Comments: initial reactions to the CofE marriage document

For those concerned about a creeping doctrine "complementarianism" in connection with men and women, as reflected in this report, take a look at footnote 2. The document has moved from a "complementarianism" to a "polarity" between men and women. I haven't a clue what that's supposed to mean. But if I were a woman in the Church of England, ordained or not, I would be very concerned about the theology, much less the science, connected with such a word.

Posted by dr.primrose at Thursday, 11 April 2013 at 12:39am BST

Thank God for Bishop Alan!!! The voice of decency and healing.

I have to admit that I found the report by the Faith Commission deeply hurtful. I don't take too much personally. But the extraordinary lengths that they went to to dehumanize me was hurtful. The offensive and horrifically patronizing bits were salt in that wound. The illogic only underscores their level of bigotry against me and my LGBT brothers and sisters.

Those people don't leave us with much hope. Just the opportunity to watch the clock until they are retired. But then it'll be a new day.

Posted by Cynthia at Thursday, 11 April 2013 at 3:55am BST

Both Bishop Alan and Fr. Tobias Haller have much to commend their distinctive articles here. Let's hope the Bishops of the Church are taking note.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Thursday, 11 April 2013 at 12:24pm BST

Because the report seems to represent inertia at best, my first reaction was: It is time for “lay” Anglicans in the Church of England to start celebrating public thanksgivings for and blessings of committed same-sex relationship – in churches where possible, in church halls and church porches, in parks and on village greens.

I expanded on that here: http://www.layanglicana.org/blog/2013/04/11/time-for-the-laity-to-lead-on-blessing-same-sex-relationships-chris-fewings/

Posted by Chris Fewings at Friday, 12 April 2013 at 12:14am BST

I wonder if any of you have seen the excellent riposte given by the 'Mad-priest' ?

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Friday, 12 April 2013 at 2:18am BST

An interesting article from one member of the FAOC:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/charlotte-methuen/marriage-one-man-and-one-woman

Posted by RosalindR at Friday, 12 April 2013 at 12:13pm BST

Bishop Alan asks 'What would happen if we simply substituted "between two people"?', and comments - as far as I know, correctly - that 'very little has happened, actually, in jurisdictions that have done that'.

Given that the opponents of same-sex marriage style themselves "traditionalists", it's a bitter irony that, at least liturgically, from 1549 to 1646 and again from 1662 to 2000, we in the CofE were one of those jurisdictions, since the phrase in the BCP marriage liturgy is always "two persons", not "one man and one woman". I still can't help but wonder to what extent the knots in which we're tying ourselves over this originate not with Locke, nor with Taylor, but with a thirteen year old piece of liturgical carelessness.

Posted by Feria at Sunday, 14 April 2013 at 12:31am BST
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.