http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37267148

I don’t get it.

There are other Christian Churches that wouldn’t treat him like this. Why would he want to be part of this organization that really doesn’t seem to want him?

There are other Christian Churches that wouldn’t treat him like this.

Are there?

Genuine Q, wasn’t aware there were any Christian organisation that were genuinely comfortable with homosexuality.

He’s already a bishop in the Anglican Church, the church itself doesn’t seem to have a problem, so what’s your problem?

the church itself doesn’t seem to have a problem,

Have you read the article?

“There are aspects of this appointment which are a serious cause for concern for biblically orthodox Anglicans around the world, and therefore we believe that this appointment is a major error,” the Gafcon statement added.”

Are there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_Christian_denominations

The guy says he’s celibate so stop bashing the bishop.

Why should religious organizations be exempt from the equality act 2010?

13 Direct discrimination

(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.

Should cover not treating the applicant / incumbent employee different due to sexuality.

The church as an institution doesn’t have a problem and his appointment meets their requirements (gay is OK, gay marriage is not). It is a more fundamentalist group of the church that objects.

Religion should not be an excuse for discrimination IMHO. Can you imagine the reaction if a church stuck up a “No blacks, no Irish” sign? Things change in 2000 years and they need to be made to get with the times.

scruff9252 – Member
Why should religious organizations be exempt from the equality act 2010?

Because Schedule 23, section 3 lets them:

(3)The organisation does not contravene Part 3, 4 or 7, so far as relating to religion or belief or sexual orientation, only by restricting—

(a)membership of the organisation;

(b)participation in activities undertaken by the organisation or on its behalf or under its auspices;

(c)the provision of goods, facilities or services in the course of activities undertaken by the organisation or on its behalf or under its auspices;

(d)the use or disposal of premises owned or controlled by the organisation.

(4)A person does not contravene Part 3, 4 or 7, so far as relating to religion or belief or sexual orientation, only by doing anything mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) on behalf of or under the auspices of the organisation.

(5)A minister does not contravene Part 3, 4 or 7, so far as relating to religion or belief or sexual orientation, only by restricting—

(a)participation in activities carried on in the performance of the minister’s functions in connection with or in respect of the organisation;

(b)the provision of goods, facilities or services in the course of activities carried on in the performance of the minister’s functions in connection with or in respect of the organisation.

Those exceptions apply both to doctrine and to “strongly held convictions of a significant number of followers”

Are racists excempt from anti-racist legislation too?

It is odd joining an organisation which explicity wants to see you tortured for eternity in the handbook.

Wouldn’t it be more relevant to ask why those opposed to gay clergy want to be part of the club that allows it?

The key issue is “around the world”. Whilst the UK Anglican Church is relatively relaxed about homosexuality him being a Bishop creates major issues in African countries where the attitudes are very different

AFAIK it’s okay to be Gay in the Anglican Church, you can’t be married though – they only really accept their version of marriage – man & woman.

Catholic Priests can’t get married either way (some exemptions apply).

But when it comes to homosexuality and religion there will ALWAYS be someone with an axe to grind – in this case the BBC has chosen to seek the opinion of a group of anti-gay Anglicans with unsurprising results.

The bishop – and the Church – have played this strictly by the rules. He says he’s celibate, they say that’s OK.

An anti-gay faction in the church has a problem, but it’s their problem, no one else’s.

You want to know what boils my piss here? That in 2016 a trashy paper thinks it’s somehow “ok” to threaten to “expose” someone’s sexuality. It’s no one’s **** business!

Why would he want to be part of this organization that really doesn’t seem to want him?

Why should women want to play golf when golf clubs don’t really seem to want them to?

He probably thought it would be a good place to meet men, given all the issues surrounding women in the Church…

TBH it’s made complicated by the nature of the anglican church… to my eyes, it’s not a single church at all, but it wants to be considered as such and so you kind of have to treat it that way. So you have an uneasy situation where there’s moderates and modernisers and hypocrites and headbangers and fundamentalists and the communion wants them all to be one- because in times of religious decline the last thing they want is to splinter. But some divisions are pretty much irreconcilable.

All traditional faiths face much the same challenges in the modern day; they’re based in medieval times with medieval morals and prejudices but they want to function in modern times with modern morals and prejudices, and that’s a fundamentally existential conflict- there’s a limit to how far you can evolve and still be the same creature. And anglicanism has particular challenges with that because of its inbuild fractionalism.

I find it pretty fascinating tbh… To me it seems like a basically irreconcilable problem for most faiths and they’re always interesting. In some ways I have more respect for fundamentalists, who have the faith and the determination to carry on as they feel their religion is and has always been, despite the pressures of the world. But I admire those that choose to struggle with the dichotomy too.

Bottom line though, the faith is still fundamentally riven and has proven itself to have some serious issues with homosexuality; from that point of view I don’t really understand the Bishop of Grantham’s personal position. He’s been a deacon since 1991, and he’s witnessed the church’s essential hostility to homosexuality- the divisions with the Episcopaleans, the windsor report, Jeffrey John, all that. I don’t know how you still think “this is the place for me”.

But then, I’m quite a literally minded person so I struggle with religion in the modern world full stop… My gut reaction is to shout hypocrite, when someone claims to be a christian but picks and chooses what they want to be christian about. But that’s too simplistic, especially on a mountain biking forum where hardly anyone ever actually rides a bike.

good post and this para sums up their issues in a nutshell

All traditional faiths face much the same challenges in the modern day; they’re based in medieval times with medieval morals and prejudices but they want to function in modern times with modern morals and prejudices, and that’s a fundamentally existential conflict- there’s a limit to how far you can evolve and still be the same creature.

essentially its very difficult to modernise when you have a book with your god telling you to do/not do things
God cannot modernise as god is infallible

I think homosexuality and dealing with it in a religious context is a struggle for those that take the written word literally, however there are a great many religious people who take a progressive and quite liberal approach which accepts the reality of homosexuality in terms of its existance but still struggles with the practice (as this Bishops has to say he is nin-practicing)

As for saying religion’s approach is Medieval, well yes the various books where written 5000, 2000 or 1400 years ago but homosexuality wasn’t socially accepted in the UK 60 years ago and in many places in the world is still not today. So expecting religions based on a very long history to somehow move as rapidly as social behaviour has amongst secular people is a tall order

I think that’s the first post Northwind has made that I agree with 🙂

Very well put sir.

Everybody who believes in God seems to believe that God supports their beliefs.

essentially its very difficult to modernise when you have a book with your god telling you to do/not do things
God cannot modernise as god is infallible

Except when it’s been re written, or guidance taken on the inference and interpretation of something inconvenient to the people in charge. Given how many factions you have who all claim to be following the same book in very different ways it becomes apparent that maybe the people are the biggest problem with religion.

So NW sounds like the church is more representative of modern life/society than first thought.

OP, because he wants to be? The church has an odd way of being against him given he has been made a Bishop, a position he seems happy to have accepted.