Marriage

[gtsecc]

Some folks here are using the term "marriage" to talk about civil unions.
I think it would be helpful to break things down a bit.


Roughly put, in the Western Church, a marriage is a sacrament conveyed by the participants upon each other. The man and the woman convey it upon each other and it has nothing to do with the Priest really. That is how the Church can understand a marriage that takes place in a Baptist parish or a Las Vegas thing – you see, no priest, but the people have performed the marriage. Got it?
If this happens in a church, then the Priest blesses the marriage.
Got it?
Priests in the Western Church don’t marry people.
States, Governments, etc, don’t marry people either – they perform unions, which are euphemistically called marriages.
I affirm the State's right under the US constitution to perform civil unions between people.
I affirm the Church's teaching that it can't bless same sex unions.

[Polycarp1]

Lots of things to say about this:

First, "marriage" means three different things:
1. The covenanting of two people to live together in a marital relationship, and their subsequently doing so, whether or not church blesses or state recognizes their marriage. (See "common-law marrage")
2. The legally recognized state of binding oneself to one other in a marital relationship, whether done before magistrate or clergyperson. (AKA "civil marriage")
3. The covenanted sacramental union blessed by the church to which those in the sacramental tradition choose to celebrate their union. (Glenn's definition)

Second, the Anglican tradition recognizes a difference between the two Gospel sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist, and the other five sacraments. While I agree completely with Glenn that marriage is a sacrament of which the marrying couple are the ministers, the priest serving only as officiant and the bestower of God's blessing on the couple (strangely, I found that Catholic deacons can do what ours evidently cannot, and bestow the priestly marriage blessing) -- nonetheless, it's important to note that Anglican inclusiveness recognizes both those who subscribe to the great Catholic tradition of the seven sacraments and those who recognize only the two Gospel sacraments as true sacraments. AV1611 may have more to say on this.

States license, and authorize their magistrates to preside over, civil marriages. In the Anglo-American tradition, they also recognize church marriages as constituting civil marriages by the same single act. (In France, a couple desiring a sacramental marriage must first contract a civil marriage before the magistrate and then hold the sacramental celebration at the church, separating the two concepts completely, while we allow them to be covenanted in a single set of vows.)

And of course, while Anglican priests don't "marry" couples appearing before them, they do officiate and bless, and they are themselves entitled to marry if the Lord so leads them.

Finally, it's worth noting that at least three autocephalous provinces within the Anglican Communion have elected to bless same-sex unions -- as is their canonical right. We've managed these 400 years without having a central Papal authority -- we owe our very existence to the rejection of that authority. And it would be extremely unwise to attempt, in the absence of an ecumenical council including our bishops, to lay down strictures on what autonomous provinces may and may not do. This is a prime fault of the recent promulgations of the reversed-collar bureaucrats of Lambeth, who believe they and not the Holy Spirit are in charge of the church. The "instruments of unity" are not the ACC and the rest, but the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; ++Rowan holds a primacy of honor, not a quasi-papal authority over the Church of the Province of South Africa, the Anglican Church of Australia, and the rest of our member provinces.

[longhair75]

Friend gtsecc,

I agree. Our marriage is a covenant between the incomparable Sunflower and I before God. (In three weeks or so, it will be 32 years!) The Priest at the ceremony witnessed this, and the State of Nebraska licensed it as a civil union.

Our Marriage is blessed by God. This is as it should be.

[Polycarp1]

Friend gtsecc,

I agree. Our marriage is a covenant between the incomparable Sunflower and I before God. (In three weeks or so, it will be 32 years!) The Priest at the ceremony witnessed this, and the State of Nebraska licensed it as a civil union.

Our Marriage is blessed by God. This is as it should be.
God has indeed blessed you. My wife and I passed our 32-year mark on the 12th of this current month -- truly the Spring of '75 was a blessed time for marriages! :)

[longhair75]

Brother Polycarp,

Happy Anniversary!

[brightmorningstar]

Dear PolyCarp1,

I think the Opening post has put the Christian position whilst you have put quite a bit about the secular and state position.

As to your last paragraph.
Finally, it's worth noting that at least three autocephalous provinces within the Anglican Communion have elected to bless same-sex unions -- as is their canonical right.
I don’t think it is their canonical right as their canonical right can only be in authority from Jesus Christ. We cant have leaders in the church saying they can do what they like just because they have authority in the church. All authority in heaven and earth is given to Jesus Matthew 28, as the truth the way and the Life John 14 etc.

This is a prime fault of the recent promulgations of the reversed-collar bureaucrats of Lambeth, who believe they and not the Holy Spirit are in charge of the church.
But Lambeth 1.10 is from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit reminds us of all Jesus taught John 14, which includes the created union of man and woman in faithful union, Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6 and Hebrews 13. The Holy Spirit also reminds us that Jesus taught that same-sex activity is error, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 1.

The "instruments of unity" are not the ACC and the rest, but the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit;
That’s true the unity of the Spirit and the word in peace and love. Ephesians 4:3 “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. “
But we must live as children of light and not be separated from the life of God due to the hardening of hearts and losing sensitivity so as to indulge in “every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.” – Ephesians 4:19.

[brightmorningstar]

There are many reports and there is much research coming out now to which Christians can point to support faithful marriage as the best way for people according to God's creation purposes.
There was a report in the UK recently labelled "Breakdown Britain" which showed children being rasied in environments without either a male or female parent were in general 75% more likely to underachieve at school, be involved in crime, drugs, alcohol, unwanted pregnancy and poverty.
Pretty good affirmation of God's best wishes for us in marriage as in a faithful man/woman union, where the child then leaves his/her father and mother and is united with his husband/wife. Indeed Christ and His church are compared to this. As Christians we would see all other relationships are to a degree dysfunctional and disordered.

[Finella]

Brightmorningstar,

Your post distracts me yet again from my work! So this will be brief. It's a difficult week for me, school-wise, I can't spend much time here.

All I have to say about your cited research (do you have a link? it would be most helpful) is: Correlation is not causation. It is easy to make conclusions such as yours without looking in-depth into the problems -- which are obviously complex. Human beings are not machines which react predictably to a single-button stimulus (such as marriage). If we were, the world would be a very different place. An analogy would be that research shows that 90% of bank robbers eat hamburgers. Therefore hamburgers lead to criminal behavior. Which, as you can see, is quite faulty logic.

And your view of the role of the Church is clearly different than Polycarp's -- I think that is another fundamental difference between people's understanding of authority and who can do what under what circumstances.

[Mary of Bethany]

God has indeed blessed you. My wife and I passed our 32-year mark on the 12th of this current month -- truly the Spring of '75 was a blessed time for marriages! :)

Yes, it was! My hubby and I will also celebrate 32 years in a couple of weeks! :clap:

Mary

[gtsecc]

Let me get us back on track:
The State doesn't marry anyone - that is a civil union.
The Church doesn't marry anyone - it blesses the marriage.

[longhair75]

Let me get us back on track:
The State doesn't marry anyone - that is a civil union.
The Church doesn't marry anyone - it blesses the marriage.
Friend gtsecc,

This is true.

[masuwerte]

What about non-Christian couples? Are they married to each other, or do they only have civil unions? Just curious.

[Polycarp1]

Let me get us back on track:
The State doesn't marry anyone - that is a civil union.
The Church doesn't marry anyone - it blesses the marriage.

This is true, Glenn. I simply wanted to make sure that sure that we did take into account the multiple popular uses of the word. What the City or County Clerk issues you is not a "civil union license" (unless you're gay and in one of the four states allowing them) but a "marriage license." But that no more means the state can consecrate a sacramental marriage than that it can confect the Eucharist. (Well, former Sen. Danforth can, being a priest and all, but you know what I mean.)

And let me be 100% clear on this: Lambeth 1.10, like every other document to come out of the Lambeth Conferences since the 1880s, was a "sense of the Bishops" message -- not a regulation which they proposed to enforce on their home churches willy-nilly. (The Lord who inspired its current text is not the Lord God of Hosts, but one of Mother Carey's Chickens, too, but that's another matter.)

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Finella,
Thank you once again for your questions.

Firstly let me give you a link to the research.
http://www.centreforsocialjustice.co.uk/default.asp?pageRef=161 (http://www.centreforsocialjustice.co.uk/default.asp?pageRef=161)

It is easy to make conclusions such as yours without looking in-depth into the problems -- which are obviously complex.
Well my conclusion is that the research is sound and simple enough in general. My point is no so much just the research but that the research backs up the Biblical model as best.
And your view of the role of the Church is clearly different than Polycarp's -- I think that is another fundamental difference between people's understanding of authority and who can do what under what circumstances.
Yes my view of the role of the church does seem to be scriptural, and as of course scripture tells us all authority in heaven and earth has been given to Jesus so we go and make disciples teaching them to obey all Jesus taught Matthew 28, I thought it was worth citing some of that.

Bless you

[ebia]

Let me get us back on track:
The State doesn't marry anyone - that is a civil union.
The Church doesn't marry anyone - it blesses the marriage.
Can I ask why you take a western church view of marriage when you are clearly more intune with the eastern church on so many other issues?

[brightmorningstar]

The State doesn't marry anyone - that is a civil union.
The Church doesn't marry anyone - it blesses the marriage.
Correct. Marriage is a creation ordinance and indeed the Anglican Communion recognises this as a secondary sacrement.
I also affirm that the church cant possibly bless same-sex unions.

[ludovica]

I was married in a register office before I was a Christian. I was divorced in 1999.
I am now a Christian. If the Lord wills it and I were to meet someone else, would I be able to marry in Church?

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Ludovica,

I would say yes, if you and your intended are both Christians and therefore understand how to commit to a marriage as God intended.

Just to pre-empt a few things here. Anyone who commits adultery and fornication can surely be forgiven when they come to believe and repent?

[longhair75]

I was married in a register office before I was a Christian. I was divorced in 1999.
I am now a Christian. If the Lord wills it and I were to meet someone else, would I be able to marry in Church?
Friend Ludovica,

I am sure you will be able to do this.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Polycarp1,
I can’t see why you needed to post such a provocative statement. I will make an emphatic statement in response.
And let me be 100% clear on this: Lambeth 1.10, like every other document to come out of the Lambeth Conferences since the 1880s, was a "sense of the Bishops" message -- not a regulation which they proposed to enforce on their home churches willy-nilly. (The Lord who inspired its current text is not the Lord God of Hosts, but one of Mother Carey's Chickens, too, but that's another matter.)
Let us be fundamentally clear this is a fundamentally not so. The potential schism is due to the fact that Lambeth 1.10 is to be recognised as the line in the sand on this issue, for the majority in the Anglican Communion from the various provinces we post from on this forum.
The reason is as I explained because the canonical right is not recognised where it is at odds with the authority we have in Christ Jesus Matthew 19. Hence Lambeth 1.10 is from the Holy Spirit and the word of God as the created union of man and woman in faithful union, Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6 and Hebrews 13. The Holy Spirit also reminds us that Jesus taught that same-sex activity is error, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 1.
If it isnt for all home churches, that would suggest the home church could teach anything it wishes whether Anglican beliefs or not.

[ludovica]

Dear Ludovica,

I would say yes, if you and your intended are both Christians and therefore understand how to commit to a marriage as God intended.

Just to pre-empt a few things here. Anyone who commits adultery and fornication can surely be forgiven when they come to believe and repent? Its nice of you to say so, but I'm not so certain. I'm pretty sure that as a divorced person I would not be able to marry in Church, sadly
Still, as I dont have anyone in mind, I guess it's a non-issue:(

[pmcleanj]

Its nice of you to say so, but I'm not so certain. I'm pretty sure that as a divorced person I would not be able to marry in Church, sadly
Still, as I dont have anyone in mind, I guess it's a non-issue:(
As a divorced person, you would need permission from your Bishop to marry in Church. How your Bishop investigates requests for remarriage permission, and the grounds on which he or she grants or witholds such permission, vary from place to place. In most cases that I know of, the diocese has a Marriage Commission who hear such requests and make recommendation to the Bishop on the merits of the case.

Usually the commission will be looking for the reasons that the original marriage failed, and for reasons that they could expect a subsequent marriage to succeed. This can be seen as roughly parallel to the Vatican hierarchy's process of anullment (though much less expensive). Since a true sacramental marriage joins two people "until death do us part", you cannot have a second sacramental marriage while your partner in the first sacramental marriage still lives. But if the first marriage was not sacramental -- for example, if you and your former husband didn't understand what marriage really is and therefore couldn't form an intention to confect a sacramental marriage -- that limitation is not a concern. In some diocese, the simple fact that your first marriage failed may be taken as evidence that it was not sacramental -- but then the commission's emphasis will be on ensuring that whatever defect prevented a sacrament the first time will not recur.

Of course, if you happen to be Prince Charles and the future Defender of the Faith (or, "of Faith"), church and national politics will also come into play and the chance of a dispensation may flutter out the window. It's far better to be a commoner in such cases.

[ludovica]

Thank you very much for that answer. My marriage was a register office one. My former husband is now married to someone else. Neither of us was a Christian at anytime in our marriage and our daughter was not christened.

[gtsecc]

What about non-Christian couples? Are they married to each other, or do they only have civil unions? Just curious.
We can't know.

[gtsecc]

Dear Finella,
Thank you once again for your questions.

Firstly let me give you a link to the research.
http://www.centreforsocialjustice.co.uk/default.asp?pageRef=161 (http://www.centreforsocialjustice.co.uk/default.asp?pageRef=161)

It is easy to make conclusions such as yours without looking in-depth into the problems -- which are obviously complex.
Well my conclusion is that the research is sound and simple enough in general. My point is no so much just the research but that the research backs up the Biblical model as best.
And your view of the role of the Church is clearly different than Polycarp's -- I think that is another fundamental difference between people's understanding of authority and who can do what under what circumstances.
Yes my view of the role of the church does seem to be scriptural, and as of course scripture tells us all authority in heaven and earth has been given to Jesus so we go and make disciples teaching them to obey all Jesus taught Matthew 28, I thought it was worth citing some of that.

Bless you
um - you are missing the point.
The purpose of this thread is not to suggest that marriage is good, bad, nice, mean, happy, sad, or culturally relevant.

It is to define some terms because many folks use the word marriage to mean so many different things that we can't even begin a meaningful discussion until we set some definitions.

[gtsecc]

I was married in a register office before I was a Christian. I was divorced in 1999.
I am now a Christian. If the Lord wills it and I were to meet someone else, would I be able to marry in Church?
Maybe.
It is up to the Bishop.

[longhair75]

In my time as a member of the Church of Rome one of the Priests resident at the Church we attended was the head of the Diocese Marriage Tribunal. My Brother in Law was just about to enter into his second marriage, the first being presided over by a Justice of the Peace in his living room.

I asked the Priest I was aquainted with if the first marriage needed to be annuled. He said that a secular marriage could be dissolved as far as the Church was concerned by filing a document declaring that it was in "Defect of Form" by which I assume it meant it was a civil rather than Sacramental marriage.

[norbie]

I was married in a register office before I was a Christian. I was divorced in 1999.
I am now a Christian. If the Lord wills it and I were to meet someone else, would I be able to marry in Church?
My View is: yes you can be married in Church. The Reason I see is that Marriage is a Holy Sacrament which you can only receive ones in your life, you haven't received it jet.
Just my thoughts on this.
Norbie

[Polycarp1]

um - you are missing the point.
The purpose of this thread is not to suggest that marriage is good, bad, nice, mean, happy, sad, or culturally relevant.

It is to define some terms because many folks use the word marriage to mean so many different things that we can't even begin a meaningful discussion until we set some definitions.

And in this matter we completely agree. My post was to do a distinguo between common uses of the word "marriage" in various contexts.

Please note the comments here: "My (first) marriage was in a registrar's office/before a justice of the peace." Unless that registrar or JP was an ordained bishop or priest of the church officiating at a sacramental marriage (possible but unlikely to the point of absurdity), they were using my definition #2: that legally recognized estate which is licensed by the state in which two people contract to live as spouses of each other in accordance with state law -- what Glenn referenced as a "civil union."

I think it's vitally important to recognize the distinction in the three uses of the term. If someone says, "X and Y cannot marry," that can mean one of three things:

1. They can very well consider themselves married by their mutual contract with each other, but I as an individual don't recognize them as married.

2. There is an impediment under state law to them contracting a marriage which the state will regard as a valid one.

3. Under my understanding of God's will and the Church's canon law, there exists an impediment to their covenanting a sacramental marriage. What they themselves or the state may think regarding their marital state is immaterial.

Can Fred and Tom, or Susan and Dolores, marry? Certainly, by definition #1: they can exchange vows and consider themselves as married to each other, anywhere and any time. In Massachusetts, Canada, and a variety of European Countries, yes, but in other states and other countries, no, by definition #2: Only the first list legally recognizes same-sex marriages. And of course the majority opinion (but with a large and vocal minority) is that they cannot contract a sacramental marriage; it's contrary to God's will.

When we start porting one definition into the place of the other is when we begin confusing ourselves and each other. And I think, in keeping with the Two Great Commandments and Christ's own word, it's important that we avoid laying down strictures that fail to recognize our "bait-and-switch" tactics with regard to the varying uses of the term.

[gtsecc]

My View is: yes you can be married in Church. The Reason I see is that Marriage is a Holy Sacrament which you can only receive ones in your life, you haven't received it jet.
Just my thoughts on this.
Norbie
Well, did you read the thread?
The sacrament has to do with the two people, not the priest - so, a justice of the peace, Elvis impersonator, etc... union can be sacramental because of the 2 people being joined, not the joiner.

[gtsecc]

And in this matter we completely agree. My post was to do a distinguo between common uses of the word "marriage" in various contexts.

Please note the comments here: "My (first) marriage was in a registrar's office/before a justice of the peace." Unless that registrar or JP was an ordained bishop or priest of the church officiating at a sacramental marriage (possible but unlikely to the point of absurdity), they were using my definition #2: that legally recognized estate which is licensed by the state in which two people contract to live as spouses of each other in accordance with state law -- what Glenn referenced as a "civil union."

I think it's vitally important to recognize the distinction in the three uses of the term. If someone says, "X and Y cannot marry," that can mean one of three things:

1. They can very well consider themselves married by their mutual contract with each other, but I as an individual don't recognize them as married.

2. There is an impediment under state law to them contracting a marriage which the state will regard as a valid one.

3. Under my understanding of God's will and the Church's canon law, there exists an impediment to their covenanting a sacramental marriage. What they themselves or the state may think regarding their marital state is immaterial.

Can Fred and Tom, or Susan and Dolores, marry? Certainly, by definition #1: they can exchange vows and consider themselves as married to each other, anywhere and any time. In Massachusetts, Canada, and a variety of European Countries, yes, but in other states and other countries, no, by definition #2: Only the first list legally recognizes same-sex marriages. And of course the majority opinion (but with a large and vocal minority) is that they cannot contract a sacramental marriage; it's contrary to God's will.

When we start porting one definition into the place of the other is when we begin confusing ourselves and each other. And I think, in keeping with the Two Great Commandments and Christ's own word, it's important that we avoid laying down strictures that fail to recognize our "bait-and-switch" tactics with regard to the varying uses of the term.
Yes. I think we agree.
These marriage thread arguments drive me crazy because people are generally all using the same words to talk about different things. On top of that some folks are not even really sacramantalists in the first place, but want to quibble about “biblical” marriage, but they don’t seem to know what it is anyway since they aren’t sacramentalists. You know, if folks don’t believe in the sacraments, or really the visible church as defined by Bishops, then why do they really care weather or not something they don’t think can happen (sacraments) is done by a group (the visible church) they don’t think exists? Well, I know why – because they don’t want their neighbors to think that they go to the gay church.

[brightmorningstar]

A pink shirt with a black suit is a good marriage. But of a marriage of colours of course.
As a sacrament, matrimony is the marriage of a man and a woman as God's creation purpose, but this involves the prupose of a sexual union. So for the church for example same-sex marriage, which was mentioned, is an oxymoron and cant be blessed.

[gtsecc]

I would say, we know we can bless different sex unions.

I would not say, we know we can bless same sex unions.
I would not say we know we cannot bless same sex unions.

We know we can celebrate with bread and wine.
We don't know if we can use scones, and grape juice.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Gtsecc,

We know for sure we can bless a man woman union because Jesus teaches we can. Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6.

We know for sure we can not bless same sex unions, firstly because of what Jesus teaches about man and woman makes it evidently against God’s purpose, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6, and secondly because He teaches it is wrong, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1.

We know we should celebrate with bread and wine because we are commanded to do so by Jesus, and we don't know for sure whether it we can or cant use scones, and grape juice, but that’s because Jesus NT teaching doesn’t say one way or the other. .

As a Christian I believe that is the only position a Christian can take. I hope you aren’t trying to attack my Christian faith here, one that of millions hold.:)

[ludovica]

Dear Gtsecc,

We know for sure we can bless a man woman union because Jesus teaches we can. Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6.

We know for sure we can not bless same sex unions, firstly because of what Jesus teaches about man and woman makes it evidently against God’s purpose, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6, and secondly because He teaches it is wrong, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1.

We know we should celebrate with bread and wine because we are commanded to do so by Jesus, and we don't know for sure whether it we can or cant use scones, and grape juice, but that’s because Jesus NT teaching doesn’t say one way or the other. .

As a Christian I believe that is the only position a Christian can take. I hope you aren’t trying to attack my Christian faith here, one that of millions hold.:) This is so true... People need to read Scripture and stop trying to stretch it to their purpose. It already contains all we need for salvation as long as we apply common sense

[gtsecc]

Dear Gtsecc,

We know for sure we can bless a man woman union because Jesus teaches we can. Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6.

We know for sure we can not bless same sex unions, firstly because of what Jesus teaches about man and woman makes it evidently against God’s purpose, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6, and secondly because He teaches it is wrong, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1.

We know we should celebrate with bread and wine because we are commanded to do so by Jesus, and we don't know for sure whether it we can or cant use scones, and grape juice, but that’s because Jesus NT teaching doesn’t say one way or the other. .

As a Christian I believe that is the only position a Christian can take. I hope you aren’t trying to attack my Christian faith here, one that of millions hold.:)
No.
It is a lot more subtle than that.

God, through the Church, reveals truth.

We have been talking about the Church and sola Scriptura and authority for a long time here, but I think some folks aren't ever goign to understand it.

[gtsecc]

It already contains all we need for salvation as long as we apply common sense
Where do you get that idea?

[ludovica]

Where do you get that idea?John tells us
"Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. "
meaning (IMO) that he had already included everything necessary and any more would grow repetitious

[gtsecc]

John tells us
"Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. "
meaning (IMO) that he had already included everything necessary and any more would grow repetitious
I take that to mean there is much truth revealed orally to the Apostiles, and look to them, rather than the book for truth.

[ChaliceThunder]

The Church blesses same sex unions all the time - so the issue of "can't" doesn't hold water.

Many of you think it mustn't do so, and that is fine to think that way. In many places you will no doubt rejoice that the church does not do so.

And alas, in many places it will likely sadden you that the church IS doing so.

But hey, in a number of places the church's main Sunday worship is 1928 Morning Prayer, even though the Eucharist is supposed to be the norm.

We are a big and varied church.

[ludovica]

The Church blesses same sex unions all the time - so the issue of "can't" doesn't hold water.

Many of you think it mustn't do so, and that is fine to think that way. In many places you will no doubt rejoice that the church does not do so.

And alas, in many places it will likely sadden you that the church IS doing so.

But hey, in a number of places the church's main Sunday worship is 1928 Morning Prayer, even though the Eucharist is supposed to be the norm.

We are a big and varied church. What church is that?
I never heard of a C of E church doing this?

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Gtsecc,

No God has revealed the truth on this matter through Jesus Christ, it was His teaching I was citing.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Chalice_thunder,

The church can bless same-sex sex but my Christian faith says that is rebellion against God and something God finds offensive. I know God finds it offensive because His word, which I have cited tells us so.
It may surprise you to know that my view is held by the Anglican Communion as a whole and may cause schism.

I dont think we can discuss any human relationship issues without being completely divided.

Bless you

[Polycarp1]

Dear Bright Morning Star,

To quote Winston Churchill speaking to Parliament about a decision Gen. Eisenhower had taken for the Allied troops which he personally supported but which was looked on with disfavor in Britain, "Since 1776 we have not been in a position of being able to make decisions for America." What the Church of England does or does not do is for the Church of England to decide, and Americans should have no voice -- but the reverse holds true as well.

[No Swansong]

No.
It is a lot more subtle than that.

God, through the Church, reveals truth.

We have been talking about the Church and sola Scriptura and authority for a long time here, but I think some folks aren't ever goign to understand it.
There is a difference between understanding and agreeing Glen.

[norbie]

"The Church blesses same sex unions all the time - so the issue of "can't" doesn't hold water."

Were do you get this from? Can you back this up?
Norbie

[ChaliceThunder]

What church is that?
I never heard of a C of E church doing this?
Congregations all over TEC do so.

[ChaliceThunder]

Dear Chalice_thunder,

The church can bless same-sex sex but my Christian faith says that is rebellion against God and something God finds offensive. I know God finds it offensive because His word, which I have cited tells us so.
It may surprise you to know that my view is held by the Anglican Communion as a whole and may cause schism.

I dont think we can discuss any human relationship issues without being completely divided.

Bless you
If it was "held by the Anglican Communion as a whole" why on earth would it cause schism. That makes absolutely no sense.

[ChaliceThunder]

"The Church blesses same sex unions all the time - so the issue of "can't" doesn't hold water."

Were do you get this from? Can you back this up?
Norbie
I have witnessed and played music for a number of them personally. So yes, I can definitely back it up.
:wave:

[ludovica]

Congregations all over TEC do so.I heard somewhere that the TEC may be declared "out of communion" with the rest of the Anglican Communion before too long

[longhair75]

I heard somewhere that the TEC may be declared "out of communion" with the rest of the Anglican Communion before too long
Friend Ludovica,

There are some that post on this forum that think that this is likely. I disagree.

[No Swansong]

I have witnessed and played music for a number of them personally. So yes, I can definitely back it up.
:wave:
Chalice my friend I think Norbie was looking for some type of documentation. Does such exist?

[No Swansong]

I heard somewhere that the TEC may be declared "out of communion" with the rest of the Anglican Communion before too long
Unfortunately I think that this is eminent.

[ChaliceThunder]

I heard somewhere that the TEC may be declared "out of communion" with the rest of the Anglican Communion before too long
Yes - a lot of people say a lot of things. But the subject of marriage and homosexuality is not at the root of the rancor.

[No Swansong]

Yes - a lot of people say a lot of things. But the subject of marriage and homosexuality is not at the root of the rancor.
My friend I think the discord over two subjects you mention are indeed only symptoms of the problem.

[ChaliceThunder]

Chalice my friend I think Norbie was looking for some type of documentation. Does such exist?
Oh - my bad.

Well, it's kind of hard to document. But here's a story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20779-2004Jun6.html

and here's one
http://uk.gay.com/headlines/10167

and here's another
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=34342&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

[ChaliceThunder]

My friend I think the discord over two subjects you mention are indeed only symptoms of the problem.
Yes - agreed.
And, blessed friend, I know that we share grief over this.

[No Swansong]

Oh - my bad.

Well, it's kind of hard to document. But here's a story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20779-2004Jun6.html

and here's one
http://uk.gay.com/headlines/10167

and here's another
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=34342&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm
Thanks Chalice, does anyone have any information from provinces other than TEC or CofE?

[No Swansong]

Yes - agreed.
And, blessed friend, I know that we share grief over this.
Indeed! I appreciate your kind words by the way you are truly an example of Proverbs 15:1 (uh the first part)

[ChaliceThunder]

Indeed! I appreciate your kind words by the way you are truly an example of Proverbs 15:1 (uh the first part)
Now I gotta go look it up!

click click click click...

Ah yes - thanks for the clarification! ;)

And your example is equally appreciated.

[ChaliceThunder]

Thanks Chalice, does anyone have any information from provinces other than TEC or CofE?
I believe Bp. Ingham in the Dio. of New Westminster in BC, Canada has authorized them. And I think the Canadian church is poised to do some more acting on the matter this summer - perhaps to go along with their own national law which does allow gay marriage.

[No Swansong]

Now I gotta go look it up!

click click click click...

Ah yes - thanks for the clarification! ;)

And your example is equally appreciated.
LOL
Yes I have gotten in trouble quoting proverbs before.

[No Swansong]

I believe Bp. Ingham in the Dio. of New Westminster in BC, Canada has authorized them. And I think the Canadian church is poised to do some more acting on the matter this summer - perhaps to go along with their own national law which does allow gay marriage.
Thanks Chalice this has recently become an issue of increased interest to me.

[RobNJ]

As soon as I saw this thread title. I knew it was going to be frightening!:eek:





*single guy runs outta here real fast!! ^_^ *

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Polycarp1,
I must pick up on your comments

To quote Winston Churchill speaking to Parliament about a decision Gen. Eisenhower had taken for the Allied troops which he personally supported but which was looked on with disfavor in Britain, "Since 1776 we have not been in a position of being able to make decisions for America." What the Church of England does or does not do is for the Church of England to decide, and Americans should have no voice -- but the reverse holds true as well.
I don’t see any relevance in this as a response to what I wrote and the scripture I quoted. It is churchianity to me and bad church at that.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Chalice Thunder,
In response to your comment.
If it was "held by the Anglican Communion as a whole" why on earth would it cause schism. That makes absolutely no sense.
The view that same-sex sex is a sin has always been held by the Anglican Communion and the majority affirm it still is and must be so. So I would say that what we have at present is rebellion.
But again as a response to what I wrote and the scripture I cited your comment seems churchianity.

[brightmorningstar]

The TEC is already in impared communion with many, some primates would not even share communion in Tanzania.
Indeed, on the spiritual Godly matters marriage is recognised in the Anglican Communion as a 'secondary' sacrament or rite so it doesnt seem unreasonable that some primates should not share a sacrament with some primates who dont share other sacraments.
On the churchianity front, I think even with the situation currently going on between JKS and Akinola that communion is already impaired.

The title of the thread is marriage and the OP asks in what terms we understand it. Whilst many may see it in terms of state laws or churchianity, I understand it in terms of the historic apostolic gospel once delivered, that marriage is the faithful union for a man and a woman and that sexual activity is meant for that union alone as in God's creation purpose (Gen 2) Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 6, Hebrews 13 for starters.
I think many passages in NT scripture such as Matt 19 show that fornication and adultery ('porneia' and 'moicheia') break that sacrament so any other loving unions are supposed to be friendships and fellowships and any sexual unions are error.

If there is no scripture offered to support other unions, which would be in direct contradiction with God's purpose creating woman for man anyway, and also considering Lambeth 1.10 many in the Anglican Communion consider alternative ideas about marriage a fundament attack on our faith (rule 2.1)

[ludovica]

The TEC is already in impared communion with many, some primates would not even share communion in Tanzania.
Indeed, on the spiritual Godly matters marriage is recognised in the Anglican Communion as a 'secondary' sacrament or rite so it doesnt seem unreasonable that some primates should not share a sacrament with some primates who dont share other sacraments.
On the churchianity front, I think even with the situation currently going on between JKS and Akinola that communion is already impaired.

The title of the thread is marriage and the OP asks in what terms we understand it. Whilst many may see it in terms of state laws or churchianity, I understand it in terms of the historic apostolic gospel once delivered, that marriage is the faithful union for a man and a woman and that sexual activity is meant for that union alone as in God's creation purpose (Gen 2) Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 6, Hebrews 13 for starters.
I think many passages in NT scripture such as Matt 19 show that fornication and adultery ('porneia' and 'moicheia') break that sacrament so any other loving unions are supposed to be friendships and fellowships and any sexual unions are error.

If there is no scripture offered to support other unions, which would be in direct contradiction with God's purpose creating woman for man anyway, and also considering Lambeth 1.10 many in the Anglican Communion consider alternative ideas about marriage a fundament attack on our faith (rule 2.1) Well said!:)

[ChaliceThunder]

Dear Chalice Thunder,
In response to your comment.
If it was "held by the Anglican Communion as a whole" why on earth would it cause schism. That makes absolutely no sense.
The view that same-sex sex is a sin has always been held by the Anglican Communion and the majority affirm it still is and must be so. So I would say that what we have at present is rebellion.
But again as a response to what I wrote and the scripture I cited your comment seems churchianity.

You said "as a whole" and that is not the case.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Chalice_Thunder,
You said "as a whole" and that is not the case.
Yes it is the case as those who hold the opposite view are in impared and not full communion. As I said the view that same-sex sex is a sin has always been held by the Anglican Communion and still do, those who dont are no longer in full communion but impared communion.

But again the thread is about marriage and for the Anglican Communion marriage as in a faithful man/woman union according to God's creation purpose is a secondary sacrament (ie. ordained by God) whatever the state thinks. :)

[ChaliceThunder]

Dear Chalice_Thunder,
You said "as a whole" and that is not the case.
Yes it is the case as those who hold the opposite view are in impared and not full communion. As I said the view that same-sex sex is a sin has always been held by the Anglican Communion and still do, those who dont are no longer in full communion but impared communion.

But again the thread is about marriage and for the Anglican Communion marriage as in a faithful man/woman union according to God's creation purpose is a secondary sacrament (ie. ordained by God) whatever the state thinks. :)
Brother, I am not challenging your opinion on this matter. If it's important for you to believe that God has not blessed the marriage between me and my partner for the last 22 years, then go ahead and believe it.

[Finella]

I'm just watching from the peanut gallery -- but for my clarification. birghtmorningstar, can you define "churchianity"? I can guess at your meaning from context, but I want to be sure I'm understanding you.

[Polycarp1]

It appears that Americans who have supported this forum since the beginning and who belong to a church that has been a part of the Anglican Communion since its inception are being told to get out of STR by a few individuals who claim authority not even ++Rowan Williams will assert.

I would simply like to take exception to that attitude, although I will reluctantly comply with it. Would a moderator be so kind as to remove the pinned threads which I took the time and trouble to compose, and place them in the Trash Bin?

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Chalice Thunder,
What I believe is the word of God as I have demonstrated, which makes it clear that same-sex sexual unions are not only outside God's creation purpose but also against and sinful.
When you say
Brother, I am not challenging your opinion on this
matter.
You are challenging the Bible which in my opinon is true and on which my faith is based.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Finella,
but for my clarification. birghtmorningstar, can you define "churchianity"? I can guess at your meaning from context, but I want to be sure I'm understanding you.
Thank you for your question. I thought I had described it. I am referring to church organisation rules and structures and instead of scripture.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Polycarp1,
Could you show me anyone who has asked you or anyone to get off STR. I sincerely hope I havent done anything of the sort. :)

[ebia]

Dear Polycarp1,
Could you show me anyone who has asked you or anyone to get off STR. I sincerely hope I havent done anything of the sort. :)
This:
If there is no scripture offered to support other unions, which would be in direct contradiction with God's purpose creating woman for man anyway, and also considering Lambeth 1.10 many in the Anglican Communion consider alternative ideas about marriage a fundament attack on our faith (rule 2.1)
seems to imply that you consider any expression of an opinion different from yours to be a breach of the rules.

[ChaliceThunder]

Dear Chalice Thunder,
What I believe is the word of God as I have demonstrated, which makes it clear that same-sex sexual unions are not only outside God's creation purpose but also against and sinful.
When you say
Brother, I am not challenging your opinion on this
matter.
You are challenging the Bible which in my opinon is true and on which my faith is based. This is against rule 2.1
You know what?

Rule 2.1 does not state that we must read the bible literally, nor which translation to read, nor which theologians to follow.
In fact, the Anglican Way has never been fundamentalist, but has demonstrated an embrace of the middle where all sides can meet.

So might I gently ask you to back off with the victim stuff? I have not challenged your faith in any way.

[ChaliceThunder]

Dear Polycarp1,
Could you show me anyone who has asked you or anyone to get off STR. I sincerely hope I havent done anything of the sort. :)
The smiley does not make it any more palatable.

And since you follow only the Bible - under your definition, Lambeth 1.10, which you are happy to throw around, qualifies as churchianity.

[longhair75]

Good evening friends

Rule 2.6 states:You will not accuse other members of violating these Rules in the discussion forums. Please use the report feature instead.

Please allow your moderation staff to deal with rules violations.

[john23237]

If it's important for you to believe that God has not blessed the marriage between me and my partner for the last 22 years, then go ahead and believe it.

How very sad it is that a blessed gift of God and an example of Christian virtue can be seen by anyone in a negative light. How very, very sad.:sigh:

[ChaliceThunder]

How very sad it is that a blessed gift of God and an example of Christian virtue can be seen by anyone in a negative light. How very, very sad.:sigh:
Indeed. However, it is only sad for those who CHOOSE to see it that way.

We rejoice because of the many wonderful deep friendships that are rooted in prayer, liturgy and service, which constantly affirm and uphold us as a couple. It is our joy, and for that we can only be profoundly grateful to God.

[gtsecc]

I think most everyone is completely missing the point.

The Church does not marry ANYONE - gay, straight, etc...

God does, and He can do whatever He wants to do.

The Church merely blesses the union.
To bless is different than to Mary.

If you are gay, straight, evangelical, or whatever, and God marries you - that is fine. It is like arguing about the color of the sky - none of us here have any say in the matter.

Clearly, most of the folks against “gay marriage” as being a new idea, have completely missed the point that their Bible Only tripe, is more radical and more destructive. But, it is ironic, because most of them think their militant Bible thing is the solution, and don’t see it as the problem.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Chalice Thunder
I am sorry but what you describe seems to a friendship. If it is a same-sex sexual union you are refering to the scriptures say that is sinful, Genesis 19, Judges 19, Lev 18 & 20, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1. God's purpose was creating woman for man so that man and woman should be in faithful union, Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6, Hebrews 13 etc.
What is your prayer, liturgy and service rooted in,in this matter, if not the Bible as God's word and revelation through the Holy Spirit. How can one be grateful to God for doing things God has told us not to do.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear gtsecc,
"Bible only tripe"
In the Anglican Communion we believe the Bible OT and NT is the rule and standard of faith, we use the Bible only we reason and tradition, we dont use anything else.
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/faith/anglican/
Of course it is Bible only 'tripe' To me that tripe is the living and active word of God

[ChaliceThunder]

Dear Chalice Thunder
I am sorry but what you describe seems to a friendship. If it is a same-sex sexual union you are refering to the scriptures say that is sinful, Genesis 19, Judges 19, Lev 18 & 20, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1. God's purpose was creating woman for man so that man and woman should be in faithful union, Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6, Hebrews 13 etc.
What is your prayer, liturgy and service rooted in,in this matter, if not the Bible as God's word and revelation through the Holy Spirit. How can one be grateful to God for doing things God has told us not to do.
Again, I make no challenge to you, brother. If you want or need to hold that opinion, then by all means, do so.

[ChaliceThunder]

I think most everyone is completely missing the point.

The Church does not marry ANYONE - gay, straight, etc...

God does, and He can do whatever He wants to do.

The Church merely blesses the union.
To bless is different than to Mary.

If you are gay, straight, evangelical, or whatever, and God marries you - that is fine. It is like arguing about the color of the sky - none of us here have any say in the matter.

Clearly, most of the folks against “gay marriage” as being a new idea, have completely missed the point that their Bible Only tripe, is more radical and more destructive. But, it is ironic, because most of them think their militant Bible thing is the solution, and don’t see it as the problem.
I got yer point, mate. And a good one it is!

PS - I forgot to tell you how much I like your Onslow avatar.
We watched Hyacinth on the QE2 last night!
:wave:

[gtsecc]

Dear gtsecc,
"Bible only tripe"
In the Anglican Communion we believe the Bible OT and NT is the rule and standard of faith, we use the Bible only we reason and tradition, we dont use anything else.
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/faith/anglican/
Of course it is Bible only 'tripe' To me that tripe is the living and active word of God
Keep diging at that line of authority.
You see, if you are going to say it is true or Christian because this group of Anglicans says so, then you are going to be on equal footing with those for some of the "liberal" ideas you don't like.

[Polycarp1]

Keep diging at that line of authority.
You see, if you are going to say it is true or Christian because this group of Anglicans says so, then you are going to be on equal footing with those for some of the "liberal" ideas you don't like.
I'm 100% with Glenn on this. Authority in the Church does not derive from the Bible -- the authority of the Bible derives from the Church. Yes, it's our norming canon for determining the true and sufficient standard of faith. But the Bible itself, in St. John I:1-14, shows us WHO the true and living Word of God is: our Redeemer and Savior, by whose Atonement we are saved. "Bible-only tripe" is purely accurate -- take a look in General Heresies (Oblio's name for General Theology) for what people have decided to "prove" using a "Bible only" stance.

Further, the internal affairs of each province are, by Tradition, the exclusive concern of that Province. I didn't get a vote on making ++Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury, nor did any of our standing committees, General Convention, nor the House of Bishops. Nobody asked the permission of the Episcopal Church before making Mr. Akinola a bishop. (Sorry, but if he's declared himself out of communion with my church and starting up a schismatic church to compete with it, he gets no mark of ecclesial respect from me -- he's a baptized Christian whom some other church claims is an archbishop, and deserves all the same degree of respect from Episcopalians as the Bishop President of the Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God, U.S.A., Inc.) And we need no permission before choosing ++Katherine Jefferts Schori as our Presiding Bishop, or ratifying the election of +Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire.

[Aymn27]

Dear gtsecc,
"Bible only tripe"
In the Anglican Communion we believe the Bible OT and NT is the rule and standard of faith, we use the Bible only we reason and tradition, we dont use anything else.
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/faith/anglican/
Of course it is Bible only 'tripe' To me that tripe is the living and active word of God
brightmorningstar,
I believe that you and I are in agreement in almost every point you have ever posted here on STR! Just wanted to say I'm truly glad you are around spreading the truth of God's salvation!

I think it is no accident that the majority of those who are re-appraising the faith are catholic in theology. Even within the RCC there is an idea of "growing into the fullness of the truth" -- which is where they derive an all-powerful pope who speaks with divine authority some 1800 yrs after the passing of Christ - and where they now know for sure - some two millinea after His death and ressurection that His mother was born without sin and was bodily assumed into heaven....and now we have this group of catholics over in the AC saying that they have come to a full understanding that what has been sin since the beginning of our story - is now acceptable and should be blessed....

as for me - I will stick with the "bible only" tripe mentioned above and leave the other "theories" (I don't think I'm allowed to use the choice word I generally would) to those who follow "traditions"...

[ebia]

I didn't get a vote on making ++Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury, nor did any of our standing committees, General Convention, nor the House of Bishops.

Nor anybody else except Tony Blair.

[gtsecc]

I think it is no accident that the majority of those who are re-appraising the faith are catholic in theology.
I would say protestant – because they decide you could take the bible and make up your own religion. Love of the ritual doesn’t make one Catholic.

Even within the RCC there is an idea of "growing into the fullness of the truth" -- which is where they derive an all-powerful pope who speaks with divine authority some 1800 yrs after the passing of Christ - and where they now know for sure - some two millinea after His death and ressurection that His mother was born without sin and was bodily assumed into heaven....and now we have this group of catholics over in the AC saying that they have come to a full understanding that what has been sin since the beginning of our story - is now acceptable and should be blessed....

as for me - I will stick with the "bible only" tripe mentioned above and leave the other "theories" (I don't think I'm allowed to use the choice word I generally would) to those who follow "traditions"...

But, in the end it does look like you are not seeking truth. It looks like whistling in the dark to bolster your own shaky beliefs. You like the vineyard, so your going shove all the theology in that system, etc… Someone says Catholic, and you argue against the Pope. I have argued here that the Pope isn’t Catholic, merely Primacy is. But, you don’t receive that for some reason. If you really want to know some stuff, you need to read. Get some of the good Roman Catholic stuff, like the Kreft Catechism, and go get some good EO stuff, like John Berh, Hopko, Meyendorf, Schmeman, or Zizioulas, etc… I mean you area pretty smart guy – don’t go down that Bible only road, or I will lose faith in the education system. Really, think about the Bible – the Church gives us the Bible, not the other way around. There are tons of Gospels, so how do we know Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John are the ones? Because the Church has accepted them and confessed them, and revealed them as the truth over time. Is this really that difficult a concept to grasp? I believe it is for some folks, but you seem smarter than that to me.

[Polycarp1]

Aaron -- in an effort to reach past this division, may I seek to clarify something? I'm no spokesman for anyone but myself (and sometimes but not always for my wife ;)), but what I understand is this: It's the job of Chalice Thunder and John and the rest, same as it is any of us, to live a life pleasing to God, and it's their responsibility to prayerfully weigh what He is calling them to do and to be. It's not my job to secondguess them or Him. What is my job is to keep the Lord's Commandments myself -- including particularly the three He himself called most important, summarizing the Law and the Prophets. And by His own teachings, setting up rules for others to follow and deciding who is and is not a sinner, and entitled to be part of His church and under what conditions, is not showing love for my neighbor, or doing unto him as I'd have him do unto me. If you think opposition to homosexuality is the touchstone on which the Church is founded, or that somebody is throwing out 2000 years of theology to OK it, then you need to take a better look at what people have been arguing for the past 20 years. And if you plan to insist that we need to exclude gay people to keep you, then I'm sorry, but you're better off somewhere else anyway -- like anybody else who preaches a different Gospel than Jesus Christ.

Sorry to be so blunt. But that's how I feel. I personally don't have to worry about whether or not homosexual conduct is sin. But the Holy Spirit pressed upon me that it was my job, like it or not, to argue against their being excluded because they're the scapegoat du jour on "ridding the church of sinners." When I was in my teens, one of my wife's and my closest friends, a cradle Episcopalian, was excommunicated. Her fault? She'd married a divorced man. She's never been back to church since -- and I don't blame her. If I have to choose, it's the people who want to play Pharisee and decide which sins are excommunication-worthy that are the ones who need to go. Ideally, I'd like to find a way that nobody leaves. But if you're so hot about whether a bishop has a same-sex spouse that you're prepared to violate what Jesus said was most important, then you aren't following Him very well to begin with.

[gtsecc]

Just pray the Gay away!

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Chalice Thunder,
Again, I make no challenge to you, brother. If you want or need to hold that opinion, then by all means, do so.
As a Christian of course I hold that opinion.

[ebia]

Dear Chalice Thunder,
Again, I make no challenge to you, brother. If you want or need to hold that opinion, then by all means, do so.
As a Christian of course I hold that opinion.

There are numerous Christians here who don't hold that opinion, so this is something of a non-sequitur.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear ebia,
But there are numerous Christians here who dont believe same-sex sexual relationships are a Christian lifestyle and in fact believe their promotion as ok are a barrier to the Kingdom of God.
The point about a forum is debating why.
As a Christian pov, let alone what it measn to be an Anglican (http://www.cofe.anglican.org/faith/anglican/ (http://www.cofe.anglican.org/faith/anglican/)) the OT and NT are the rule and ultimate standard of faith. It is they from which the Anglican secondary sacrament or rite of matrimony comes from. It is that rule and ultimate standard of faith that reason and tradition is based on. Reason that says the OT and NT is not the rule and ultimate standard of faith suggest to me another rule and standard.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Polycarp1,
Yes I may be able to agree with your last post. The Holy Spirit reminds us of all Jesus commanded and taught. Whilst He taught that God's purpose is for man and woman, he also taught that He died for all for the forgiveness of sins. Therefore no-one is excluded from the path to righteousness through Him, including anyone who has homosexual desires. Indeed many such people are in the church and seek to be celibate to follow Christ. Indeed my sexuality is not heterosexual but Christian as there as heterosexual practices that are not Christian or honouring God.

[gtsecc]

The death was to redeem death.

Bishops carry the deposit of the faith, not the Bible.
The Bishops gave us the Bible, so if the Bishops are not the authority, then that rules out the Bible.

[ChaliceThunder]

Aaron -- in an effort to reach past this division, may I seek to clarify something? I'm no spokesman for anyone but myself (and sometimes but not always for my wife ;)), but what I understand is this: It's the job of Chalice Thunder and John and the rest, same as it is any of us, to live a life pleasing to God, and it's their responsibility to prayerfully weigh what He is calling them to do and to be. It's not my job to secondguess them or Him. What is my job is to keep the Lord's Commandments myself -- including particularly the three He himself called most important, summarizing the Law and the Prophets. And by His own teachings, setting up rules for others to follow and deciding who is and is not a sinner, and entitled to be part of His church and under what conditions, is not showing love for my neighbor, or doing unto him as I'd have him do unto me. If you think opposition to homosexuality is the touchstone on which the Church is founded, or that somebody is throwing out 2000 years of theology to OK it, then you need to take a better look at what people have been arguing for the past 20 years. And if you plan to insist that we need to exclude gay people to keep you, then I'm sorry, but you're better off somewhere else anyway -- like anybody else who preaches a different Gospel than Jesus Christ.

Sorry to be so blunt. But that's how I feel. I personally don't have to worry about whether or not homosexual conduct is sin. But the Holy Spirit pressed upon me that it was my job, like it or not, to argue against their being excluded because they're the scapegoat du jour on "ridding the church of sinners." When I was in my teens, one of my wife's and my closest friends, a cradle Episcopalian, was excommunicated. Her fault? She'd married a divorced man. She's never been back to church since -- and I don't blame her. If I have to choose, it's the people who want to play Pharisee and decide which sins are excommunication-worthy that are the ones who need to go. Ideally, I'd like to find a way that nobody leaves. But if you're so hot about whether a bishop has a same-sex spouse that you're prepared to violate what Jesus said was most important, then you aren't following Him very well to begin with.
Brother, you have said it very well.

[ChaliceThunder]

Just pray the Gay away!
^_^

I'm starting to "hear" you in an Onslow voice.

[ChaliceThunder]

Dear Chalice Thunder,
Again, I make no challenge to you, brother. If you want or need to hold that opinion, then by all means, do so.
As a Christian of course I hold that opinion.

As a Christian, of course I hold a different opinion than you. We are still brothers serving the same Living God. It's part of the beauty of Anglicanism.

[gtsecc]

^_^

I'm starting to "hear" you in an Onslow voice.
You don't think I read some folks posting here in Hyacinth's voice?

[ChaliceThunder]

You don't think I read some folks posting here in Hyacinth's voice?
^_^

You are on a roll this morning!!!

Mind the lorry!

[brightmorningstar]

Dear gtsecc,
Bishops carry the deposit of the faith, not the Bible.
Do you mean apostles? Where do bishops get this deposit of faith from if not the Holy Spirit and the Bible. That’s why the Anglican Communion says the OT and NT are the rule and standard of faith.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Chalice Thunder,
As a Christian, of course I hold a different opinion than you.
As a Christian of course I believe the Bible says God created woman for man to be in union, and that same-sex is a sin, which takes us back to the debate about why our views differ. I think it is important because if God’s word is the truth then two differing positions cannot both be right, they both may be wrong but they cannot both be right. So what do you base your view on?

[Naomi4Christ]

I was married in a register office before I was a Christian. I was divorced in 1999.
I am now a Christian. If the Lord wills it and I were to meet someone else, would I be able to marry in Church?
It is up to you vicar. He should have a policy about remarriages in church.

[Naomi4Christ]

As a divorced person, you would need permission from your Bishop to marry in Church. How your Bishop investigates requests for remarriage permission, and the grounds on which he or she grants or witholds such permission, vary from place to place. In most cases that I know of, the diocese has a Marriage Commission who hear such requests and make recommendation to the Bishop on the merits of the case.

Usually the commission will be looking for the reasons that the original marriage failed, and for reasons that they could expect a subsequent marriage to succeed. This can be seen as roughly parallel to the Vatican hierarchy's process of anullment (though much less expensive). Since a true sacramental marriage joins two people "until death do us part", you cannot have a second sacramental marriage while your partner in the first sacramental marriage still lives. But if the first marriage was not sacramental -- for example, if you and your former husband didn't understand what marriage really is and therefore couldn't form an intention to confect a sacramental marriage -- that limitation is not a concern. In some diocese, the simple fact that your first marriage failed may be taken as evidence that it was not sacramental -- but then the commission's emphasis will be on ensuring that whatever defect prevented a sacrament the first time will not recur.

Of course, if you happen to be Prince Charles and the future Defender of the Faith (or, "of Faith"), church and national politics will also come into play and the chance of a dispensation may flutter out the window. It's far better to be a commoner in such cases.
Here in England, it is the incumbant's choice. It's not even a parish decision (ie agreed by the PCC).

AFAIK (given what happens in my church), is that the vicar says up front, as a policy matter, whether he will perform marriages for divorced people with surviving spouse. Therefore, there is no need for an inquisition...

ISTR that our policy is to perform second marriages for church family only, rather than any resident of the parish.

[Aymn27]

Dear gtsecc,
Bishops carry the deposit of the faith, not the Bible.
Do you mean apostles? Where do bishops get this deposit of faith from if not the Holy Spirit and the Bible. That’s why the Anglican Communion says the OT and NT are the rule and standard of faith.
Indeed...I'll rest my salvation on that!!

[brightmorningstar]

I think the only point we can know for sure is that God has countenanced a faithful man/woman union, anything else falls short, but if that want even recognised at the time of union it may be subsequently if people give their lives to the Lord and seek a marriage according to God's purposes. The difficulty is, is the adultery the breaking of the marriage or the new union? Jesus corrected the Pharisees teaching on the matter, he didnt ask anyone to put away all adulerous unions they had. Once adultery has been committed it has been committed. My wife and I. married as Christians dont ever expect to divorce or remarry under God's purposes, let alone be able to.

[ebia]

Dear ebia,
But there are numerous Christians here who dont believe same-sex sexual relationships are a Christian lifestyle and in fact believe their promotion as ok are a barrier to the Kingdom of God.
I understand that. It's the "As a Christian ..." followed by something that doesn't necessarly follow for all Christians that either:
a) sounds pretty daft, rather like saying "as a Christian, I prefer my steak medium-rare"
or
b) is meant to imply that those who don't agree aren't Christian.

[ebia]

That’s why the Anglican Communion says the OT and NT are the rule and standard of faith.
The Articles say that. Whether or not the Anglican Communion says that is something we could spend even longer on than the current topic. And, if we do agree on that, how to actually apply it would take even longer still. Some (many?) would be quite happy with it and still not have less (if any) problem with gay marriage than with (say) marriage after divorce.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear ebia,
I understand that. It's the "As a Christian ..." followed by something that doesn't necessarly follow for all Christians that either:
a) sounds pretty daft, rather like saying "as a Christian, I prefer my steak medium-rare"
or
b) is meant to imply that those who don't agree aren't Christian..
Well I started by saying what I believe the Christian point of view is and what it is based on. My response was to someone elses comment about what Christians believe, so I stated what I believe as a Christian. Your comment merely tries to claim something is Christian because someone believes it is, rather than it being based on scriptural evidence like I cited. I have stated what I believe the Christian view is and the scripture it is based on. I believe the truth is Jesus Christ and His teaching in the Bible, that’s why I cited it. I believe we test everything against that. 1 Thessalonians 5:21, 1 John 4:1


The Articles say that. Whether or not the Anglican Communion says that is something we could spend even longer on than the current topic.
Well the Church of England website says it,
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/faith/anglican/
that’s why I cited it. It says “What it means to be an Anglican” Its what the Church of England thinks it is to be an Anglican. I think the CofE is right, are you saying the CofE has it wrong or the website isn’t representing the Church of England?

[ebia]

Dear ebia,
I understand that. It's the "As a Christian ..." followed by something that doesn't necessarly follow for all Christians that either:
a) sounds pretty daft, rather like saying "as a Christian, I prefer my steak medium-rare"
or
b) is meant to imply that those who don't agree aren't Christian..
Well I started by saying what I believe the Christian point of view is and what it is based on. My response was to someone elses comment about what Christians believe, so I stated what I believe as a Christian. Your comment merely tries to claim something is Christian because someone believes it is, rather than it being based on scriptural evidence like I cited.
That's not what I said (or, at least, it's not what I meant).


I have stated what I believe the Christian view is and the scripture it is based on.

Noted, but that wasn't my point.

I believe the truth is Jesus Christ and His teaching in the Bible,
Likewise.

that’s why I cited it. I believe we test everything against that. 1 Thessalonians 5:21, 1 John 4:1


The Articles say that. Whether or not the Anglican Communion says that is something we could spend even longer on than the current topic.
Well the Church of England website says it,
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/faith/anglican/
that’s why I cited it. It says “What it means to be an Anglican” Its what the Church of England thinks it is to be an Anglican. I think the CofE is right, are you saying the CofE has it wrong or the website isn’t representing the Church of England?
As far as I know the CofE website doesn't officially determine the position of the CofE, let alone the Communion. Websites are generally informative rather than authoritative:
4. The constituent bodies of the Church of England make no warranties or representations about the accuracy of any information on this Web site or any other Web site to which it may be linked. The information contained in these pages is for general information only and the constituent bodies of the Church of England shall not be liable for the accuracy, quality or completeness of any information contained in this Web site.

Please note I didn't say it was wrong (or right), I mearly noted that we could (and probably have in the past) discussed it to at least as much length as the current topic.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear ebia,

That's not what I said (or, at least, it's not what I meant).
Ok so what did you mean exactly?

Noted, but that wasn't my point.
Ah but in addition to stating that I believe the Christian view is based on scripture, I asked what yours is based on.

Likewise.
Then how do you respond to the scriptures I cited, which I assume would lead us to agree.


As far as I know the CofE website doesn't officially determine the position of the CofE, let alone the Communion. Websites are generally informative rather than authoritative:
Ok but then you don’t think this webpage is any use for information either?

[Albion]

This is so true... People need to read Scripture and stop trying to stretch it to their purpose. It already contains all we need for salvation as long as we apply common sense

Unfortunately, that is not the point at hand. Salvation and what is right for the institutional Church to do or not to do are two separate things. For example, I can very logically say that Church X teaches false doctrine and yet hold that any parishioners who have received Jesus as Lord and Savior are assured of Salvation. And as for "common sense," you know that everyone on every side of every issue thinks that common sense is on their side and theirs only.

But the basic point about blessing unions and using (hypothetically) scones in Communion is not something for which we have no directions. When we bless something, we approve of it. To say, therefore, that we don't know if blessing a same-sex union is right or wrong, approved or prohibited, rests upon a slight of hand argument. There is no explicit approval or disapproval of the legal procedure that has been invented in Vermont and elsewhere within recent years, but the Bible does tell us explicitly that what one would be blessing if a same-sex union were "blessed" is against God's will.

The same is true, in a way, with the point about scones. If they are bread in a different shape, then OK. If they are significantly different from bread, then not OK. There really is no uncertainty, Bible-wise, unless we refuse to address the question. Jesus did say to "do this." He did not say to do something that symbolizes this to you or me.

[gtsecc]

If Anglicans really believe the Faith is based upon the Bible, then we have revealed ourselves not to be the Church.

[Albion]

If Anglicans really believe the Faith is based upon the Bible, then we have revealed ourselves not to be the Church.

Can you or anyone justify the existence of "The Church" or prove the correctness of what the Church is believed to be...without reference to the Bible?

[ChaliceThunder]

Dear Chalice Thunder,
As a Christian, of course I hold a different opinion than you.
As a Christian of course I believe the Bible says God created woman for man to be in union, and that same-sex is a sin, which takes us back to the debate about why our views differ. I think it is important because if God’s word is the truth then two differing positions cannot both be right, they both may be wrong but they cannot both be right. So what do you base your view on?

That is your problem. Who told you both cannot be right?

[ChaliceThunder]

Well I started by saying what I believe the Christian point of view is and what it is based on.

I think the problem here is in trying to state that Christianity has but one point of view.

[gtsecc]

Can you or anyone justify the existence of "The Church" or prove the correctness of what the Church is believed to be...without reference to the Bible?
Bibles didn't exist for hundreds of years after Pentecost, but the Church certainly did. The Church was centered around Bishops, Laity, and the Eucharist. But, I can't prove it to you with footnotes and all that. However, there is a great book which will do that:
Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries
by John D. Zizioulas (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/103-2978376-3468642?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=John%20D.%20Zizioulas)

[Polycarp1]

I've seen this stated before, but nowhere where I felt I could get an honest answer rather than "let's throw barbs at each other."

...but the Bible does tell us explicitly that what one would be blessing if a same-sex union were "blessed" is against God's will.

Please clarify what and where this is explicit. This is not a smart-alec polemic comment. I'm aware of the verses generally quoted as being about gay sex, and we don't need to go down that road, if that's what you were referencing. But you're saying that blessing of gay unions is explicitly prohibited-- where?

[Polycarp1]

Although this is definitely a hijack of the basic discussion, one additional question, Albion:

Some few Anglicans have celiac disease, where they are unable to eat wheat gluten without severe danger to their health. In your considered opinion, would it be proper or improper to consecrate hosts of normal size and shape but made of rice flour in order to give them communion under that species? If you care to explain the reasoning behind the answer you give, I'd be very pleased to read it.

[Polycarp1]

Ah but in addition to stating that I believe the Christian view is based on scripture, I asked what yours is based on.

I think a quite good answer to this could be given to simply pointing to the forum name.

[longhair75]

Good evening friends,

I am going to close this thread for staff review.

[SirTimothy]

Reopening thread after moderator cleanup. Please take a moment to reread the ChristianForums rules for posting. All these rules apply to STR posts. Let's keep this place Godly and a place of fellowship and warmth, so that means no flaming, and no arguing or bickering, but intelligent debate between reasoning believers.

[Albion]

Please clarify what and where this is explicit. This is not a smart-alec polemic comment. I'm aware of the verses generally quoted as being about gay sex, and we don't need to go down that road, if that's what you were referencing. But you're saying that blessing of gay unions is explicitly prohibited-- where?

I said that when something is blessed it is explicitly approved of. Therefore, there is nothing neutral about deciding to bless gay sex, a flag, kleptomania, any item to be used during worship, or anything else. If a church were to authorize, for example, the blessing of bombs to be used to blow up an airplane, the doing of such is not independent of whether or not murder is a sin.

[Albion]

Bibles didn't exist for hundreds of years after Pentecost, but the Church certainly did.

That's a common misconception, reinforced, I'm sorry to say, by hearing it repeated constantly by those with a particular theological axe to grind. In fact, all the books of the Bible WERE in use and considered authoritative by the Christian churches long before they wre canonized and put under one cover. Don't confuse the compilation of these books with some idea of them not being used as we use them ourselves.

The Church was centered around Bishops, Laity, and the Eucharist.

Certainly, but that does not affect the matter about using the Bible's books. We use the Bible and we have Bishops, etc. just as you said. There's no either-or in that.



Thank you for referring this book. I'm sure it is valuable reading.

[gtsecc]

Albion, you're a pretty smart guy. I would love your criticism of both Eucharist Bishop Church, and Berh's THe Mystery of Christ, Life in Death.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear gtsec,
Bibles didn't exist for hundreds of years after Pentecost, but the Church certainly did. The Church was centered around Bishops, Laity, and the Eucharist.
Actually the NT tells us what the church was first like, and it had apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists etc and episkopos, diakonos.etc. and it centred around the teaching of the apostles, hence the Bible.
:)

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Chalice Thunder,
That is your problem. Who told you both cannot be right?

Well it isn’t a problem for me, bless you. I should clarify that two opposing positions cannot both be right if there is an acknowledged truth. Well when it is dark at night is it still light. Opposites exist. I believe I first heard this teaching in theology explained by R. C. Sproul.

I think the problem here is in trying to state that Christianity has but one point of view.
And the problem is also trying to claim it has more than one point of view. One cannot have two opposites with a truth, they both may be wrong but only one can be right. .. but not to confuse this with being quite able to receive several revelations and interpretations from that one truth.
:)

[ChaliceThunder]

Dear Chalice Thunder,
That is your problem. Who told you both cannot be right?

Well it isn’t a problem for me, bless you. I should clarify that two opposing positions cannot both be right if there is an acknowledged truth. Well when it is dark at night is it still light. Opposites exist. I believe I first heard this teaching in theology explained by R. C. Sproul.

I think the problem here is in trying to state that Christianity has but one point of view.
And the problem is also trying to claim it has more than one point of view. One cannot have two opposites with a truth, they both may be wrong but only one can be right. .. but not to confuse this with being quite able to receive several revelations and interpretations from that one truth.
:)
We still love and serve the same Lord.

Sorry that we disagree - but it's obvious that coming to agreement would aggrieve both of us.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Chalice Thunder,

Sorry that we disagree - but it's obvious that coming to agreement would aggrieve both of us.
Yes clearly but bless you Chalice Thunder, and thanks God we are able to do so in love

We still love and serve the same Lord.
Well obviously not both of us in this matter, thats what we are disagreeing about. I am sure we both agree how we serve the Lord in other matters.
It isnt helpful to make blanket statements with reference to one issue, I could equally say 'we do not love or serve the same Lord' which would be equally innacurate.