Comments: Further comments on the GS 2055 report

Sisters and brothers, for heaven's sake let's forget this second / third / nth order nonsense. The Gospel is about the one who lived, died and rose again 'for us and our salvation'. There is a desperate need for us to show the overwhelming love of God in Christ. While we are arguing about who sleeps with whom, or the gender of the Bishop, people in our parishes are left without hope.
When we have fulfilled our Gospel obligations, then perhaps we can return to these issues, which in my view, in the all encompassing love and mercy of God, will disappear as the morning dew at the rise of the Sun of Righteousness. Otherwise I will be bound to castigate those who eat shellfish, who wear mixed raiment or cook meat in milk.

John Wallace (deliberately not mentioning my ecclesiastical lay office)

Posted by John Wallace at Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 9:01pm GMT

Jonathan Clatworthy has hit the nail on the head again here, particularly in his comments on the ways of reading the Bible.

Posted by Helen King at Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 9:44pm GMT

Meanwhile, genuine hopes that the province of ACANZP may get over the line with authorising same sex blessings next year:
http://www.anglicantaonga.org.nz/News/Common-Life/SWG

Posted by SimonW at Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 10:22pm GMT

+Pete Broadbent is way wrong. "Same-sex marriage" does exist, even within his church. Marriage in the church is a sacrament which is "an outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual grace." There are many, many LGBTQ couples who are filled with inward Grace. They are simply waiting for the church to do its part with the "outward and visible sign."

Marriage is between the couple and God. CoE can obstruct and insult, affirm, or not, but it really is between God and the couple. And it exists bounteously.

My marriage is a marriage. It matters not what CoE bishops think when they get in a room making decisions about us, without us. You can spin the legalisms all you want, but those are words of fallible humans, apparently with hearts of stone.

Posted by Cynthia at Friday, 10 February 2017 at 1:40am GMT

Mark Hart nails it.

This is a particularly appalling bit from the bishops:
“Sexual relationships outside marriage, whether heterosexual or between people of the same sex, are regarded as falling short of God’s purposes for human beings [i.e. sinful]”

So passive-aggressive. Sex outside marriage is sinful, but no, we won't marry you.

And LGBTQI people fall short, every last one of us. The arrogance...

Posted by Cynthia at Friday, 10 February 2017 at 1:44am GMT

Ian Paul asks whether Shared Conversations were a con trick.

Yes they were, even if unwittingly so.

Posted by Froghole at Friday, 10 February 2017 at 1:53am GMT

"Sex differentiation is a normal, natural and inevitable part of this bodily life." - Ian Paul

In that he denies the existence and validity of intersex people.

Posted by Kate at Friday, 10 February 2017 at 3:59am GMT

"Sisters and brothers, for heaven's sake let's forget this second / third / nth order nonsense. The Gospel is about the one who lived, died and rose again 'for us and our salvation'. There is a desperate need for us to show the overwhelming love of God in Christ. While we are arguing about who sleeps with whom, or the gender of the Bishop, people in our parishes are left without hope. When we have fulfilled our Gospel obligations, then perhaps we can return to these issues, which in my view, in the all encompassing love and mercy of God, will disappear as the morning dew at the rise of the Sun of Righteousness."

John, I think you will find that many of those fighting this have been directly called by God to do so with a call as clarion clear as any call to ordination. You, like the bishops, have also failed to recognise that some same sex couples have been expressly called together by God as same sex couples. There are women who have been hurt who need another woman to care for them. There are men who remain steadfast in a Christian life because they have the strength and love of another man in a way a woman could not provide. Some couples are together not because they experience 'same sex attraction' but are together in direct obedience to, and as a gift from, God.

As one of the articles says (forgive me, I can't remember which) this is also not really about same sex relationships but is about the type of church we belong to. Is it a church which cares about doctrine or is it one which cares about the welfare of individuals, no matter how complex or challenging that might be? I can assure you that the Lord cares very much about that.

So in fighting this many of us believe that we are doing our obligations under the Gospel and are fighting to show the world the infinite love of God.

Posted by Kate at Friday, 10 February 2017 at 10:57am GMT

“Sexual relationships outside marriage, whether heterosexual or between people of the same sex, are regarded as falling short of God’s purposes for human beings [i.e. sinful]”

Is that why the church refuses to marry all those couples who live at the same address? And those who bring their children as pageboys and bridesmaids?
Is that why it turns away about 99% of enquiries for marriage?

Or is sex outside marriage only used to clobber gay people?

Posted by Erika Baker at Friday, 10 February 2017 at 11:41am GMT

I really wonder which world Pete Broadbent lives in. He seems to be sadly blind to many folk who live in the diocese of London, I believe his patch.

As many of us keep repeating by our lives, and writing, It is God who brings us together, and Blesses our marriage, and gives His Grace to grow together in Love.

As I travel around the church, in the various provinces of the United Kingdom, I am saddened that Canterbury and York in their college of Bishops are so frightened to grasp the nettle of true love between persons of the same sex. If they look under their thrones, they will find their clergy and people valiantly showing God's love to their folk, in spite of the chains the Bishops put about them . In Wales and Scotland a very different story, Thank God.

Posted by Fr John E. Harris-White at Friday, 10 February 2017 at 4:07pm GMT

Erika - I fail to understand your line of reasoning here. Your rhetorical questions imply that a church in which sexual relationships outside marriage are regarded as "falling short of God’s purposes for human beings" should refuse marriage to everyone who has had sex outside marriage. Why? Would you expect a church which disapproves of sexual relations outside marriage to consider this an unforgivable sin? Why? Or would you expect the church to say "well, now that you have embarked on sex outside marriage, there is no point in getting married"? Why? I just don't get what the implied logic is here.

Posted by Thomas Renz at Saturday, 11 February 2017 at 10:44am GMT

Thomas,
the logic is that we make absolutely no big deal about anyone having sex outside marriage. It's the norm, not only in society but also in our churches.
We only get hot under the collar when it's gay people who dare claim the same right to intimate relationships.

I've not known a partnered straight couple being removed from the coffee rota or complimented out of the church and asked not to return. No-one has pulled them aside and quoted Scripture at them, kicking them out of youth work or any other official involvement with their church.
That fate is routinely reserved for gay people only.

Posted by Erika Baker at Saturday, 11 February 2017 at 2:35pm 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.