tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post5988755291502124782..comments2024-03-30T00:33:32.285+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Decision 2018: Q and A (1)Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-84466762271381189292018-06-01T20:17:05.950+12:002018-06-01T20:17:05.950+12:00I generally agree with you Chris, but 1 Corinthian...I generally agree with you Chris, but 1 Corinthians 5 raises the question whether the reason why fornication is wrong is not so much because it is outside of marriage but because, at least in a certain sense, it constitutes a marriage, albeit brief, and certainly a truncated marriage when it should be lifelong and not night-long.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-3427480534174721222018-05-30T12:20:13.166+12:002018-05-30T12:20:13.166+12:00As a non-Anglican I don't want to engage in di...As a non-Anglican I don't want to engage in discussions of church order etc. but have a few things to add which may or may not connect with comments already made.<br />1. We need to distinguish a marriage from a wedding. A marriage has I believe a form which persists through time and across cultures, namely the committed relationship of one man and one woman. Weddings take a variety of social forms all of which are equally legitimate. The essence of a wedding is a public commitment in a form acknowledged as legitimate within the culture/society in which the two participants are recognized henceforth as married. This may or may not involve legal aspects such as signing a register and being issued with a marriage certificate. That means that the excuse that marriage is "only a piece of paper" and can be discarded as an obsolete issue is incorrect. There are multiple aspects to a marriage and legal records are just one of them. <br />2. Just to be clear, when I said that a marriage is always between one man and one woman, polygamy or polyandry is not a counter-example. A man (polygamy is more common than polyandry) can be married to 2, 3, 4 or more women BUT he marries them one at a time. He does not marry four women, he marries one woman, then another, then another. Even if several women were married in one ceremony (not something that happens to my knowledge) each one is married to the man separately to the others. This may seem irrelevant but it is an indication that there is an enduring reality to marriage between one man and one woman which even polygamy does not alter.<br />3. Sexual intercourse does not on its own constitute a marriage. The view that it does ignores the point above that there is a socially-accepted form to entering a marriage which is not accomplished simply by sexual intercourse. To use an old fashioned word mentioned by another post, it is simply fornication, without an intention to form an enduring relationship with all that marriage entails. <br /><br />ChrisChris Gousmetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695776254644272494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-850576682743528722018-05-17T10:20:14.264+12:002018-05-17T10:20:14.264+12:00Thanks Jean, Ron, Bowman for recent comments.
My r...Thanks Jean, Ron, Bowman for recent comments.<br />My reflection on the potential virtue of de facto marriage is not upon de facto marriages where couples either together, or one partner is hesitating to make the commitment permanent, or there is some financial consideration being placed in the way of a public event otherwise desired by the couple, etc.<br /><br />The potential virtue of de facto marriage lies in its quality as an effective de jure marriage, not in a deficiency within the couple's self-understanding of what they would like if they were honest with each other - that is, in my experience it often turns out that in a de facto marriage one partner does want a wedding and the other partner does not (or for various reasons wishes to delay, even for years).Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-24820116140432606822018-05-17T09:59:20.101+12:002018-05-17T09:59:20.101+12:00Even the Roman Catholic Church now admits that mar...Even the Roman Catholic Church now admits that marriage is a 'Sacrament enacted between the two parties involved'. All the Church does is add a blessing.<br /><br />Surely this means that even a 'de facto couple' who have made a personal commitment to one another, with a view to a lifelong relationship involving the procreation of children might still be considered 'married', even by the Church. The State actually will recognise their committed relationship and will grant the appropriate pecuniary benefits. If such a couple comes into the Church, they could then be encouraged to make a further, more public, commitment and receive the blessing available?<br /><br />Firstly, of course, they need to understand that a Church blessing would add something of value to their relationship. Some couples, I suspect, may not see the Church as a loving. accepting, family with whom they aspire to belong. However, this may be the fault of the Church rather than the couple concerned who may perceive a possible reluctance on the part of the Church to receive them in their current situation.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-26493827865882405692018-05-17T08:47:04.015+12:002018-05-17T08:47:04.015+12:00As usual, Jean is right.
"... for some who c...As usual, Jean is right.<br /><br />"... for some who come into the church in *de facto* relationships a period of time is needed for people to “become aware” or be convicted by the Holy Spirit about what is best."<br /><br />Of course. And no other conviction matters.<br /><br />"Why would I say a *de facto* relationship even a long term one is not equivalent to marriage however? Because of knowing many whom regardless of the length of their relationship view not being married as meaning they are always free to leave and knowing many who have done so children or nought."<br /><br />Obviously, solemnisation is no guarantee of permanence. Some feel that they can leave a *de jure* relationship too! <br /><br />Nevertheless, Jean is right that an active refusal to make a public commitment is very often avoidance of the sort of commitment for which Christians should strive. Fortunately, there are plenty of ways of making that commitment... <br /> <br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-74522323749820093492018-05-16T23:05:37.225+12:002018-05-16T23:05:37.225+12:00It does sound like Dick and Jane are quickly becom...It does sound like Dick and Jane are quickly becoming a famous couple.<br /><br />My two cents. Marriage was significant biblically as we see with Mary and Joseph and the repercussion of perceived breach of contract. In this scenario what I sense a de facto relationship lacks is knowing the terms and conditions of a contract entered into a.k.a. An agreement to remain faithful to each other intentionally for life. Are de facto couples sinning, well yes I suppose but not more so than most, however, like in all areas when we become aware of sin which is potentially harmful to us the course of action is to address it. <br /><br />In my experience which will differ from others for some who come into the church in de facto relationships a period of time is needed for people to “become aware” or be convicted by the Holy Spirit about what is best. In may be appropriate to say something if the couple has been churchgoers for a long time or at least have a conversation but in other situations people need space to learn, explore and form a relationship with Jesus before they are led to a decision. Why would I say a de facto relationship even a long term one is not equivalent to marriage however? Because of knowing many whom regardless of the length of their relationship view not being married as meaning they are always free to leave and knowing many who have done so children or nought. Sure you can do so too if married it is just a bit harder probably not even legally now but funnny how a personal commitment made is harder for oneself to walk away from than if no such commitment exists or is it? If a de facto couple have committed to each other in private, with family or a witness in a way that mirrors a formal marriage then this is a different scenario. Interestingly the greatest number of de facto relationships I am aware of in my local area amongst congregation members are second time relationshipers be that due to divorce or being widowed and are mature (in respect to age).<br /><br />In the analogy of Christ and the Church or God and Israel it is spoken, written and acted commitment of covenant that stands as the marker of the relationships. Albeit the adherence to faithfulness is somewhat one sided.<br /><br /> Jeannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-75218543109738680572018-05-16T11:28:45.874+12:002018-05-16T11:28:45.874+12:00"a way forward which is not solely about a de..."a way forward which is not solely about a decision in writing but also about relationships, trust and continuing discernment within the Body, especially in respect of each bishop working on diocesan unity."<br /><br />Peter, I have never doubted that this was and will be true, and yet... <br /><br />In order to begin to agree with my comments, I think a convinced synodicalist needs a much more dynamic understanding than I have offered ADU of how years of living the spiritual discipline of non-coercive unanimity both constrains participants and inspires a local Body's deliberation about hard questions. Some things can be believed if they are explained well, but this may be one of the things that can only be believed if they are experienced. Perhaps your Presbyterian sister synod has learned something interesting from its new and less-majoritarian rules of order? <br /><br />And personally, I took on the narrative revolution in theology, biblical studies, and ethics when they happened in the '70s and '80s, so the whole of That Topic often looks to me like a pointless face-off between legalists and emotivists from the '50s or '60s. Either position could be argued with little reference to the concrete story of Jesus-in-Israel and both usually have been. But why? I have no clues about why that should still be so half a century after the Christian mind retrieved narrative. It looks as though the law/emo meme grabs the id, polarises the mind to one side or the other, and thereafter shuts down the mind's receptivity to anything but law law law or emo emo emo. Because this is just the opposite of what I would have expected to happen-- narrative is routinely described as the mind's most powerful organiser-- I am perplexed.<br /><br />But the two paragraphs above could make a disturbing sense together. Where decision dynamics are already polarised by an institution's majoritarianism, a felt need for the street-fighting crudeness of law/emo defenses may prevent the richer narrative theology from taking root, much as a weed chokes a flower. Because virtue ethics, for example, straddles the divide between the fixity of law and the subjectivity of emo, each side may suspect it of being the other. The implication, which I do not like, is that the better theology is a new wine still awaiting its ecclesial wineskin after all these years, and that wineskin must have a way of avoiding or overcoming polarisation.<br /><br />BW <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-39120360694068645262018-05-16T09:34:16.130+12:002018-05-16T09:34:16.130+12:00I do not object to ceremonial per se, of course. B...I do not object to ceremonial per se, of course. But it seems to me to be miles downstream of what is needed to minister to eg women convinced that any reference to procreation (or even sexual difference) must be oppressive, men and women convinced that common law parental rights without marriage are sufficient, exquisitely refined individuals struggling with the thought that they are also bodies with a sex, etc. It is rash to assume that all postmodern anxiety and confusion is just another nail for our liturgical hammer merely because we used to have a rite for it and Anglicans are practiced at hammering nails. The show does NOT need to go on. But I would be surprised if a mature Christian ethos in societies as they are now did not gradually inspire some fitting ceremony and custom. And who knows? Maybe at that point with that superior understanding some of them will prove helpful for SSM.<br /><br />* Ritual Note: Because the interrogation-- who are you? do you want to marry? do you want to marry him/her? will you say this...?-- has been conducted when obtaining the marriage license, the public officials have dispensed with it at each such celebration that I have attended.<br /><br />** Theological Note: Stanley Hauerwas is right that Joseph Fletcher failed to capture what is distinctive about an ethos in Christ, to say no more. (BTW both ethicists have belonged to TEC.) Yet even on the otherwise blessed isles, Fletcher's view is the one that many Anglicans are invoking against Reformed legalism squinting through a magnifying glass. And on the other hand, a few here at ADU have been known to hiss Fletcher's *situation ethics* back at comments that seemed to them to be more about luv sweet luv than agape, dying to self, the Cross, etc. The judges, mayors, clerks, and sea captains do less harm to the Church than hearing these two crude errors from the clergy. If the best on offer is either legalism or luv, then just let the magistrates take care of things for a generation or so. The question is: how are churchfolk caught up in these errors to be freed from them and healed? Of the several theologians who have corrected both, Hauerwas seems to be the most approachable and therapeutic.<br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-52844636961452861822018-05-16T09:33:46.002+12:002018-05-16T09:33:46.002+12:00"One thing a wedding confers on a couple, the..."One thing a wedding confers on a couple, their families and the community of faith around them is a public acknowledgment of the joining of these two people being according to an "order" (coming together, declarations, vows, prayers, ministry of Word and possibly also of Sacrament, fellowship over food)."<br /><br />"Christians are obliged to love each other, even if they are married." <br />--Stanley Hauerwas.<br /><br />Peter, I am not asking judges, mayors, clerks, and sea captains to stop conferring public acknowledgement on couples. They are more or less public figures; public acknowledgement is what they do; they are good at it (maybe not the sea captains ;-). I have been to perfectly lovely weddings in town halls, parks, art museums, etc where one of them did do that.* Families and friends of couples often like these weddings better than our weddings, especially when would rather be outdoors, mingling and chatting, dancing to sappy music, eating catered hors d'oevres, etc then sitting in a gloomy stone building hearing obscure allusions to the strange thought that a life lived well is a mystical participation in the crucifixion of a C1 Jew in Palestine. The Creator sends his rain on the just and the unjust, and he created pairbonding in the natural order in the first place, so of course he blesses these light, frivolous, sexy, civil weddings and their godless guests too. He always has. Your argument hints that even he may well like those weddings better! Anyway, I like them because their scrupulous silence about religion does not misrepresent or trivialise what it is to take up the cross for a spouse.<br /><br />What I am asking is that intentional disciples of Jesus and their pastors recognise an obsolete antique for what it is, stop being haunted by anachronisms, and reintegrate marriage into a credible understanding of the gospel. Our old solemnisation rite was useful-- especially in the middle ages-- but not essentially different from what the captain does on his ship. Human marriage that is also in some serious sense participation in Christ needs something more. Have you read or heard Stanley Hauerwas** on this? <br /><br />https://youtu.be/oAoMxqlNUEY<br /><br />https://youtu.be/8OF7pgQuSCIAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-60348123676921646692018-05-16T07:40:06.638+12:002018-05-16T07:40:06.638+12:00Hi Ron,
I am going to bow out of this conversati...Hi Ron, <br /><br />I am going to bow out of this conversation as I am quite out of my depth, which I am ready to admit. It's always good to sharpen one another, and there are really valid points I have never thought of - so thank you!<br /><br />I just want to make it clear, in your inference to "church family", that the thoughts that I have expressed are completely my own. I have no idea what other people in my family (either the Behan side or my maiden side), or At Stephen's as a parish, believe. Please never assume that I speak for anyone but myself! That being said though, my lovely husband Tim has supported these comments.<br /><br />I do wish everyone the best, in Christ, whatever happens in the next while. Thank you, Peter, for providing this forum and for graciously allowing questions to be asked.<br /> <br />Sarah @ In Pleasant Placeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10156911249405958561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-51759295589972621522018-05-16T07:06:44.649+12:002018-05-16T07:06:44.649+12:00Thanks Bowman
I appreciate your thoughts re ordain...Thanks Bowman<br />I appreciate your thoughts re ordained ministry in relation to the Body.<br />Our church has been (IMHO) both synodical and otherwise in its deliberations on these matters, where "otherwise" means we have talked and worked on a way forward which is not solely about a decision in writing but also about relationships, trust and continuing discernment within the Body, especially in respect of each bishop working on diocesan unity.<br />A related thought re marriage, to what you and Sarah are saying above, is reflection on all things being done "decently and in order." One thing a wedding confers on a couple, their families and the community of faith around them is a public acknowledgment of the joining of these two people being according to an "order" (coming together, declarations, vows, prayers, ministry of Word and possibly also of Sacrament, fellowship over food).<br />Whatever we make of SSBs, such blessings according to a rite offer a couple and the community of faith to which they belong an "order" re public acknowledgement of their relationship.<br />Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-457646067467580052018-05-16T05:49:16.151+12:002018-05-16T05:49:16.151+12:00Postscript-- From time to time, a few kind souls h...Postscript-- From time to time, a few kind souls have amused themselves in trying to understand my position on SSB, which does seem perplexing to many. I know God takes a special delight in procreation and is pained by what hurts mothers and children, but I do not think that every act that fails of conception frustrates that delight. I read the Six Texts as scripture, but I read the scriptures much as St Irenaeus did. I have been for civil unions for decades, but I have generally opposed SSB. I have urged others here to read the TEC, ACC, CoE, and CoS reports on gay marriage, but I have rejected their final conclusions. I have been supportive of efforts to maintain Anglican unity down under as here up yonder, but I have also seen runaway synodicalism as the cause rather than the solution for disunity. Etc. These are all, if not contradictions, at least unusual coincidences. <br /><br />My comment above does not elucidate everything, but it does draw discussion of marriage nearer to the scriptures, and indeed nearer to a Reformation understanding of them that I have found clearer, better grounded, and more timely than most arguments on That Topic. Readers who work forward from that tradition rather than backwards from present-day moral sentiments may find my past comments a bit less perplexing. A few key points--<br /><br />We cannot create orders of creation. Because they believe in a Creator God, both Jews and Christians believe that pairbonding is a human universal prior to either of their own traditions about it. To a traditional Jew or Christian, a wedding among Hindus or polygamous Mormons, or neo-pagan witches or whatever is a real wedding no matter what else is mixed up with it. This commits us to an empirical view of marriage-- we first look at what the Creator has done to frame the cosmos, both everywhere and among us, and then later make godly sense of that with the help of the Holy Spirit. Such empiricism is both exemplified in the scriptures and enjoined in them.<br /><br />We do the same things that all other human beings do but in a way that through an inner transformation better realises the perfect humanity of Jesus. That is the point of difference. <br /><br />There is no reason to expect those outside the Body to be able to live as those inside it do. The state does some things for all that the Body need not and should not do.<br /><br />The Body is recognised empirically by the marks of its actual life described in the scriptures; its identity is not guaranteed in advance by its institutions and customs, precious as those are. Because unity is one such mark of the Body, mere majorities-- especially contested majorities-- and *a fortiori* schisms fall short of the visibility of the Body. Majority rule has often been an innocent short-cut to consensus in matters of mere prudence, but when it enables division in matters of faith and morals it is a regression to the loveless power struggles of the world. Congregations fade from the visible Body as they abandon unity in God for mere factional dominance. "If salt has lost its savour..."<br /><br />Similarly, as ordination confers an office of securing visible unity, clergy are clergy insofar as they do what the whole Body intends to do in every ministerial act. Should they act in ways far from the intention of the whole Body then their ministry fades from the visible Body. This again is empirical, not theoretical-- first their following will be merely factional, and then it will wither.<br /><br />Episcopacy is the ministry of recognition by which the Holy Spirit maintains the identity of the Body of Christ through space and time.<br /><br />BW<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-91066523363263797422018-05-16T03:58:11.077+12:002018-05-16T03:58:11.077+12:00Cont'd
In places where state officers can rea...Cont'd<br /><br />In places where state officers can read and write, Christian clergy have a presumptive duty to stop routinely solemnising marriages. With the debatable exception of royal weddings, it does no good. And it does do some clear harm--<br /><br />(a) When the clergy perform this function, they imply that pairbonding is first of all a religious act when it is in fact-- even in traditional Christian theology-- a human universal practised by adherents of all religions and of none. This is a stumbling block both to busybodies out to police the sex of other people and also to non-Christians for whom a separate church rite can imply a rejection of their duly-recorded unions. Conversely, when state clerks perform the same function they show the universal truth about it in a way that the clergy presently cannot.<br /><br />(b) Insofar as a body of Christians can agree on some theological meaning for this universal phenomenon of marriage, or even for a disciples' morality for living it, the bare bones of *solemnisation* do not symbolise it because they were never meant to do that. The debate about M29 shows that centuries of solemnisation and a clear Reformation determination of its status had not given Anglicans a single mind about what a marriage is even before That Topic was upon us. This is because that thin procedure and simplifying article were never meant to bear so great a burden. The clergy should not participate in rites that cannot be recognised empirically as informed acts of the whole Church.<br /><br />(c) When the clergy perform a state clerical function they confuse church and state, which is contrary to the scriptural teaching about the aeons. Because disciples of Jesus need to be very clear about that teaching to navigate their lives in this world, the clergy have a duty to avoid this confusion.<br /><br />(d) Clergy roles in the real sacraments that God has given to the Church unhelpfully confuse thinking about what they do in weddings. Crudely, if they are paid by churches, do majorities of synods get to decide for God what they do, for whom they do it, and what it means when they do? Can malcontents of the left and the right do something about pairbonding in the world at large by campaigning for changes in church weddings? And what does the legal fact that only clergy can perform civilly-recognised weddings imply about their role in the local congregation? Some cherish their answers to these questions, but the gospel of Jesus is purer and clearer where they need not be asked at all. Other people will go wobbly sentimental or icy-eyed militant about anything churchy, but the ordained have a duty and a grace to be calm and clear. <br /><br />(e) Routine clergy participation in church weddings preserves a sentimental illusion that they are normal in the wider society when statistics show that they have not been for a generation. It is urgent that churches start to think about their lives in the present, but they cannot whilst they make-believe that they are living in the world of a century ago. The clergy should disrupt this self-deception.<br /><br />For the present, solemnisation should join canonisation, confession, exorcism, and excommunication on the list of acts of the Church that are mostly reserved to occasions recognised by the scrutiny of a bishop or her delegate. In everyday practice, pastors might best refer inquirers to an approved local colleague who has recognised authority and competence.<br /><br />This is not at all to say that Christians should not care about marriage, or should not teach, counsel, or celebrate this state of life. Indeed, a fresh conversation should begin about how to do these things today. It is to recognise the reality that routine solemnisation has not been doing any of them well for a rather long time.<br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-12773759556165687602018-05-16T03:56:53.013+12:002018-05-16T03:56:53.013+12:00It is important to have a public record of who is ...It is important to have a public record of who is married to whom. In the C12, creating such a record for the first time reduced abandonment, bigamy, jilting, illegitimacy, etc. In later time, it has enabled an expanding web of legal and financial rights. Today, in my country, many rely on these easily verifiable records for a lower rate of taxation, access to health care, or simply the right to be here.<br /><br />Those who have cohabited and begotten without creating such a public record have made it a bit harder for themselves to get these benefits. But they do no harm to others. Courts in common law jurisdictions tend to accommodate them. In the Commonweath of Virginia, for conservative example, the rules of evidence forbid courts to permit argument challenging a couple's sworn testimony that they are married. If, in some sense, they were not married before that testimony, they become so in virtue of it. <br /><br />At the turn of the last millennium, the clergy invented these records because nobody else could have done so when reading and writing were high technology. In that time before modern states, the clergy were the only clerks, the only ubiquitous organisation of literate persons in the Western world. When nearly universal literacy was achieved, state clerks began to keep many more complex records and eventually marriage records as well. Modern states have maintained these records well for centuries. New technology (eg blockchain) may make even that state role redundant. If couples do not need others to make their public records, then the practice will eventually end.<br /><br />The clergy in the West saw a serious social problem and as clerks they solved it with a procedure. They were not obeying a command in scripture for there is none. Nor did they begin with a precise theological meaning and then implement it with a religious ceremony. To the contrary, medieval theologians never agreed about whether, and if so in what sense, marriage could be said to be a sacrament. Aware of this history, Protestant churches, including the Church of England, determined from scripture that marriage is not a sacrament but a natural *state of life*.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-3883606338791617102018-05-15T22:59:45.088+12:002018-05-15T22:59:45.088+12:00Am I to uderrstand, Sarah, that you rally believe ...Am I to uderrstand, Sarah, that you rally believe that a couple who are considered by the stater to be 'fe facto', though faithful to one another and raising a family, are still considered by you and your church family to be 'living in sin'? Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-73541056017345646502018-05-15T22:07:19.175+12:002018-05-15T22:07:19.175+12:00Hi Ron
I am cutting down your comment - some parts...Hi Ron<br />I am cutting down your comment - some parts of it do not reflect where the conversation above has gotten to, and some parts introduce a new topic re international Anglicanism which I suggest is unnecessary in this thread. Thus:<br /><br />"Peter, ... My memories of my childhood in the English countryside was of some poor farmers bringing up their families without the benefits of legal marriage, and yet managing to survive - with help from their neighbours. In those days though their children were considered by the State to be 'illegitimate', a nomenclature which today's more enlightened society no longer uses, thank God. <br /><br />[What we need today is] God's ineffable love for all creation.<br /><br />..."Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-54567192330635226862018-05-15T20:03:28.138+12:002018-05-15T20:03:28.138+12:00Yes, Sarah!Yes, Sarah!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-81836219559442371152018-05-15T19:05:31.322+12:002018-05-15T19:05:31.322+12:00I am happy to be wrong (truly!) and if I am, one d...I am happy to be wrong (truly!) and if I am, one day when I see all things clearly, then I will definitely eat my words and hope that, in any way, I have never led anyone further away from Christ. But I also know that my heart is as true as it can be as a sinner on this matter - I only desire that seekers are led into good, faithful teaching so the Gospel can set them free and they can live life abundantly in Jesus.<br /><br />Blessings! xSarah @ In Pleasant Placeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10156911249405958561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-78356308679955161382018-05-15T16:59:59.959+12:002018-05-15T16:59:59.959+12:00"For this reason, I would say if Dick and Jan...<i>"For this reason, I would say if Dick and Jane went on to be together for thirty years, then if I understand the instances mentioned above, they are not married. And therefore, are living in sin. It would remain fornication, regardless of children and how long they were together"</i><br /><br />I would say if Dick and Jane have lived together faithfully for thirty years regardless of the lack of formal ceremony uniting them they are in fact living lives pleasing to God and are to all intents aqnd purposes married in his eyes<br /><br />Perhaps that is one point to be drawn from this what is the ceremony for? Certainly the civil weddings I have attended in recent days are notable only for the banality of the ceremonies and that they are almost completely devoid of real meaning - even more so given the ease of obtaining a civil divorce<br /><br />The Liturgies for marriage are not magic spells, rather they are a formalized ritual for the couple to pledge their intention to remain faithful to one another for the rest of their lives before God and before temporal witnesses<br /><br />In days of yore all that the Church required for a marriage to be considered valid was for each party to it swear to remain faithful to the other for the remainder of their lives and for there to be at least one witness to attest to the effect that they had done this.<br /><br />The key to this is not the ceremony, nor the piece of paper issued by the Government and/or Church that the wedding has taken place but holding true to the vows that have been taken by the couple concernedAndreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-40019790993737604082018-05-15T16:41:43.713+12:002018-05-15T16:41:43.713+12:00Hi Sarah
The history of marriages and how they are...Hi Sarah<br />The history of marriages and how they are contracted will either support what you say or it won't. I am no expert but it seems to me that you have consigned with your comment thousands and thousands of couples through the centuries who did not have the means of formally contracting their marriage, who lived in "common law marriages" or "de facto marriages" to the sin of fornication. Further, your assumption on the history of marriage implies a "God" factor in the ceremonies of marriage through the history of Israel and then the history of the church. I don't think a priest was present when Jacob took Leah then Rachel into his tent to make them his wives; and in the history of the church, priests were not uniformly present at weddings for centuries. But, again, if these are all to be consigned to the sin of fornication then so be it.<br /><br />Our hypothetical Dick and Jane will find, whether in a certificated marriage or not, a 1000 reason for needing Jesus to help them in their marriage/"marriage". I know I need Jesus in my marriage! Scripture is remarkably interested in the quality of all relationships, including marriage and remarkably uninterested in how marriages are contracted, to the point where it is never specified by Scripture how a marriage should be contracted.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-8165724163213253192018-05-15T13:38:28.080+12:002018-05-15T13:38:28.080+12:00Hi Peter,
I guess I will have to draw the line an...Hi Peter,<br /><br />I guess I will have to draw the line and say we definitely disagree on the sanctity and validity of marriage. <br /><br />I was thinking about it this morning and thought of two things from Scripture:<br /><br />1) In Mark 10, when Jesus is teaching on divorce, the primary element of what formulates a marriage is declared by Jesus - "...Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate." (vs.9) It is God that joins a couple as one, not just consummation. Consummation appears to be an outward sign of an inward grace made by God's hand.<br /><br />2)Furthermore, the question of the Pharisee's and the "certificate of divorce" (vs.4) show that, at some point since the Garden, a formal ceremony became the proper manner in which God joined two people together. Thus, a divorce is all the more abhorrent, because it is more than separating two bodies from union, but a ripping a part of the heavenly mystery that God created during the ceremony.<br /><br />For this reason, I would say if Dick and Jane went on to be together for thirty years, then if I understand the instances mentioned above, they are not married. And therefore, are living in sin. It would remain fornication, regardless of children and how long they were together.<br /><br />I'm not saying this is easy. It's one thing to think and write about it, than it is to face a couple who love one another, giving guidance if requested.<br /><br />But what I fear more than awkward and painful conversations is doubting that Scripture is enough, that Jesus didn't know what we would be facing two thousand years later. If Scripture is not fully enough for us - for edification, for rebuke, for encouragement, for a means of knowing God - then why on earth would I choose Jesus? What kind of substantial good would I gain from bowing to Him and following Him if His Word (being the Word) is not sufficient, even for today?<br /><br />Sarah @ In Pleasant Placeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10156911249405958561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-22514034610566588132018-05-15T09:44:38.939+12:002018-05-15T09:44:38.939+12:00Sam, do you think it would be good (or at least be...Sam, do you think it would be good (or at least better) if more( or all) gay people who aren't celibate were married and sought the church's blessing for their life together?Jonathannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82024397330285826782018-05-15T09:08:45.529+12:002018-05-15T09:08:45.529+12:00Hi Sam
One of our clergy did a statistical analysi...Hi Sam<br />One of our clergy did a statistical analysis (weddings in NZ, SSM in NZ, in our diocese ...) and came up with the predicted figure of five same sex couples seeking blessings within the Diocese of Christchurch each year.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-67771630568192280052018-05-15T08:19:16.930+12:002018-05-15T08:19:16.930+12:00A parishioner asked me on Sunday what percentage o...A parishioner asked me on Sunday what percentage of our Anglican church were gay people in monogamous relationships seeking the blessing of God and the church. I didn't know what to say. I said I thought it was a very small percentage: a tiny minority within a minority of society. <br /><br />Can anyone give a more accurate answer? If not, would people agree with my broad description? Or suggest a better one?Sam Andersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-32715195379781348852018-05-15T07:43:10.471+12:002018-05-15T07:43:10.471+12:00Fair point, Andrei.
I would simply say that at our...Fair point, Andrei.<br />I would simply say that at our GS support for our proposal re SSB seemed to come from all classes represented there, from both Maori and Pakeha (Polynesia was a different story).<br />Absolutely we need to address decline at all levels of our church, including GS.<br />My hope is that, moving forward on SSB, we might begin to do that.<br />But it is a challenge to get people concerned ... some Anglicans are either obtuse, ignorant, or unseeing about decline.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com