The Canadian primate and Church has good reason for frustration.

As champions of lesbian and gay people, they are now being treated sas if lesbian and gay themselves--ignored, silence, overlooked ...
...just like bishop Robinson.

When will they ever learn ? !

Blessing can never be taken back. This G-d we're talking about, you know.

It's like ordination --only a lot more so !

'We must obey G-d rather than men' -the real apostolic witness .

So how would that work? "You are now UNBLESSED?"

Taped to the kitchen cupboard downstairs is a picture of 2 dear friends at their New Westminster blessing.

They are happy. They witness to the generosity and delight in God's love for us.

And +Vicky wants the church to "unbless" or "debless" or deconsecrate them?

Now THAT's an outrage to the gospel.

Query:
How do you withdraw a blessing? Add a curse?
Besides, I thought that God was the One who blesses and we only ask?
Columba Gilliss

Well, if *I* were an Anglican in New Westminster, I would say "your 'retrospective moratorium' on SSBs is a non-starter."

I think actual Canadian Anglicans will say the same. ;-/

Lord have mercy!

It's ironic, in a debate in which progressives have been accused of not accepting the authority of Scripture, that Bishop Matthews should demonstrate such a striking lack of understanding of what Scripture says about blessings. She might ask Our Father Isaac if a blessing can be taken back once given (Genesis 27, esp. verses 34-38). If the blessings given in New Westminster were real, then they cannot be taken back, whatever the Windsor Continuation Group might demand.

There is no such thing as a retrospective moratorium -- nor can the Canadian couples who have been legally married in the eyes of the nation be forcibly divorced by the church.

The horizontal of the indaba & the vertical of the centralizers who want control don't seem to intersect at any point (must be non-Euclidian).

It does seem a great pity that a faithful committed same-sex relationship cannot receive a blessing from the Church - even though their willingness to commit themselves to life-long fidelity is something some modern-day heterosexual couples are not willing to undertake.

However, this is only a documented proposal. I cannot see the Canadian and American Churches agreeing to it's acceptance within their ministerial purlieu. May God grant wisdom to the ongoing Windsor Commission. The provisions of the Document should not be subject to the approval of Archbishop Mouneer Anis, who has openly declared his preference for the Global South agenda.

This goes to underline a concern i have had for a long time, namely that our theology of blessing is seriously lacking.
When we talk about the church not being able to "bless" same-sex marriages we are really talking not about blessings, but about approval.
it is possible to bless something of which we do not approve, asking God's blessing so that God's purpose may be worked out even in that of which we disapprove.
The church can approve (bless) marriages that in the long run manifest no signs that God is or ever was at work through the Spirit in that relationship, but we cannot bless (i.e. give thanks to God) for those relationships that manifest clearly the Holy Spirit at work. And we wonder that our integrity is being questioned.
Why are a few biblical passages whose interpretation is at best in doubt taken more strongly in this discussion about blessing than passages that tell us how to recognize God's presence (and hence God's blessing) by the visible signs of the Holy Spirit at work. There is no consistency or balance in how scripture is allowed to speak to this issue. And we wonder why our reason is being questioned.

Rae Fletcher

This is exactly why Lambeth is only a gathering. Some might try to make a "covenant" to make it more than a gathering. Shame on them.

Reforms are going to happen. They need to happen. We cannot deny that GLBTs exist, so it is in everyone's best interests to give them the safest lifestyles possible.

Sexual drives exist, it is in everyone's best interests to create the safest manifestation possible - which is lifelong monogamous relationships.

The wise will realize we need to slow down the spread of STDs (particularly AIDS), so we need to have a legal framework that enables GLBTs to also have lifelong monogamous relationships.

If and when their Jesus gets around to murdering an entire planet, then we will deal with the morality in the afterlife. In the meantime, we still exist on this planet and it is in all our interests to make it as safe and viable as possible. Closet sexuality is not safe for either its participants or their obliviously ignorant partners.

Members of the Anglican Communion can prove they are Christians for the best interests of all humanity (as the Canadians and others have done), or they are merely for themselves and their camp and thus direct contributors towards conflicts and plagues.

Treebeard,

You say,"'We must obey G-d rather than men' -the real apostolic witness." If you intend to take this seriously we might get somewhere yet!

That is more than picking it up as a "proof-text." What Wright recognizes and seeks to show in his address below. The challenge is it is just a nice throw away line in the post, out of context it is subverted, it can be used to serve any purpose without respect for its own proper meaning.

Ben W

Ron Smith,

We are all for "safe" relations. Yes let us speak for the well-being of all.

Trouble is, what that entails is not as simple you seem to think. In our culture in the public school system "safe" amounts to = access to protection from pregnancy or disease (let there be condoms for all!). The wreckage of life and relationships is overlooked in this trivialization of sex and so on it goes.

Second thought on your proposal makes some things clear. You say, "It does seem a great pity that a faithful committed same-sex relationship cannot receive a blessing from the Church," exactly what the advocates of polygamy and certain other groups are saying. The further statement you make is sheer self-serving puffery - "even though their willingness to commit themselves to life-long fidelity is something some modern-day heterosexual couples are not willing to undertake." In gay circles all those involved in relations intend and maintain "faithful monogamous relationships" throughout life!??

Ben W

From the context, it is clear that Fr. Ron Smith is talking about "faithful committed same-sex" COUPLES, Ben W. It is YOU who are engaging in "sheer self-serving puffery", through your citation of "the advocates of polygamy" (And are there really such "advocates" in existence? Or simply polygamists?)

More than that, I think you're really implying that old canard, "same-sex couples (esp. males) aren't REALLY monogamous" ("therefore, we their moral superiors, are entitled to deny them any blessing for their partnerships"). And aren't you thereby implying, also, that same-sex partnerships aren't "Safe" either?

Do you really believe, Ben W, that these smears and self-serving put-downs, are consistent w/ the Lord's command to love others as we love ourselves?

Lord have mercy!

Surely, Ben W, asking for the Blessing of God in The Church is not to trivialise the sexual relationship of any couple - gay or straight. To even ask for such a Blessing would presume that the couple are serious about putting their relationship under the loving gaze of God? There is nothing trivial about that.

Ben
" In gay circles all those involved in relations intend and maintain "faithful monogamous relationships" throughout life!??"

Thanks to your intense listening to us for the last year or so here on TA, and thanks to your effective listening to your many lgbt friends, you should already know the answer to this.

Ron Smith,

To be clear, in agreement with you, the intention of some "asking for the Blessing of God in The Church" may be not to trivialise the relationship.

If you read previous post closely you will see I am speaking in the context of culture. The highest commanadment of this "new morality" is, "Let them all have condoms." And according to some in gay circles itself marriage is passe, it needs to be undermined and destroyed. In this context there are different ways to "dilute" the very concept of marriage from various angles (e.g. easy divorce, open marriage, easy sexual liasons, homosexuality etc). How many among those in gay circles seek "faithful life-long" relationships? (as many perhaps of the homosexual population as there are homosexuals in the larger population - 3-5%?)?

And there are those among the advocates of polygamy who are quite serious about "blessing and permanence" in their relationships. So good intentions are not sufficient as ground for the relationship.

Ben W

Ben
"And according to some in gay circles itself marriage is passe, it needs to be undermined and destroyed"

Yes, and they do that by asking for church blessings of their Civil Partnerships. Clever, isn't it.

What Erika said. Listen more, talk less.

Ben

Why not come down a bit, and join the rest of us at ground level, Ben, --s not so bad, really !
You're still a long way up yourself, Ben, --or so it appears to me. Why not, for once ignore your favourite text and do the very opposite ?

'I am doing a great work, so I cannot come down.' (Neh)

Leave the bull on the back-burner, maybe..

Ben W., Perhaps a very important point you may have missed in all of this talk of 'faithful committed relationships among same-sex couples, is the fact that, until very recently, it was just too dangerous to expose one'w self as part of a faithful gay relationship. This is precisely why so many homsoexual individuals have found it safer to resort to casual relationships - which could, at least, be hidden.

Today, the community - thanks to enlightened civil legislation in some countries - enables same-sex couples to ' come out of the closet' and rejoice in their legitimate and lawful sexual (or other) relationship. Is that not better than the former hiddenness that was forced upon them?

I'm sure God prefers openness about the reality of one's loving attachment, than the formerly enforced hypocrisy.

Erika,

If I had the sense that you were listening and attempting to engage anything beyond present assumptions I would be prepared to converse ...

I said "according to some in gay circles itself marriage is passe, it needs to be undermined and destroyed." I think you know that has been said by them. (Are you saying I should NOT listen to them but only to you?).

But you can only respond with your rhetorical line,"Yes, and they do that by asking for church blessings of their Civil Partnerships. Clever, isn't it." If you read closely you see my post at the very the beginning recognizes that ("the intention of some "asking for the Blessing of God in The Church" may be not to trivialise the relationship). So let's get down to real conversation and stop the charade!

Ben W

Ben
OK, then, you were not talking about the gay people who wish to have their Civil Partnerships blessed.
But these are the only ones the church is so concerned about. The others never darken its doors and aren't part of the "presenting issue".
So why do we need to talk about them, any more than about heterosexuals who don't see the point of marriage?

Of course, we can talk about them if you wish, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the church's problems, with this particular thread or with anything we have discussed on TA for the last however many years.

So, maybe separating gays in the church and your assumptions of gays in society, could you then please clarify what you were trying to say with this comment to Father Ron?

Posted by: Ben W on Sunday, 3 August 2008 at 3:07pm BST

Erika,

Perhaps you are not but I believe the wider Christian Church is (and I am) concerned the issue within the culture of those seeking to undermine marriage.

And as I said some in gay circles along with others adopted a direction of "diluting" marriage through the call for same-sex marriage, open marriage etc. In the end marriage can mean anything or nothing - that represents in this thinking liberation - the aim and end of the individualistic liberal establishment.

Ben W

Erika. I'm afraid I too find Ben W confusing, if not a little confused. I do think, however, that his postings reveal a typical point of view of some heterosexually-married persons who cannot, or will not, try to see things from another perspective.

His insistence that gays and LGBT people are less interested in marriage than heterosexual couples, on a percentage basis, may have something to do with the fact that the Church has withheld it's approval of such relationships.

What had been hoped for, at the recent Conference of Bishops at Lambeth, was that the Church might now be ready to accept that such committed and monogamous relationships might be preferable to the casual affairs that LGBT people have hitherto been forced to engage in.

I, personally, prefer not to use the emotive word 'Marriage' to refer a committed relationship of two same-sex persons, believing that such a word might better be reserved for male-female relationships. This would then save the confusion that presently exists. as 'Marriage' is generally used by a man and a woman where there is a possiblity of procreation.

This, I believe, is why the Church needs to offer a special, and unique, service of 'Blessing' for a publically committed 'Partnership' between two people of the same sex.

Church Weddings of male-female couples are not always undertaken with the full spiritual awareness and understanding of the couple. Whereas, for a gay couple to even ask for a Blessing, they would have to have some idea of the spiritual benefits of what was involved.

Gays, as well as Heterosexual Couples, may now be married in a civil ceremony in many countries. This being the case, why withhold the Blessing of the Church from faithful Church-going same-sex couples who love one another and want the Church and their friends to recognise the place of a loving God in their relationship?

The fact that such a thing could not happen in certain other countries - where there is no legal recognition of same-sex partnerships - should not prevent the Church from doing the best it can to honour a loving, committed relationship.

Where the Church has a goodly influence in any country, surely it is incumbent upon the local Church to honour the Law in those countries, especially in a matter of social order?

Father Ron
Thank you for your comment. I agree with everything you say, except for one point: "as 'Marriage' is generally used by a man and a woman where there is a possiblity of procreation". Marriage is used for ANY "marriage" between a man and a woman, even when they are infertile and or post menopausal.

We would therefore have to define more precisely what we mean by Marriage and whether gay people cannot contribute to a relationship everthing that makes a straight marriage a marriage (I refer again to Tobias Haller's sex articles on http://jintoku.blogspot.com/ ).

My real problem with giving the two relationships different names is that at least in the current church climate, that also gives them different standing, with a blessed Civil Partnership being somehow less "real" and "important" than a straight marriage.

Maybe over time we end up having two names for something that is completely equal....maybe it won't be neccessary after all.

Thanks Ron & Erika for a heartening discussion.

Surely as Christians, we advocate for the right of souls to enter into safe relationships and be fairly supported in a just and inclusive legal system. Non-abusive lifelong monogamous relationships provide a stable environment to raise children, reduce the risks of STDs, and allow participants to learn and experience trust and faithfulness.

The quantity argument is fallacious. We advocate what is best for all, and make it available for all. Marriage is not offered because the majority want it, but because it is a sensible social design that can constructively help all members.

You cannot shun, intimidate, insult, buy, bribe or beat true love out of another being. True love only exists when there is free will and participants have earnt each others' trust and respect.