More Anglicans support equal marriage than oppose it

[Shaker]

Not that support counts for much since it's a fait accompli, but for the first time more Anglicans are in favour of equal marriage than against it:

Of more than 1,500 Anglicans polled, 45% said same-sex marriage was right while 37% thought it was wrong.

The Yougov poll also indicates a large increase in support of same-sex marriage over the past three years.

The Church of England's official stance is that marriage can be only between a man and a woman.

Three years ago, a similar YouGov poll found 38% of Anglicans in support and 47% believing same-sex marriage to be wrong.

In the latest poll, support was highest among younger Anglicans, with at least half of those aged under 55 believing it was right and 72% of those aged 25-34 also in favour.

The lowest support rate was found in Anglican men aged over 55, with 24% backing same-sex marriage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35447150

[Rhiannon]

IME most lay Anglicans are a pretty tolerant bunch - the kinds of things they get hot under the collar about is swapping pews for chairs and changing the order of service. In the past many priests blessed same sex relationships and the anti-gay stance is more recent as a sop to the conservative south.

The problem is that those who do feel strongly on all sides are those who pack out the Deanery, Diocesan and General Synods. It only leads to division and conflict and isn't particularly effective at conveying the attitudes of most of those in the church membership.

[Shaker]

IME most lay Anglicans are a pretty tolerant bunch - the kinds of things they get hot under the collar about is swapping pews for chairs and changing the order of service. In the past many priests blessed same sex relationships and the anti-gay stance is more recent as a sop to the conservative south.

The problem is that those who do feel strongly on all sides are those who pack out the Deanery, Diocesan and General Synods. It only leads to division and conflict and isn't particularly effective at conveying the attitudes of most of those in the church membership.

A bit on the news I caught briefly this morning said that as with society across the board, the greatest opposition comes from late middle-aged to elderly men - in other words, the very section of society predominantly leading the church.

The phrase 'cohort replacement' springs immediately to mind, of course.

[Rhiannon]

At the senior clergy level, certainly.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Not that support counts for much since it's a fait accompli, but for the first time more Anglicans are in favour of equal marriage than against it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35447150

I would have thought that it is more a case of those who oppose it have left the church.

[Rhiannon]

I would have thought that it is more a case of those who oppose it have left the church.

No. Figures show that liberals are those leaving the church in the greatest numbers.

[Shaker]

No. Figures show that liberals are those leaving the church in the greatest numbers.

Are they going anywhere in particular, or nowhere in particular?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are they going anywhere in particular, or nowhere in particular?

I didn't see them at the antitheist shrine to Dawkins at Waterstones......

[OH MY WORLD!]

So what Shaker? I betcha most Catholics in the UK think it's just fine to kill preborn babies.
For twenty years I thought it was just fine to be a party animal, and doing all that that entails. My parents were against that, our church was against that and scripture is against that. I got it, eventually and came home.

[Rhiannon]

Are they going anywhere in particular, or nowhere in particular?

As far as I'm aware most stop going altogether. There really aren't that many other options for those with a liberal outlook who still have a sacramental approach to worship.

[Shaker]

So what Shaker? I betcha most Catholics in the UK think it's just fine to kill preborn babies.

I doubt if anybody thinks it's fine to kill babies of any sort.

I do know that most American Catholics support abortion rights and that's in a nation seriously deranged about abortion, so while I don't know of any facts and figures, I'd imagine that support for a woman's control over her own fertility is even higher in this country, as we tend to be a great deal more civilised, sophisticated and tolerant.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Moderator

Hello Everybody

We are not discussing abortion here. Thank you.

[Shaker]

Moderator

Hello Everybody

We are not discussing abortion here. Thank you.

Indeed we were and are not - tell canoe, who drags it into every other discussion

[Shaker]

Back on topic: this shows up the recent shameful decision to sideline the Episcopalian church in an even poorer light than before, surely.

[Rhiannon]

Back on topic: this shows up the recent shameful decision to sideline the Episcopalian church in an even poorer light than before, surely.

It does. The thing that works in the CofE's favour is that people keep going for personal
spiritual reasons rather than because they agree with the church's teachings.

[Hope]

IME most lay Anglicans are a pretty tolerant bunch - the kinds of things they get hot under the collar about is swapping pews for chairs and changing the order of service. In the past many priests blessed same sex relationships and the anti-gay stance is more recent as a sop to the conservative south.

I suspect that there are more gay-friendly CoE parishes in the south of England than in the north.  In fact, I suspect that that applies to most denominations.

The problem is that those who do feel strongly on all sides are those who pack out the Deanery, Diocesan and General Synods. It only leads to division and conflict and isn't particularly effective at conveying the attitudes of most of those in the church membership.

Unfortunately, 'public' opinion doesn't necessarily inform doctrine.  Take the issue of the resurrection: David Jenkins, Bishop of Durham back in 1984, was a firm believer that the resurrection was a theological concept rather than a historical event.  There are many others, both lay and ordained, who believe that, but that isn't going to change the doctrine of the Church on the matter.

[Hope]

Back on topic: this shows up the recent shameful decision to sideline the Episcopalian church in an even poorer light than before, surely.

Why?  Just because the members of an organisation believe something that goes against the principles of that organisation, does it mean that the organisation has to change to suit its members?

[Rhiannon]

Why?  Just because the members of an organisation believe something that goes against the principles of that organisation, does it mean that the organisation has to change to suit its members?

It did on women priests. And remarrying divorcees. And endorsing abortion in certain circumstances.

[Shaker]

Why?  Just because the members of an organisation believe something that goes against the principles of that organisation, does it mean that the organisation has to change to suit its members?

If it has any interest at all in holding onto them as members, yes.

As HWB rightly reminded us above we're not discussing abortion here, but this is another example of the situation that pertains to both abortion and contraception in Catholicism - most Catholics use some form of artificial birth control, and certainly in the USA, most Catholic women support abortion rights. This means that a majority of members of an organisation or a club (for want of a better word) choose to stay in that club despite strongly disagreeing with some of that club's rules. Same principle at work here; a majority of Anglicans support a form of marriage that their club disagrees with (and tried to prevent even for non-members, as is always the way).

When you have a large proportion of a membership in such stark disagreement with the rules of the club, there are several options. (1) is that they can leave and go nowhere else - Rhiannon has already mentioned this; (2) is that they can leave and join another club whose rules they like better, such as the exodus of disaffected types who converted to Catholicism when the C of E started to ordain women priests back in 1994; (3) is to stay and to try to change the rules of the club from the inside, which always has the potential for (4) the sort of splinter groups and breakaway sects and denominations that religions love which claim to follow the same rules and claim to have the same beliefs but actually don't.

The article doesn't make it clear whether the Anglicans surveyed support equal marriage in its civil form - nice of them for sure but neither here nor there as it's a reality and will remain so - or whether their support entails that they want to see same-sex marriages performed in their church. You'd need a more detailed poll for that.

[Rhiannon]

The issue of abortion is relevant here because support from the CofE was important in order to get the abortion laws passed. The Synod voted to support abortion for victims of rape and incest; where the child will suffer because of health problems; where the child will die; or where the health or life of the mother is at risk. Although the CofE never envisaged this leading to abortion opening up for all women, it doesn't ask about or exclude women who have had terminations.

It can change its position on marriage equality too.

[Jack Knave]

This to me is proof of the fact that the church generally follows what the cultural trends are. Less than a hundred years ago this would have been a real no-no for the church and yet now it is becoming the norm. What else in the distant passed has gone through a similar process and is now seen as upright Christian views. This is one of the reasons why I say that Christians can't really know what Christianity is as it has gone through so many cultural and conceptual revaluations through the ages that it is impossible to know what the original lot really thought.

[Rhiannon]

Yes and no. You could argue that elements of the CofE were once more openly gay-friendly than they are allowed to be now, and st a time when that didn't reflect the views of society as a whole. The CofE used to be good at accommodating a wide range of perspectives in a way that it doesn't any more.

[Outrider]

I suspect that there are more gay-friendly CoE parishes in the south of England than in the north. In fact, I suspect that that applies to most denominations.

I don't have much knowledge of the North of England, but certainly in the early to mid-nineties in Scotland I found it far more accommodating to gay people than the South coast where my parents lived - but then I was spending most of my time with other students in Glasgow and Edinburgh, so perhaps not representative.

Not saying for a moment that you're wrong, Hope, but what do you think might be the cause of that? Is it a working-class hangover sort of deal?

Unfortunately, 'public' opinion doesn't necessarily inform doctrine.

Even more unfortunately, neither does any sense of rational ethics or understanding of human psychology.

Take the issue of the resurrection: David Jenkins, Bishop of Durham back in 1984, was a firm believer that the resurrection was a theological concept rather than a historical event.  There are many others, both lay and ordained, who believe that, but that isn't going to change the doctrine of the Church on the matter.

Nor is it apparently influenced by logic or reason...

O.

[SusanDoris]

There was a Vicar on Five Live last night who kept saying that Jesus could not have made it more clear that marriage was between a man and a woman. No atheist on hand to pull him up on the fact that no direct or written record of any of Jesus's words exists. Also he sounded like a most intolerant, inflexible and humourless man.

[Bubbles]

There was a Vicar on Five Live last night who kept saying that Jesus could not have made it more clear that marriage was between a man and a woman. No atheist on hand to pull him up on the fact that no direct or written record of any of Jesus's words exists. Also he sounded like a most intolerant, inflexible and humourless man.

The written record they follow is the New Testament.

So to them, it is the written down record, of the words of Jesus.

However Jesus was never asked about, or commented on, homosexuality or same sex marriage.

So we can only assume what he thought, but we can never be sure.

Given that Jesus didn't always seem to agree with some of the  interpretations of the
 Jewish writings we can't be sure how he would have seen other individual bits.