tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post447337098719631666..comments2024-03-19T16:52:19.962+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: A more generous attitudePeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82555180541668816882012-09-08T06:54:39.571+12:002012-09-08T06:54:39.571+12:00Hi Janice
I am absolutely clear (and I think most ...Hi Janice<br />I am absolutely clear (and I think most commenters here are too): God looks on you mercifully.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-18140849581163346052012-09-08T06:53:53.389+12:002012-09-08T06:53:53.389+12:00Hi Carl,
I am quite clear in my own mind, trying t...Hi Carl,<br />I am quite clear in my own mind, trying to keep it on course with the great Christian tradition founded on Scripture, that the context for sexual intercourse which is righteous before God is marriage (monogamous, permanent, loving, open to bearing children, one woman one man whose social or familial relationship otherwise is not within the degrees of consanguinity).<br /><br />That means that in terms of discussing, say, prostitution or incest or homosexuality or polygamy as ethical "issues" I do not, and will not teach that there are other contexts which are righteous.<br /><br />Life is more complicated than "issues." A gay couple who set up a home and give of each other in love, perhaps reaching a stage where one is dependent on the care of the other (does the church's teaching mean that we require of them that they separate?) ... a prostitute with several children in a country without a welfare 'safety net' (is the first pastoral response to tell her to stop earning the money which saves her children from starvation?) ... a divorced woman seeking the love and care of another man and wanting it to be marriage not something inferior (see Janice's comment above: God is merciful) ... a polygamous family coming to Christ in (say) an African country where polygamy is tolerate (I believe churches there tolerate polygamy amongst the lay so as to protect the wives involved, but draw the line at a polygamous man becoming a priest or bishop) ... incest (pastorally it might be easier to quickly say "Stop! Your children could be mutants!!!).<br /><br />I am an evangelical trying to be faithful to Scripture while also living in a real world of complexity. By all means give me a hard time about consistency and stuff. But I will still be living in that world.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-90935466980442587872012-09-08T05:38:20.267+12:002012-09-08T05:38:20.267+12:00Peter
I wasn't really addressing the legality...Peter<br /><br />I wasn't really addressing the legality of prostitution. I was wondering about your pastoral response to a woman who self-identified as a prostitute. Would you provide a "generous response" to her decision - a response that included a provision that perhaps not every decision to become a prostitute was a sinful decision?<br /><br />As for incest, you must realize the incest laws are beginning to crumble in Europe. But again, I am not interested in legality. I want to know about your pastoral response. If a brother and sister both above the legal age of consent confided to you about an incestuous relationship between them, would you provide them with a "generous response" that allowed for the possibility of non-sinful incestuous relationships?<br /><br />carlcarl jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05195615264891904953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-53884177198711542512012-09-07T22:22:37.810+12:002012-09-07T22:22:37.810+12:00Jewish marriage was/is like a property transaction...Jewish marriage was/is like a property transaction. A man paid a "purchase price", a deed containing all the details of the husbands responsibilities towards the wife and what would happen in the event of divorce regarding the property she brought to the marriage (the "ketubah") was signed on betrothal and, finally, the man took possession of the property (his wife). The husband could divorce his wife for some "uncleanness" he found in her (De 24:1) and that meant giving her a "bill of divorcement" (a "get") and sending her away. There was no need to divorce her for adultery because in that case she would have been stoned to death. <br /><br />The "get" was a woman's proof that she was not married and could (re)marry. Without it she was still married, and since adultery was having sexual relationship a married woman any relationship she entered into would be classed as adulterous, she and her partner would be at risk of being stoned and any children born would be outcasts and unable to marry within the community.<br /><br />A husband who wanted to get rid of his wife and keep her property (or just want to make her life miserable) need only "put away" her and refuse to give her a "get". She would be an "agunah", or "chained wife", condemned to scratch for a living any way she could. In the meantime he could take another unmarried woman as his wife (which wouldn't be adultery) and any children born of that union would not suffer any social stigma. <br /><br />These days Jewish divorce law remains pretty much the same. Women can't remarry without a "get" and husbands still refuse to give them one, even if the wife has obtained a civil divorce. Apparently it's a major problem. Furthermore, under current Jewish law a married man who has an affair with a single woman is not an adulterer and, though generally not practised even in countries that permit polygamy, the marriage of a married man to another wife is still regarded as valid.<br /><br />Malachi 2:16 does not say that God hates divorce, at least not according to the Septuagint which says that, "the man who hates and divorces ... covers his garment with violence". Jeremiah 3:8 says that God "put away" Israel and gave her "a certificate of divorce".<br /><br />When he referred to the creation ordinance of marriage Jesus was calling us all to the highest of moral behaviour. Startlingly, no doubt, he included men in that call when he said that a man who divorces his wife for inadequate reasons and takes another wife commits adultery. But he recognised that "hardness of heart" is something we all suffer. Otherwise, why did he give the exception? <br /><br />The following is from a Bible study on law and justice produced by the Lawyer's Christian Fellowship in the UK.<br /><i>The Law ... only sought to mitigate the worst effects of evil, by setting outer boundaries and sanctions, without enforcing God's highest principles and standards. ...<br />God's purpose for law therefore is that it should accept and recognise man's sinfulness, and indeed makes provision for it, but it should work within these practical limits to curb sin's worst effects without outlawing all that is contrary to God's ideals.</i><br /><br />How do you mitigate the worst effects of a husband rejecting his wife and sending her away? You create a legal mechanism whereby the marriage contract can be dissolved so that the wife can remarry, not just for sex, as though that's all that matters, but also for companionship, support and bearing children. The ideal, of course, is that a married couple should not separate or divorce, not even for adultery. Even that should be forgiven if forgiveness is sought. I couldn't but I was only 21 at the time, not a Christian, and his confession was just the bitter icing on an already crumbled cake. Does God look mercifully on me despite my hard-hearted failure to live up to his high standard for marriage?Janicenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-16591492839287103412012-09-07T14:59:30.357+12:002012-09-07T14:59:30.357+12:00Hmmm, Peter some suggestions: *Don't ask what ...Hmmm, Peter some suggestions: *Don't ask what butcher Abram got the lamb from. <br />*Geriatric jokes probably won't go down well. <br />*Don't ask him what is the carbon footprint of the family business!MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-54738364151272936912012-09-07T13:52:01.642+12:002012-09-07T13:52:01.642+12:00On incest, I am beggared if I know what I would sa...<i>On incest, I am beggared if I know what I would say if transported back in time to Canaan and invited to dinner with Abram and Sarai.</i><br /><br />Yes. She was his half-sister. Also, Abraham "sent away" Hagar without giving her a "certificate of divorcement". On the other hand, we don't know whether or not he ever gave Hagar a "ketubah". My guess is that he didn't since Hagar was not her own but Sarai's to give. Of course, all this happened long before the law was handed down to Moses and the Israelites, and before the laws against incest and about divorce and remarriage were promulgated. Janicenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-57062397344653997762012-09-07T13:40:48.775+12:002012-09-07T13:40:48.775+12:00Yes Ron, only Jesus was perfect. That is why I use...Yes Ron, only Jesus was perfect. That is why I used imperfect to talk of human virtue. No inconsistency at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-68439522566175767062012-09-07T05:48:53.014+12:002012-09-07T05:48:53.014+12:00Hi Carl,
Our church, along with other churches aro...Hi Carl,<br />Our church, along with other churches around the world, and our society are talking about homosexuality, and that talk is occasioning talk about divorce and remarriage. Prostitution and incest are not featuring much in discussion these days, and among friends and family I know of no one wrestling with issues connected with them.<br /><br />Nevertheless there are ambiguities re prostitution and incest. On the former, I feel ambiguous about whether it should be legal as it is in NZ, or not. On incest, I am beggared if I know what I would say if transported back in time to Canaan and invited to dinner with Abram and Sarai.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-88514486890510995492012-09-07T01:34:11.823+12:002012-09-07T01:34:11.823+12:00Peter
Why is it important for you to wrestle with...Peter<br /><br />Why is it important for you to wrestle with ambiguities in life when it comes to divorce and homosexuality?<br /><br />Why is it not important for you to wrestle with ambiguities in life when it comes to prostitution and incest?<br /><br />carlcarl jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05195615264891904953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-44068734818390169682012-09-06T23:24:05.159+12:002012-09-06T23:24:05.159+12:00I can't comment on what the Roman Catholic Chu...I can't comment on what the Roman Catholic Church teaches or practices. <br /><br />But the scriptures do not say that divorced persons cannot remarry. Whilst that is a general rule, there are exceptions. Adultery is one (Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9). Desertion is another (1 Corinthians 7:14-15). <br /><br />Not only can the righteous woman deserted by her husband re-marry, but there is no impediment to her receiving Holy Communion. <br /><br />Alison wrote:<br /><br />"To maintain homosexuals be celibate while heterosexuals receive a "generous response" is inconsistent."<br /><br />Does anyone maintain that? If so, I am not aware of it. Orthodox Anglicans maintain that the scriptures teach us that ANY unmarried person must maintain celibacy, homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-26753167999910006192012-09-06T21:22:38.792+12:002012-09-06T21:22:38.792+12:00"God does not save us to leave us in our sins..."God does not save us to leave us in our sins, but to transform us. It is this transformation that leads to a life of virtue, though always an imperfect one."<br /><br />It is inconsistent, surely, to talk about an imperfect life of virtue~<br /><br />There was only one perfect human being, and that was Jesus. No-one else has ever matched His virtue - no-one I know, anyway.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-29398259756874293282012-09-06T17:40:31.691+12:002012-09-06T17:40:31.691+12:00All you are saying, Peter, is that many of your co...All you are saying, Peter, is that many of your conservative evangelical colleagues in ministry are similarly prejudicial against homosexuals, allowing "a more generous attitude" for heterosexuals than you/they would ever have towards homosexuals. <br /><br />Carl is correct - as I have long understood: Your position is dreadfully inconsistent. It is also unsustainable. People need to read all your previous posts on homosexuality in this light.<br /><br />Shawn underscores the unbiblical subjectivity: "easy" divorce.<br /><br />Alison Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-90517023530796518612012-09-06T15:16:58.943+12:002012-09-06T15:16:58.943+12:00God is the Lord of both mercy and judgement. One c...God is the Lord of both mercy and judgement. One cannot be seperated from the other without compromising the words of Jesus Himself, and thus the Gospel.<br /><br />"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."<br /><br />God does not save us to leave us in our sins, but to transform us. It is this transformation that leads to a life of virtue, though always an imperfect one.<br /><br />One of the problems in the Church today is the modern mindset, that views the Gospel as being about us, and our needs and desires, our wants. It is androcentric rather than Theocentric. Thus easy divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, and various other issues are trumpeted as being about the "love of Christ" when in fact they are manifestations of our own self-love.<br /><br />The Gospel is for us, but not about us. It is about the glory of God. A God who saves us in order to make us people who put God first in all things, not our own idols of self-fulfillment. We are saved that we might glorify God and enjoy Him forever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-4262288663411775992012-09-06T15:00:20.304+12:002012-09-06T15:00:20.304+12:00Hi Carl (and Alison),
My position may be dreadfull...Hi Carl (and Alison),<br />My position may be dreadfully inconsistent; and I am not without appreciation for those such as yourself who attempt to drive me towards greater consistency.<br /><br />However I am not trying to articulate a position that is particularly different, as far as I can tell, from many, many conservative evangelical colleagues in ministry.<br /><br />Now it is possible that we are all dreadfully inconsistent.<br /><br />It is also possible that we are wrestling with ambiguities in life which do not admit of simple clear applications of the teaching of Jesus. <br /><br />I would be interested in any other pastors who marry people commenting here. And I do not mind if you do not support me!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-208372876441077972012-09-06T14:49:04.922+12:002012-09-06T14:49:04.922+12:00Peter
I seem to have lost a post in the ether, bu...Peter<br /><br />I seem to have lost a post in the ether, but it matters not. The entire post was intended to elicit an answer to this question...<br /><br />What I cannot envision is repentance from adultery that doesn't involve separation from the adulterous relationship. Peter, is the second marriage after divorce adulterous or not? <br /><br />.. a question that you have subsequently answered. <br /><br /><i>I take issue with the idea that every marriage after divorce involves adultery and thus living in an ongoing state of sin.</i><br /><br />So would I, of course. There are biblical grounds for divorce. But we have been discussing those divorces not so grounded. With the above admission, the matter is clarified. You have by some unknown authority simply defined away the nature of the action. Alison is right. Your position is dreadfully inconsistent. It is also unsustainable. <br /><br />carlcarl jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05195615264891904953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-90880040618968365752012-09-06T12:52:10.905+12:002012-09-06T12:52:10.905+12:00Hi Alison,
Or, it could be that my teaching is bas...Hi Alison,<br />Or, it could be that my teaching is based on the Bible which appears to be "prejudiced" against sexual relationships not involving a man and a woman, while offering some scope (but not a lot, I stress) for 'a generous attitude' re remarriage.<br /><br />I take issue with the idea that every marriage after divorce involves adultery and thus living in an ongoing state of sin. However that is bound to put me offside with Carl and with you, and also (I imagine you will say) Jesus. <br /><br />Nevertheless I wonder why Jesus didn't take the Samaritan woman at the well to task for her "adultery"? (Or perhaps each of her husbands had the misfortune to die!)Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-75987607082878930172012-09-06T10:50:23.037+12:002012-09-06T10:50:23.037+12:00Carl has pinpointed what many have previously (as ...Carl has pinpointed what many have previously (as you week by week, in different ways, teach that the only option for homosexuals is celibacy). Heterosexuals, in your teaching, have the option of "marriage" after marriage - blessed by the church. "Repentance for divorce", as you call it, in the Bible would be repentance from adultery. It means ceasing to have an adulterous sexual relationship. It does not mean being sorry that the marriage broke down and now continuing to have sex with someone else just because you are heterosexual and not homosexual. Until you face this inconsistency squarely, all your teaching on homosexuality appears based on prejudice.<br /><br />AlisonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-36237694321156949022012-09-06T10:46:54.538+12:002012-09-06T10:46:54.538+12:00From his advocacy of moral purgation here, I think...From his advocacy of moral purgation here, I think carl would have been up for election to the Sanhedrin in the time of Jesus.<br /><br />I wonder how Jesus would have fared at his hands?<br /><br />I love the biblical concept of God's loving mercy and forgiveness - totally at odds with the old-style scribes and Pharisees' legalistic approach:<br /><br />"What I require is mercy, not sacrifice!" - the Eternal God.<br /><br />Good on you, Peter, for championing the Love of Christ in the Gospel!Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-3607601797084080082012-09-06T06:21:11.481+12:002012-09-06T06:21:11.481+12:00Hi Carl,
I am not asking God to be compromising on...Hi Carl,<br />I am not asking God to be compromising on sin. I am raising the question whether the approach you are taking is hard and unyielding in respect of mercy and forgiveness. You have written nothing here which suggests you envision any possibility of repentance from divorce.<br /><br />I can envisage repentance for divorce. <br /> <br />I cannot imagine repentance for incest which involves continuing an incestuous relationship.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-91396802889141284452012-09-06T02:18:18.345+12:002012-09-06T02:18:18.345+12:00Peter
You say 'hard and unyielding.' I s...Peter<br /><br />You say 'hard and unyielding.' I say 'consistent and faithful.' Your choice of words is both interesting and revealing. For it implies that the stance I defend is the stance of a harsh taskmaster who demands that bricks be made without straw. It is the language of intolerable burden. But what if we spoke instead of the man who has sex with his sister? Would you still find me harsh and unyielding if I should refuse to offer him any generosity? You are clearly parsing out sins. You are implicitly claiming that some portions of the Moral Law are disproportionately burdensome - that it would be unfair and wrong to expect people to uphold those portions. By what means did you accomplish this task? And do you not see Whom you are accusing when make such an implicit claim?<br /><br />Is God hard and unyielding about sin? Perhaps we should ask the men who beat with futile fists on the side of Noah's Ark. Perhaps we should ask the men of Sodom who were destroyed without mercy for pursuing strange flesh. Perhaps we should ask the first born of Egypt. Perhaps we should ask the men, women, children, and infants of Canaan. Perhaps we should ponder those who shall see with great fear the Son of Man returning not as a Lamb but as a Lion with a robe dipped in blood. The God who revealed Himself in the Old Testament is the same unchanging God who revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ. The incarnation didn't change the nature of God, and it didn't change his attitude towards sin. Grace can never be used as an excuse to keep on sinning. And yet this is precisely the position you find yourself defending. You are asserting that the very God who condemned Sodom now looks with grace & compassion on the sin of Sodom; that He now makes allowances so that men may commit it freely when confronted with some intolerable circumstances. What then would he say to the city of Sodom? Would his judgment of the city have been righteous?<br /><br />Why is homosexuality different in your mind from adultery? Why is divorce different from bearing false witness? Why would you adopt towards the later sins a stance just as hard and unyielding as mine? Why would you never think to ask questions about a generous response to their commission? Why would you think it improper to even ask such questions? Why do you think it is even so perfectly acceptable to ask such questions about divorce and homosexuality? You are making subtle assumptions about the nature of divorce and homosexuality that you aren't admitting. You need to identify and face those assumptions. They are leading you where you should not go.<br /><br />carlcarl jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05195615264891904953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-54925078844664439852012-09-05T12:14:14.075+12:002012-09-05T12:14:14.075+12:00Hi Carl,
I would not want to go against the author...Hi Carl,<br />I would not want to go against the authority of God in Jesus Christ. The question I am raising here is whether Jesus would be as hard and as unyielding as you and you colleagues would be when faced with the situations we regularly face in today's world which do not always appear (to me, and other colleagues, at any rate) to be directly addressed by the words of Jesus (and of Paul) which we do have.<br /><br />As for homosexual relationships, I think we could also ask whether Jesus would be as hard and as unyielding. I think we can ask the question (with its own set of complexities about modern life for homosexuals) without automatically answering it.<br /><br />These are matters to reflect carefully on as we are dealing with the world which God lovingly created and lovingly redeemed, and in the process taught us through Jesus that the law is made to give life not to kill it.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-72870278870335478632012-09-05T09:02:52.156+12:002012-09-05T09:02:52.156+12:00Peter
I see there was no misunderstanding after a...Peter<br /><br />I see there was no misunderstanding after all. <br /><br /><i>On your reckoning it is nice and easy.</i><br /><br />Your words. Not mine. It's never 'nice and easy' to tell people that some decisions have permanent consequences; that visions of happiness must sometimes be sacrificed for the sake of obedience. It's hard to tell people that they face a difficult road of disappointment and self-denial. That's why I started this argument by saying "We don't have a God-given right to be happy." Happiness is the worst moral lodestone we could possibly apply.<br /><br /><i>If either remarries they are committing adultery, so they should not, and the church's role is to tell them not to and to impose discipline if they do.</i><br /><br />And why do you suppose I would make such an assertion? What would be my authority? <br /><br /><i>Well, good luck to you.</i><br /><br />And to you as well. It's not me you are actually arguing with.<br /><br /><i>But I cannot think of even the most extremely conservative of my ministerial colleagues who would agree with you</i><br /><br />Ironic. It can't think of any who wouldn't agree with me. In the meantime, you can look forward to long and interesting debates over the ever-expanding definition of "significant difficulties." And you can also ponder how you will hold the line against contextual arguments made by homosexual apologists now that you have thrown a clear scriptural imperative onto the hot coals. Will you now use Scripture to defend your position on homosexuality having cast aside Scripture for the sake of your position on divorce?<br /><br />The consequence of "generous response" is found in compromise. Should we really presume that our judgment about the termination of marriage is better than the judgment of the author of marriage?<br /><br />carlcarl jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05195615264891904953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-72996451093212728822012-09-05T06:19:41.229+12:002012-09-05T06:19:41.229+12:00FRS
I am an American. We don't use the '...FRS<br /><br />I am an American. We don't use the 'Royal We.' It doesn't even enter our minds to do so. This does however illustrate once again your amazing ability to misconstrue arguments in order to slander your opponent. The 'we' in question was "Peter and I.' I included the paragraph because I was beginning to wonder if I was misunderstanding the concept Peter was defending. All of this should have been obvious to anyone who can read the English language, and is willing to do so with even a modicum of charity.<br /><br />carlcarl jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05195615264891904953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-28839377606893726542012-09-05T06:11:17.140+12:002012-09-05T06:11:17.140+12:00Hi Carl,
You are oversimplifying the realities of ...Hi Carl,<br />You are oversimplifying the realities of life. In my experience a straightforward Mr X, having cheated on Mrs X, turns up "five minutes" later with a new candidate to be Mrs X and a request for the Vicar to marry them as though nothing significant has happened relative to Jesus' teaching is rare.<br /><br />Much more common is Mr X and Mrs X separate, having worked for years on their relationship, but never overcoming some significant difficulties (perhaps Mr X is alcoholic, or Mrs X is psychotic and spends most of her time in a psychiatric hospital, or Mr X is an obsessive workaholic, or Mrs X is an obsessive mother who will not put her husband ahead of her children, or ...). Then, eventually, and perhaps for no great reason (i.e. not at that stage contemplating remarriage to another) one sues for divorce (and insists on it). So divorce takes place and more time goes by. Then one meets a new potential spouse and a new marriage is in the offing.<br /><br />What to do? On your reckoning it is nice and easy. If either remarries they are committing adultery, so they should not, and the church's role is to tell them not to and to impose discipline if they do. Further, the church's role is to insist on further attempts to resume the first marriage.<br /><br />Well, good luck to you. But I cannot think of even the most extremely conservative of my ministerial colleagues who would agree with you by refusing to contemplate presiding at the wedding of the new marriage (all other things being equal and acknowledging that I am offering a scenario which is hypothetical in a number of ways).Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-31694546409162976472012-09-04T22:11:02.043+12:002012-09-04T22:11:02.043+12:00"So long as you will assert that you would no..."So long as you will assert that you would not validate a second marriage when the first marriage was concluded on non-biblical grounds, then we are at peace."<br /><br />I do love the royal 'WE' here. Then that's all settled then! The Church has offered her considered judgement.<br /><br />Peter, you have my deepest sympathy I would not like your task of being expected to unwrap all of that. And so didactic, too.<br /><br /> Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com