Encouraging on its face, but how many regularly attend church? There's clearly no extensive internal pressure for change in England, so either a majority don't feel that strongly, or they don't attend that often.
There is a difference between approving legal, committed same sex unions and approving "same sex marriage". The first is certainly ok with some ; the second is impossible for many people who believe in marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and for whom "same sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms. (I wait for the usual response to the expression of my beliefs !)
It's like ordination, J.R. If you are a gay person of faith and God calls you to the sacrament of marriage, you're called. And the church should not be putting up stumbling blocks. Nor practice hypocrisy, given the church's posture on divorce.
It is extremely presumptuous of anyone to deny that call, if there's reasonable discernment, like any other marriage.
I've no problem with you holding your belief, or indeed you choosing not to conduct same-sex weddings so long as you don't stand in the way of those people who don't share your view. The direction the SEC is moving in, recognising that we have divergent views on marriage, is a good one.
Chaplain Bunyan, you are of course fully entitled to your belief. Given your premise that marriage can only exist between male and female, it is a reasonable conclusion. But I hope you understand this is rather like an Anabaptist insisting that infant baptism is a contradiction in terms; given the underlying premise that baptism requires a personal affirmation of faith it is entirely reasonable.
But that doesn't prove the validity of your underlying premise; only that you believe it. Others do not.
I agree with both Jo and Tobias ! And I would not stand in the way of people who do not share my view if same-sex weddings are ever introduced in Australia. (In my increasingly hard-line Diocese of Sydney, as one of a now tiny disappearing species of liberal Anglicans among Sydney clergy, I am only too well aware of the terrible effects of tragic intolerance in broader aspects of Church life.)
Parliamentary supporters of a change in the Commonwealth law, however, have blocked the Government's wish to have a plebiscite on the subject to gauge the views of the population generally. The Commonwealth Parliament would take seriously the results of such a plebiscite (plebiscites in Australia being different to binding referendums).
"only that you believe it. Others do not."
If we imagine God in Christ looking down on the world of his loving creation, do we imagine him looking down on the USA or the UK?
Or on the vast regions of his creation? Where the certainties the wealthy populations claim are so are the benchmark for things others find strange?
One needs to consider the scale on the map of God's whole creative purpose and life.
"Only you believe it" but "you" is hardly a world wide oddity.
I totally agree with Jo's comment. We should not impose uniformity on the sincere conscience of someone else. There is no way out of the fact we have divergent views in the Church of England. Allowing space for divergent views, divergent consciences, and divergent practices, is the only way we can accommodate each other.
If Scotland can go that way, so can the Church in England.
Cseitz, I do not believe God, who takes notice of every sparrow, is at all persuaded by the argumentum ad populum. At present, only about 1/3 of the people in God's good creation accept that he was and is present and active in Christ Jesus. Are we to abide by that vote? Or rather continue to press the mission?
One of the hallmarks of Anglicanism has been its ability to live with differences of opinion even on the "sacraments of the Gospel" or as central to faith as the understanding of the Atonement. I believe that similar flexibility is possible on the questions of sexuality and marriage. That is, of course, only my belief; and it may prove otherwise, which I should think unfortunate.
"only that you believe it. Others do not" is its own kind of ad populum of course.
It is also a self-evidence. Many people believe marriage is constituted by X. "Others do not." And so it is.
No, CSeitz, "ad populum" is the logical fallacy that a proposition is true because of the number of people who adhere to it. You pointed to a "world-wide" view and the presumed "scale" of God's purpose. If you are not advancing these as arguments for the truth of propositions to which you give credence, I do not understand why you advance them.
"What people believe" is diverse. Indeed, so it is, and likely ever shall be. And given division of opinion -- especially when increasingly evenly divided -- the health and survival of the church seems best served by allowing for that diversity of opinion rather than insisting on a Procrustean rule that only one view is possible. That was a classic element of the Elizabethan Settlement, and it would seem a good strategy for the present.
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.