tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post6521591483063999295..comments2024-03-29T22:00:02.999+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Messy Communion, nascent Federation? [Updated]Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-65715382097238524242016-01-23T20:32:05.682+13:002016-01-23T20:32:05.682+13:00Tim, you and I may differ on some aspects of our A...Tim, you and I may differ on some aspects of our Anglican understanding of what the Church is all about. However, I do admire your persistence in challenging the status quo on the Church's treatement of LGBTIs.<br /><br />On presdiding at the Eucharist yesterday morning and this morning (modern N.Z. rite), I could not help - in the current clmate of sexisn and homophobia in the Anglican Communion, that was mentioned by the ABC at the recent Primates' Conference as being out of kilter with the Gospel - but reflect on the readings from the first and second Books of Samuel - especially, Saul's lament at the death of his friend Jonathan (2 Sam.1:26) :<br /><br />"O Jonathan, in your death I am stricken, I am desolate for you, Jonathan my brother. Very dear to me you were; your love for me MORE WONDERFUL than the love of a woman." (Jerusalem Bible)<br /><br />Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-28666270691735145622016-01-23T04:21:12.947+13:002016-01-23T04:21:12.947+13:00Michael A, my apologies - I mistyped. What I meant...Michael A, my apologies - I mistyped. What I meant to say was '"No one has committed themselves to any unchanging standard of doctrine as a condition of being ADMITTED to the Anglican Communion."<br /><br />Tim ChestertonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-10604810371747614402016-01-22T15:06:28.714+13:002016-01-22T15:06:28.714+13:00Hi Michael A: my apologies: trying to Publish your...Hi Michael A: my apologies: trying to Publish your comment on my phone I clumsily hit Delete instead. Here is your comment:<br /><br />"MichaelA has left a new comment on your post "Messy Communion, nascent Federation? [Updated]": <br /><br />"First, I'm not happy being described as a 20th century liberal, thank you very much! You might be interested to know that I have a very different reputation in my own diocese!"<br /><br />Tim, just to clarify, that is not exactly what I meant. I wasn't commenting on what you personally believe, but on the motives that you were ascribing to people in the 19th century. I was accusing you of historical anachronism, not of personally holding views that are rarely held today even by liberals!<br /><br />"No one has committed themselves to any unchanging standard of doctrine as a condition of being committed to the Anglican Communion."<br /><br />True - IF you accept that no province has ever committed itself to the Anglican Communion. Seriously - where has any province ever done so?<br /><br />But if you want to say that the provinces have committed themselves via the presence of their bishops at Lambeth Conferences (which is drawing a long bow, but let's run with it) then I suggest having a look at the various resolutions of LCs over the years before making the assertion that they haven't committed themselves to unchanging standards of doctrine! <br />"Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-51369606960893827442016-01-22T09:45:12.683+13:002016-01-22T09:45:12.683+13:00Tim,
Two of your arguments puzzle me. Perhaps yo...<br />Tim, <br /><br />Two of your arguments puzzle me. Perhaps you see something that I do not.<br /><br />I think that you and Kurt are quite right that has Communion changed. (When? Probably after the Empire became a Commonwealth.) If three quarters of the Communion want to be something consistent with, but more than, they were in 1868, why should they not go ahead? I do not see why either of you object to this. <br /><br />You mention rules far more than the conservatives do. Of the Six Texts, the one that has most informed the conservative side is Romans 1, which is not a rule, but an analysis of the decay of idolatrous societies. After that, it is St Paul's vice lists, which again are not rules but a part of his account of the work of the Holy Spirit in those united to Christ by faith. And of course the communique is about the meaning of weddings which mainly concerns Genesis 1:28, Genesis 2:18, the allegorical Song of Songs, Ephesians 5, and Revelations 21. Only the first of these is sometimes read as a rule. One can criticise conservatives on this issues for all sorts of things, but legalistic attachment to isolated rules in scripture is clearly not one of them. Why do you keep raising this?<br /><br />Again, I ask with every expectation that you have something in mind that I have not yet seen, and hope that you will do me the favour of trying to accommodate my limited understanding.<br /><br />Bowman Walton<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-70193297076489671222016-01-22T05:45:36.394+13:002016-01-22T05:45:36.394+13:00Michael A said,
'Are you seriously suggesting...Michael A said,<br /><br />'Are you seriously suggesting that any Anglican church in 1868 would not have seen the BCP (which included the ordinal and the Articles) as the foundation of Anglican doctrine?<br /><br />I cannot see the slightest justification for such a view. Challenges to the authority of the BCP and the articles came in the early- to mid- 20th century. Not liking it is one thing, but what excuse for this attempt to translate 20th century liberal views (not even a majority view in the 20th century) onto entire churches in the 19th century?'<br /><br />First, I'm not happy being described as a 20th century liberal, thank you very much! You might be interested to know that I have a very different reputation in my own diocese!<br /><br />I am not in any way disputing that Anglican churches constituted in the 19th century would not have seen the BCP as foundational. Our own Anglican Church of Canada has the Solemn Declaration of 1896 which clearly identifies us as being in communion with the Church of England, receiving the same canonical scriptures, creeds, BCP, articles, ordinal etc.<br /><br />I note, however, that no Anglican province that I am aware of around the world has interpreted the 'receiving' of the canonical scriptures to mean the 'receiving' of every single thing in those scriptures as the Word of God for us today. for instance, many western conservatives take the Leviticus commands about 'lying with a man as with a woman' literally, but they do not take the second half of the command literally - the command to execute the offender. But surely if one half of the verse is the Word of God to us, so is the second?<br /><br />That, however, is beside the point. What I am trying, somewhat clumsily, to say is that although each member church of the Anglican Communion may or may not have accepted the BCP as a foundational document (and let's remember that the American church essentially accepted the Scottish BCP, which had a very different Eucharistic theology), the Anglican Communion itself, as an international fellowship of churches, has no such foundational doctrines. No one has committed themselves to any unchanging standard of doctrine as a condition of being committed to the Anglican Communion. And in the past, we have quietly accepted the existence of a considerable variety of theological reinterpretations, some of them at variance with Cranmer's BCP (Eucharistic theology, ordination of women, views of scripture which are less than inerrantist, views of theology which do not follow the mild Calvinism of the 39 Articles etc.).<br /><br />Tim ChestertonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-5664185291016116092016-01-22T00:02:18.664+13:002016-01-22T00:02:18.664+13:00"why is one opinion more worthwhile than anot..."why is one opinion more worthwhile than another?" - MichaelA -<br /><br />You tell me, MA. However, is that not at the rfoot of the present standoff in the anglican Communion? That GAFCON's view of human sexuality is more 'proper' than that of other Anglicans?<br /><br />Do you remember the old saying: "One man's meat is another man's poison' The human face of the Church is not different from any other humanly-influenced institution in regard to its assertions. Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-63963399810629534572016-01-21T10:42:52.557+13:002016-01-21T10:42:52.557+13:00It is open for business, Bowman, re comments, but ...It is open for business, Bowman, re comments, but it is in abeyance for the time being re posting!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-87016002012536349282016-01-21T10:06:18.416+13:002016-01-21T10:06:18.416+13:00Peter, is your Hermeneutics and Human Dignity blog...Peter, is your Hermeneutics and Human Dignity blog open for business? Some of my comments really belong under some of those posts.<br /><br />Bowman WaltonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-38412449744938637912016-01-21T10:02:27.434+13:002016-01-21T10:02:27.434+13:00Tim, the 39A and the BCP both rely on the scriptur...<br />Tim, the 39A and the BCP both rely on the scriptures as the criterion of innovations in the Church after the age of the creeds. The problem with SSM is not its novelty-- the ordination of women was also novel-- but the failure thus far to advocate for it in a way that does not deny the scriptural doctrine received from the undivided Church by all Anglicans everywhere. <br /><br />As Jean says, the articles could not be clearer about the scriptural criterion. Prayerbook application of it, though not always convincing to a modern exegete, is usually explicit. As Kurt might point out, Latitudinarians (eg Abp Tillotson) stretched Hooker's appeal to reason to make the criterion an accommodative principle in cases where rival innovations in doctrine make equal sense of the scriptures (eg John Owen v John Wesley). So, indeed, the scriptures do support the emphases behind the basic eucharistic doctrines, but normally Zwinglians should still treat the elements with reverence (although they see no real point in it), and Ubiquitarians should not have Corpus Christi processions (although high church Lutherans have been known to do this and they are a lot of fun). <br /><br />That SSM is an innovation in the Church introduced after the age of the creeds is not a problem. So was the ordination of women. The problem is that the best scriptural case that has offered for it by a church (TEC's) reads, to those not already committed to the conclusion, like a case against marriage as it was practised in, say, Cana of Galilee. It does not add a new scripturally supported practise alongside the ancient one, as in your example of eucharistic doctrines; it actually replaces the latter with the former. As Father Ron has pointed out, it similar to Sydney lay presidency of the eucharist, which is incompatible with the received scriptural practice of ordination affirmed in both the 39A and the BCP. Both innovations fail the same test for the same reason. <br /><br />Prima facie, TEC's celebration of SSM is not compatible with traditional, accommodative Anglicanism. Faced with an exclusive doctrine from an exclusive church, Global South primates reached a limited agreement with GAFCON, with what results we know. Because they did not take up the diocesan practises of the ACC, it is uncertain how Global South primates would respond to a practise of SSM that does respect traditional marriage. And alas, the primates had nothing to say about how churches should respond to the spread of SSM itself. The decision last week is best seen as a straightforward response to an extreme and therefore easy case. It is not hard to imagine other approaches that would not be so easily rejected. They would most likely be adopted in a better balanced church such as your own.<br /><br />Bowman Walton<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-78925038189761043592016-01-21T09:58:13.560+13:002016-01-21T09:58:13.560+13:00Yes - it's the Commination. Statute 448 Confir...Yes - it's the Commination. Statute 448 Confirmed 1988. <br />Someone else will have to check whether we still have to believe it.<br />Perhaps not...<br /><br />BoscoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-51067053889763479332016-01-21T09:51:45.188+13:002016-01-21T09:51:45.188+13:00On second thinking - am I out by one service in th...On second thinking - am I out by one service in the BCP? It might actually be the next service in the BCP "A Commination - denouncing of God's anger and judgements against sinners" (wow! how relevant is that!) I think it is not authorised for use (ie forbidden) but being part of our formularies, of course, the doctrine it enshrines is binding on us. Go canon lawyers, go! If I find the relevant legislation I'll post it.<br /><br />Blessings<br /><br />BoscoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-70245094608596721562016-01-21T09:40:52.934+13:002016-01-21T09:40:52.934+13:00Off the top of my head, we are forbidden to use th...Off the top of my head, we are forbidden to use the BCP Churching of Women service. We must hold to the doctrine that it embodies, but not embody the doctrine it enshrines! Ah! NZ Anglicanism!<br /><br />BoscoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-47225447807488936942016-01-21T09:32:16.011+13:002016-01-21T09:32:16.011+13:00"And yet, not all of its liturgical services ..."And yet, not all of its liturgical services are still observed"<br /><br />Fr Ron, how is that inconsistent with the point that the BCP is a founding document of ACANZP?<br /><br />One is a statement of historical fact, one is a statement of what is happening now. <br /><br />In any organisation you will find individuals who don't agree with everything in it. You don't agree with some things in the BCP and you don't agree with the Articles - that's just your personal opinion. No doubt some people agree with you and some don't - why is one opinion more worthwhile than another?MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-76642252295781111922016-01-21T09:32:06.347+13:002016-01-21T09:32:06.347+13:00Hi Ron
There are a number of services in both pray...Hi Ron<br />There are a number of services in both prayerbooks of our church that I have never been invited to lead, and I remain open to invitations :)Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-74293358878521823612016-01-21T09:29:10.875+13:002016-01-21T09:29:10.875+13:00Hi Tim,
Are you seriously suggesting that any An...Hi Tim, <br /><br />Are you seriously suggesting that any Anglican church in 1868 would not have seen the BCP (which included the ordinal and the Articles) as the foundation of Anglican doctrine?<br /><br />I cannot see the slightest justification for such a view. Challenges to the authority of the BCP and the articles came in the early- to mid- 20th century. Not liking it is one thing, but what excuse for this attempt to translate 20th century liberal views (not even a majority view in the 20th century) onto entire churches in the 19th century?<br /><br />I agree with you that the Anglican Communion has no constitution, but that's not an excuse to try and re-write history. <br /><br />As for the Church of England, whatever some people in it might argue, its official doctrine remains as set out in Canon A5:<br /><br />"The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal."MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-38354160978376800452016-01-20T23:52:30.769+13:002016-01-20T23:52:30.769+13:00I'm interested, Peter, in your comment that th...I'm interested, Peter, in your comment that the BCP is one of the founding documents of ACANZP. And yet, not all of its liturgical services are still observed: For instance, when did you last preside at the occasional office of The Churching of Women? This seemd to presume that a weoman, after chidbirth, needed purification. Would you still say that curious relic of sexual 'purity' (only for women - not the male of the species) remains a doctrine of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa/New Zealand and the Pacific Islands?<br /><br />And as for the 39 Artifacts....!<br /><br />(Incidentally, I do use the BCP for presiding at the 8am Low Mass on Sundays at Saint Michael's. I love its poetry, but I do have problems with its sexist patriarchal language.)Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-16125721982289587002016-01-20T22:20:20.035+13:002016-01-20T22:20:20.035+13:00Hi Tim
Fair point to observe that the AC has no co...Hi Tim<br />Fair point to observe that the AC has no constitution etc but even so, in 1868, there would have been a strong agreement as to what doctrines undergirded that first Lambeth Conference, a conference called for the purpose - as I recall - of sorting out a controversy over doctrinal innovation!<br /><br />Clearly individual churches have "moved on" in various ways and part of the conflict and controversy of our day is precisely because other churches have not moved on, or, at least, have not moved on on particular matters as others have moved on, and thus there is difference of view, and in the debates some claim the "high ground" of founding Anglican doctrine.<br /><br />A difference to consider re Jean's point is that Scripture-in-relation-to-BCP-and-39A is [arguably] a lot clearer on marriage being between a man and a woman than it is on whether women share in leadership of the church with men.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-20765192236438160192016-01-20T21:41:26.971+13:002016-01-20T21:41:26.971+13:00Peter, I can see that the BCP contains the foundin...Peter, I can see that the BCP contains the founding doctrines of individual Anglican churches. But of the 'Anglican Communion'? The Anglican Communion, as a worldwide family of churches, has no formal constitution and has never officially adopted any 'founding doctrines'. Surely the doctrines of the Anglican Communion can only be the doctrines of the member churches of the Anglican Communion?<br /><br />The 1662 BCP contains a Eucharistic theology characteristic of Thomas Cranmer. Personally, I think it's a fine Eucharistic theology and I'm very comfortable with it. But since the days of Elizabeth I the Church of England has been gradually retreating from it, and certainly since the Oxford Movement days it's been far from the only Eucharistic theology in Anglicanism. The Scottish Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Church in the USA have had a more high church theology since their inception, and nowadays Cranmer's theology would probably be a minority view in worldwide Anglicanism. Does that mean Father Ron is less Anglican than you or I, or that his faith is 'contrary to the founding doctrines of the Anglican Communion'?<br /><br />The BCP ordination services presume that the ordinands are all male (and have been 'sufficiently instructed in the Latin tongue' - how's your Latin, Peter?). Does this mean that the ordination of women is contrary to the founding doctrines of the Anglican Communion?<br /><br />Tim ChestertonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-57930903260320267282016-01-20T20:22:55.853+13:002016-01-20T20:22:55.853+13:00I agree with Jean.
If we ask about founding doctri...I agree with Jean.<br />If we ask about founding doctrine of Anglican churches, then the Thirty Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer give expression to that. Purely on the basis of those two documents - the matrimony service, the articles injunction not to interpret Scripture "repugnant" to Scripture, I cannot see how Anglicans can argue that marriage can be other than between a man and a woman.<br />To get there one must move on from the 39A and the BCP (as, indeed, various Anglican churches have done).<br />But the irony of moving on from the 39A and the BCP in this way is that one loosens if not lessens one's claim to somehow be an Anglican faithful to one's Anglican roots.<br />Incidentally, Ron, the BCP remains a formulary of ACANZP.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-44958504986385029732016-01-20T19:51:58.135+13:002016-01-20T19:51:58.135+13:00Hi Tim
As far as I understand (and here I will op...Hi Tim<br /><br />As far as I understand (and here I will openly admit I am not a scholar in Anglican history) the 39 Articles are a part of the agreed upon founding doctrine of the Anglican Church in general, and as part of these the section of Homilies being included as 'pertaining to doctrine' in regards to morals as based on scripture include Matrimony:<br /><br />"The word of Almighty God doth testify and declare whence the original beginning of matrimony cometh, and why it is ordained. It is instituted of God, to the intent that man and woman should live lawfully in a perpetual friendly fellowship,a to bring forth fruit, a...etc"<br /><br />Hence my supposition is the Primates who view marriage being between a man and a woman scripturally see it as also rooted in Anglican doctrine, and therefore desired action to be taken by those who belong to said church when this understanding had been departed from by a part of the Church. And therefore the concession undertaken by TEC at the meeting was accepting the vote of the other Primates regarding whether or not action should be taken for their latest 'innovations of doctrine'.<br /><br />Notwithstanding as I noted before it is no less a concession for Primates who strongly oppose same sex marriages to agree to be non-disscriminatory in their pastoral care of same sex couples and oppose any vilification/violence towards them. It may not seem so if we think of those who are in opposition to SSM in the West but in countries where Primates live in contexts with vasty different cultural norms towards same sex couples this in itself is enough to endanger their ministries and ministers.<br /><br />It appears through the report by the NZ Bishop who attended that listening to the concerns and realities of the lives of the parishoners represented by Primates on both sides of the equation with this issue and others was a big part of forming if not total agreement a greater realisation of why each hold the positions they do. And perhaps with that a desire to find a present path in the present time to stay as a communion.<br /><br />Cheers<br />JeanJeannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-42718071196276870532016-01-20T19:10:43.386+13:002016-01-20T19:10:43.386+13:00Yes, Jean! Where are these 'founding doctrine ...Yes, Jean! Where are these 'founding doctrine prinjciples'?Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-57631644362877679002016-01-20T13:42:50.644+13:002016-01-20T13:42:50.644+13:00Jean:
You said 'an agreed upon founding doctr...Jean:<br /><br />You said 'an agreed upon founding doctrine of the Anglican Communion had been breached'.<br /><br />I'm curious about this. What are these 'agreed upon founding doctrines of the Anglican Communion ' and where can I find them?<br /><br />Tim ChestertonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-25241573456043660412016-01-20T12:14:49.147+13:002016-01-20T12:14:49.147+13:00Hi Tim
I agree with you regarding the importance ...Hi Tim<br /><br />I agree with you regarding the importance of and scope of how the church treats and sees those same sex couples who have made life-long committments to each other.<br /><br />However, I think the statement issued by the Primates meeting regarding the non-discriminatory pastoral treatment of same sex couples and the intolerance towards churches supporting any mistreatment of people who have chosen this lifestyle provides a directive for the individual provinces, diocese and most likely Parishes to tackle how they will respond to the questions you pose in their context. <br /><br />Although it is not just about permitting same sex marriages in churches, for the Anglican Communion, I do believe the question of whether or not the Anglican Worldwide body is supportive of changing doctrine to allow this was a question that needed an answer for now. Unfortunately mostly because the media is always demanding an answer, and more importantly for those working in the Anglican Church worldwide an understanding of whether the doctrine of marriage between an woman and a man still stands (or is fluid).<br /><br />Understandably it leaves christian same sex couples in a position of being welcome in an Anglican Church but with the knowledge that that church has codes (or canons they abide by) one of which does not permit the undertaking or endorsing of same sex marriages at this time. I had some regular involvement with an open Bretheren church once and I knew they don't permit women in leadership roles; this meant I chose to attend a different church although I would go to events there, and although I disagreed with their theology I accepted this is what they believed was correct.<br /><br />All the best<br />Jean Jeannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-36377489637990040972016-01-20T11:50:33.615+13:002016-01-20T11:50:33.615+13:00Off-topic, and just for calibration, an artifact--...Off-topic, and just for calibration, an artifact--<br /><br />http://peacefulsinglegirl.com/other-women-get-angry-when-i-respect-men/<br /><br />Bowman WaltonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-8020525020860897472016-01-20T11:25:53.576+13:002016-01-20T11:25:53.576+13:00As usual, Jean's serene centrism is near to my...As usual, Jean's serene centrism is near to my own. And Tim is right. <br /><br />Framing discussion of SSM in ritual terms alone is indeed obscuring real problems. There is a gap between-- <br /><br />(a) social justice requires that the state register same sex partnerships (SSP) just as it does man-woman relationships; <br /><br />(b) to the registration of SSP (whether done in a town hall or a church) corresponds a same sex state of life (SSL); and <br /><br />(c) to that SSL corresponds a way of sanctification (SSW). <br /><br />Official enthusiasm for SSM coupled with indecision or non-interest about the content of SSL and SSW leaves ordinary church-folk with no counterpart to five centuries of understandings of the traditional state of life and way of sanctification. Some who are not fond of those understandings have underestimated their perennial helpfulness for many people.<br /><br />TEC's Task Force for the Study of Marriage recognised the problem and tried to meet it with a single model of P, L, and W for all couples. A superb report in many ways, it has also attracted cogent criticism.<br /><br />https://extranet.generalconvention.org/staff/files/download/12485<br /><br />http://www.anglicantheologicalreview.org/static/pdf/conversations/MarriageInCreationAndCovenant.pdf<br /><br />http://www.ceec.info/uploads/4/4/2/7/44274161/study_of_marriage.pdf<br /><br />To my mind, this report's final vision of vision of marriage ( = iii) is far too thin for heterosexual reality (cf i, ii). Nevertheless, one could reasonably ask whether it might at least help those in SSMs and minimise the problem that Tim identifies. <br /><br />Bowman WaltonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com