the CofE

Thankyou for your responses to my concerns. There are just a couple of issues, I was in college in the mid 90s and house groups were very much part of the agenda, but i understand that the conception of them may well have been as early as the 60s . I do not have a lot of experience of House churches only having attended a couple mostly in the last decade. But i do feel that the "closed"environment of house churches, without an affiliation to a larger church is not the safest way to go for anyone in the long term. In the short term they are fine, but it is best if there is some way of connecting to the larger church for balance purposes.

Disestablishment from the government is much the same i think. If a church is completely disestabished from the government or ruling body of a country, then the ability to understand the totality of government implementation which affects church communities, is at least delayed. This can be very important if a law is about to pass which may be detrimental.

I really just wanted to put it out there for awareness, that transition periods between governments and churches can leave gaps. There was another case recently where a so called house church was started and it was used for abuse, so its about seeing that when people fight for equality and opposers obstruct communication channels it can leave many vulnerable.

In Christ

Angela

Pluralist,

We can all find things offensive my friend, it is offensive to God and believers to wickedly suppress the truth by proposing 'gay marriage' with men abandoning the natural use of women and committing indecent acts between them. And whether you wish to acknowledge the reality of the subdivision of the species in two sexes or not, that is the anatomical reality. Nor do I see how it has anything to do with women as bishops and leaders of a Church. Because there is scripture both for and against whether a woman is called to leadership, or whether God has set the church not to have that order is a much more difficult matter. You see men are not able to bear children, only the woman can do that, equality isn’t even always in nature.

The key here as usual is whether one goes with what scripture says which leaves the women bishops issue still opne to interpretation, or whether one goes with what one group of people says as opposed to another,. which leaves everything unresolved.  

I think you might find that the offensive phrase "abandon the natural use of women" does impinge on women as bishops and leaders of a Church. They might, in leadership, be a means to correct such offensive language of subdividing the human race into users and used, natural or otherwise.

Dave,

This is easy.

The range of views amongst women in the church varies. The range of views amongst homosexuals in society is wide, a opinion poll this week revealed that up to 50% of those who identify as homosexual are happy with civil partnerships and either don’t want or dont believe marriage should be ‘gay’

Nonetheless the test for the church as the body of believers is the word of God rather than what some people say as opposed to others. If not then how is the church any different from the world?

.

DavidW

I think the range of views within the CofE is greater than any other denomination in England. The debates an divisions within other denominations have at various times been quite intense. The RCs seem much more united on doctrine, changes were agreed at Vatican 2 but after that they have remained consistent. They're not giving the faithful new reasons for discontent.

Dave

"I understand that the RCs are doing rather well at present." Dave

I can't imagine what alternative reality you are inhabiting or perhaps you're just holding the graphs the wrong way up.

Thanks for the views WATERANGEL.

The two issues are completely different. As far as the Anglican Communion goes, GAFCON which represents up to 75% of all Anglicans worldwide, didn’t take place over the women in leadership issue, it was caused by the homosexual issue. The former, the women bishops issue is about interpretation, there are scriptures to support both having and not having women bishops. the latter, for homosexual relations, is only condemned in scripture. The former is a matter for the organisation of the church, the latter is a salvation issue. The scripture doesn’t say churches or women in leadership shall not inherit the Kingdom, it does say the sexual immorally shall, including men who abandon the natural use of women and commit indecent acts with men, not inherit the Kingdom. The former is not being legislated for by the government, the latter is.  

NB. In fact regarding the legislation the are polls recently showing that up to 50% of homosexuals aren’t really bothered about gay marriage. We have a spirit at work here which is not of God.   

In the RC church and most free church ministries the church leader or leadership makes the decision and that’s what happens. Members may be offended but they do not usually cause trouble, they either leave or accept and continue serving.

In the Anglican Communion however the mind of the Communion has been made over both, women bishops with some compromise in arrangements will take place with some leaving, whilst the homosexual issue will go against the mind of the Communion and destroy the Communion, because the revisionism is according to the NT scripture and the Communion, another gospel and another Jesus and incompatible. .

Angela,

Disestablishment is not an all or nothing thing thing. The influence of the church on parliament has decreased in the last 100 years and the exercise of the authority of parliament on the church has increased. parliament has not presumed to be theological since 1929 but the effect of state regulation on everything has affected the church. Establishment may have give some protection to the CofE not afforded to other denominations.The opposition to gay marriage is part of a growing apart of the secular and religious authorities. Both exist under the headship of the queen and there is no reason for this to change. Total disestablishment need not be a disaster for the CofE. I understand that the RCs are doing rather well at present.

The house churches were very much a thing of the 60s and 70s. They have moved out of homes and into buildings. They have developed their own structures and organizations. They have adopted biblical models of church government borrowed from the independents and the brethren. The cause of the house church movement was an outpouring of the Spirit which the church as a whole did not understand. Disputes about the role of women affected the whole range of churches and had a very secondary role in this. 

Dave

When i was in college, it was very much on the agenda that the way in which christians were being penalized for holding on to views seen to be against the ethos of equality that the church would be disestablished and that house churches would increase and replace the state church.

The reasons at the time were the same as now , though women in the ministry was the first cause of major rows which has now become women and the issue of gay marriage.

I personally am really fed up with, the constant arguing in the church over these things, the money used to support and dispute each side of the argument, as well as the time taken, both of which could be put to such better use.

More importantly though is that the split could very easily lead to numerous house churches with unmonitered leaders, and thus increase the risk of abuse of those who attend them.

I do not understand why it has to be like this, the church is their to care for the vulnerable, in order to do that it needs people who can communicate the gospel in a way that it can be received. That does include those whom people consider to be less than perfect in ways they behave and look. Yet again we are not taliking about the gospel and the meaning of it for our lives, but we argue about who should be included or excluded. Now again look at the celebrations of the Royal Wedding and The Jubilee, why do you think they were successful and almost without incident? I think it was because the scene was set for it to be peaceful, and all those involved genuinely wanted to make it work. Some may say well it was become some people were exploited and there may be an element of truth in that, in terms of choice for some as to whether they worked or not etc. But is that not the same for the church that some are exploited in terms of what they give. See i do not see the difference, exploitation is about creating an environment of fear and inequality and judgement, these are based on money and ability, but the church tends to favour the voiceless because they do not have opinions or argue with the status quo.

Here is the concern for the house churches, people will join them on equal terms but with the passage of time they will becomes places where if you disagree you will be oestracised, and children will be in that environment. This in turn will lead to sick people and a sick faith and the cycle will be perpetuated.

I miss going to church but i dont miss feeling abused and all the nightmares that go with it. I dont miss fearing saying the wrong thing, I dont miss being made to feel guilty about others suffering whilst people do not recognize my own. I dont miss being helpless. I dont miss being isolated in the church as well as being isolated outside of the church.

What i do miss is exploring the gospel and working with people who want to make the world a happier and free place where care is the recipe for success. Many people here say they lead or are part of such a church, but i think they will find that is because they have a support network that many do not have, and that they are in good health, so they can create a church where people are happy and free. They will also discover that with change comes distress and it is how that is handled that matters.

Angela