Comments: "God’s grace seen in gay marriage, say bishops."

Well, yes!

Such a shame that some more serving bishops (and diocesans at that) could not find the spine to sign up. How good it would be if some of the gay ones were able to do so. This is hardly a "frighten the horses" sort of statement, after all.

Posted by JeremyP at Saturday, 21 April 2012 at 10:17am BST

Then perhaps its time for those "senior serving bishops" to stand up and be counted and come out of the theological closet. What many are saying in private does not correspond with their public stance. Its time for some "balls"
People are hurting whilstever this nonsense goes on.
I thank God for those who have had the moral integrity to stand up and be counted. I only wish more church leaders would do the same rather than hiding behind statements or reports and watching their backs.

Posted by Robert Ellis at Saturday, 21 April 2012 at 10:27am BST

Thanks to all the signatories for their moral courage, but in particular thanks to Alan Wilson who is the only serving bishop to sign this letter.

Posted by Erika Baker at Saturday, 21 April 2012 at 1:06pm BST

I note that four of the signatories were diocesan bishops at the time when the pastoral statement forbidding blessings of civil partnerships was issued. What, if anything, can we infer from that?

Posted by Feria at Saturday, 21 April 2012 at 2:44pm BST

There's a new teatime t.v. quiz called "Perfection" - only by achieving absolute perfection in a series of True or False questions will the contestant win the prize. Trying to foil the contestant chosen at random is a group known as "The Usual Suspects". The signatories to The Times letter about "Gay Marriage" contain no real surprises.
Presently I am delighting in re-reading E F Benson's classic - Mapp and Lucia. It seems to me that the two main camps within the Established Church bear a pretty strong resemblance to either the constantly thwarted Mapp or the always victorious Lucia. Traditionalists of the Mapp persuasion who have held sway within the Church of England for many a long year now seem to be very much on the back foot while liberals of the Lucia persuasion who favour such innovations as gay marriage and women bishops seem very much to be in the ascendancy.
We have a great deal to thank E F Benson (a former Archbishop of Canterbury's son) for in giving us not only an insight into the quaint goings on in Tilling but shedding light on to a much wider stage.

Posted by Father David at Saturday, 21 April 2012 at 2:59pm BST

Is this the beginning of a wind of change in the episcopate, to have such a strong joint statement? I've suggested that there should be a moratorium on church weddings until the church can let love speak its name in this language too, which might give time to reflect on the inherently sacramental quality of intimacy.

Posted by Chris Fewings at Saturday, 21 April 2012 at 5:09pm BST

How can the rest of us sign on?

Posted by Sara MacVane at Saturday, 21 April 2012 at 5:52pm BST

I'm glad of this. Perhaps now the C of E will begin to reclaim its reputation for British decency.

Posted by John at Saturday, 21 April 2012 at 6:09pm BST

...thank God for this letter but...there are other issues to address

Posted by B Wheeler at Saturday, 21 April 2012 at 10:07pm BST

a wonderfully prophetic minister :


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9218789/Church-opposition-to-gay-marriage-a-disaster-says-senior-bishop.html

even bishops may speak truth to power !

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Sunday, 22 April 2012 at 12:55pm BST

Good to see an evangelical serving bishop sign and witness.

And Nick Holtam spoke out yesterday.

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Sunday, 22 April 2012 at 12:58pm BST

B Wheeler
Benny Hazlehurst has a very good blog post about your concern that there are other things to do in which he concludes:

"There are some in the church who say that they are fed up of all this sexuality stuff – “It’s all we ever seem to talk about” is a phrase I’ve heard more than once. “There are much more important issues we should be addressing” is another. But like Paul said (and my broken finger bears witness to) when a part of the body suffers, the whole body suffers – even when it is a comparatively small part of the body as a whole.


The truth is that we will not function properly as the Body of Christ while we continue to inflict this pain on our gay brothers and sisters. Our mission, our presence in society, even our message will continue to be severely impaired by this pain."


http://benny2010.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/pain-in-body-of-christ.html#comment-form

Posted by Erika Baker at Sunday, 22 April 2012 at 1:24pm BST

There's much that's good in this letter, but I posted at Peter Ould's blog that "The reference to 'the extension of civil marriage to same-sex couples' isn't very heartening as it suggests the authors haven't thought things through much more than the government has...". I think the authors are right to ensure that voices other than opposition to same-sex marriage are heard from the church, and like others here, I'm glad of that - but I don't think they help their argument by seeming not to have thought through the 'how'. Nick Holtam's talk at the CEC makes the point that the govt is proposing "a new definition of 'religious marriage'" and he adds that this "[proposed] separation of civil and religious marriage should be very disturbing". I think he's right to be critical of the way the govt has gone about its consultation and the proposals it's making, and it would have improved this letter if the writers had added something of this.

in friendship, Blair

Posted by Blair at Sunday, 22 April 2012 at 6:56pm BST

The truth is: those who oppose 'gay marriage' for political reasons are comprehensively busted. Traditionalists who oppose it for principled reasons are not busted. We will accommodate them. And they will accommodate us.

Posted by John at Sunday, 22 April 2012 at 7:19pm BST

Poor Father David is awfully confused. Heterosexual couples who desire marriage are "traditional," but gays who value the same tradition are "innovators"? Do make up your mind!

Posted by Geoff at Monday, 23 April 2012 at 3:40pm BST

Now Geoff you can't really seriously be suggesting that Gay marriage is not an innovation? That would be almost as confusing as the thought processes of that "arrogant posh chap" who said - "I don't support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative, I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative." How topsy-turvy is that? We really are now in the realms of Humpty Dumpty.

Posted by Father David at Monday, 23 April 2012 at 9:53pm BST

Now Geoff you can't really seriously be suggesting that Gay marriage is not an innovation?'

You will be glad to know that this is NOT being proposed, notwithstanding loose language. NOT 'gay marriage' at all.

What is being sought by many, and proposed by a suddenly attentive coalition government with cross-party support, is MARRIAGE EQUALITY.

Loving couples will come and be married.

That's it !

If you won't want it no-one will press you.

Jesus has been waiting a long time to see this step taken. He hurts in and with his lesbian and gay friends around the world.

The fourth gospel makes all this clear - give it a go ! Let him out !

"I have called you friends."

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Tuesday, 24 April 2012 at 10:44pm BST

Lawrence - you are, of course, correct in castigating those who employ "loose language". I wish you well in your campaign to correct this misapprehension - however, even using upper case letters - "MARRIAGE EQUALITY" to correct the error - I'm afraid that "Gay marriage" has taken root in the common tongue amd in the tabloids and it would take several teams of wild horses to make the correction.
Another example would be my own campaign to educate the ignorant away from calling Easter Eve - "Easter Saturday" instead of HOLY SATURDAY! I'm sure you can think of other examples of misapprehension.

Posted by Father David at Wednesday, 25 April 2012 at 6:32am BST

David hi - thanks ! Yes, I too have inveighed against the misuse of 'Easter Saturday' on the day the BCP calls 'Easter Eve' and otherwise known as Holy Saturday ! My empathy returned to you.

My greatest bug-bear, losing battle and pain (which I shall never understand) is the way many concede the word Catholic and Catholics and Catholic Church to one denomination which is by no means fully Catholic and is, by no means the whole cheese !

I feel very strongly about this, and yet the most amazing people misuse the term Catholic and people who should know better. I have to laugh- better for my blood pressure --and maybe yours ! :)

Btw you unwittingly commited 'the sin of 'W' ' but I forgive you !*

* don't get me started on life long battle to get people to spell me LaUrence -- and that started with my teachers !

ever yrs,
Laurence

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Wednesday, 25 April 2012 at 2:23pm BST

Having been a member of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada from 1986 to 2010 I was privy to many discussions about blessing same sex unions. I initially struggled with redefining marriage which the Canadian Parliament did in 2005. I was persuaded by the 2003 judgment of the Constitutional Court of South Africa that can be read at http://www.constitutionalcourt.org.za/Archimages/785.PDF

Posted by Ronald Stevenson at Wednesday, 25 April 2012 at 8:30pm BST

I for one am outraged at Fr David's insinuation that Mrs. Emmeline Lucas could be guilty of anything so gauche as "innovation." Of course, to one whose heart does not pulsate to the same passionate rhythms - to one who does not share the same love of beauty wherever it is to be found as Mrs. Lucas - perhaps her fair broad mindedness does look like a penchant for mere novelty, but those who are possessed of truly artistic souls could never make that mistake. In fact, the accusation that she is in favor of innovation - so very like "modernization" - is so upsetting I'm going to try to regain my calm by listening to *un po' di musica* - perhaps some *divino Mozartino* or the first movement of the Moonlight Sonata.

Posted by Bill Dilworth at Thursday, 26 April 2012 at 1:19am BST

Ronald,
that link does not seem to be active?

Posted by Erika Baker at Thursday, 26 April 2012 at 7:59am BST

I wonder if Ronald is referring to this case:
http://41.208.61.234/uhtbin/cgisirsi/20120426220855/SIRSI/0/520/S-CCT60-04 which is a 2005 judgement, not 2003.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Thursday, 26 April 2012 at 10:33pm BST

Thanks Simon, but I can't get that one to work either.
Do you know the title of the judgement so I can see if I can google it?

Posted by Erika Baker at Friday, 27 April 2012 at 7:44am BST

I got my link from this page, and it worked yesterday...
http://www.constitutionalcourt.org.za/site/thecourt/history.htm#cases

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Friday, 27 April 2012 at 8:10am BST

Yes , it is 2005, my error.

Try this site -

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2005/19.html

Posted by Ronald Stevenson at Friday, 27 April 2012 at 3:19pm BST

The problem with this position - loving couples of any sexuality should be allowed to be married - is that yet again it's all about the rights of adults, not the wellbeing of children. Marriage as an institution within society is not just 2 loving people making a commitment. It's the basis for family life and for the appropriate upbringing of children. By introducing "equal marriage" we are saying officially that no child needs a mother - 2 loving men would be just as good, and no child needs a father - two loving women would be just as good. That is surely contrary to the Christian understanding of family life which is enshrined in Anglican teaching. It is also a bold experiment in social engineering for the sake of keeping the equality bandwagon rolling - which seems to be the consideration that trumps all others.

Posted by John at Monday, 7 May 2012 at 11:36am BST

As there has been equality in terms of fostering, adoption, IVF since 2010 this change isnt actually anything to do with parenting, John

Posted by Mike Homfray at Thursday, 13 December 2012 at 1:50pm GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.