tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post7597445938638641067..comments2024-03-19T16:52:19.962+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: My "Way Forward" (Final) UPDATEDPeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger149125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-38281558669737388712016-10-03T14:11:27.948+13:002016-10-03T14:11:27.948+13:00Hi Peter,
Re Best practice in Pastoral Care,may I...<br />Hi Peter,<br /><br />Re Best practice in Pastoral Care,may I point you to two good sources;Firstly the excellent "Dissenting Statement of +Keith (Birkenhead) to the Pilling Report; secondarily,a paper by Edith Humphrey of Augustine College,Canada, titled:How Homosexuality is understood in the Scriptures.<br /><br />Regards,Glen. Glen Youngnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-83909677000204675482016-10-03T13:53:49.661+13:002016-10-03T13:53:49.661+13:00The reason I bring politics up so often is that co...The reason I bring politics up so often is that context is important. The Church always exists within a particular historical and cultural context, and this context includes the politics of the particular society the Church finds herself in.<br /><br />Gay rights and SSM marriage began as a secular political movement, which has now influenced the Church. So any discusssion of the issue within the Church must take note of the wider political and social context. When certain kinds of secular political ideas are influencing the Church, then it seems appropriate to discuss those ideas, and to practice discernment to try and evaluate if those ideas are compatible with a Christian world view.<br /><br />My previous post pointed out that secular cultural Marxism had as one of it's main goals the descrediting and destruction of Christianity within the West. So, when I see the language of CM being used to advance changes within the church, and some of our leaders using that language, then it seems appropriate to me to raise concerns about that.<br /><br />In a nutshell, the question we need to ask is, should the Church be transformed by the secular politics of the society we live in, or should the Church be transforming those politics according the Gospel?<br /><br />The issue of SSM or SSB within the Church is a political issue, not an issue of Christian spirituality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-87529865803557774992016-10-03T13:06:02.615+13:002016-10-03T13:06:02.615+13:00Hi Ron
The following comment is also shorn of unne...Hi Ron<br />The following comment is also shorn of unnecessary accretions ...<br />P<br /><br />"I must say that I find Shaun's political [entreaty] antithetical to any sort of discussion of Christian Spirituality. It might be better [] on an expressly designed political web-site.<br /><br />What I am concerned about - in Christian Spirituality - is the well-being and nurture of human beings as created in the divine Image and Likeness. I have no time to spare for political debate. Political wrangling has its place in the secular world, but not in the Body of Christ.<br />"Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-59474912944796218672016-10-03T13:04:08.270+13:002016-10-03T13:04:08.270+13:00Hi Ron
The following comment from you is shorn of ...Hi Ron<br />The following comment from you is shorn of its unnecessary descriptors.<br />P<br /><br />""Blessing same sex relationships and marriage is not BEST PRACTICE PASTORAL CARE and should not be accepted in the ACANZP." - [] Glen -<br /><br />The Gospel of OLJC may, in fact, be saying something entirely different! [] Even you, Glen, must allow our General Synod 2018 to make up its own mind on this. You have no power of veto. <br />"Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-84815488559025228772016-10-03T09:20:27.802+13:002016-10-03T09:20:27.802+13:00So what is the issue with our "Rejection of&q...<br />So what is the issue with our "Rejection of" and our "Rebellion against" God's "Natural Order/Norms of Creation",which are revealed by and clearly seen in the Creation around us? Why does St. Paul say that in doing so,we fail to recognize His "Eternal Power and Godhead", and for that, we are without excuse? And why does he state that in doing so,we become vain in our imaginations and our foolish hearts become darkened;and in thinking ourselves wise we become fools? It is because,if our wisdom and intelligence is set right; that,when looking at His Creation, like the Psalmist, we see both the complexity and simplicity in His handiwork.We see the great purpose and plan that He has set in motion. In short,We simply stand in AWE AND FEAR AT HIS GREATNESS."The Fear of God is the beginning of WISDOM;and the knowledge of the Holy is understanding." Prov.9:10.<br /><br />It is because this rejection (stubborness) of accepting and rebellion against God's natural order/norms of creation lie at the very heart of the "father of lies" deception.It is the basis of our inferiority complexes and low self esteem on one hand and our overt egotism and narcissism on the other.We either fall prey to a "less than" perception of our God given image, or we assume a "greater than" image. Psalm 8:4.<br /><br />Satan could not accept and be thankful for his createdness and his position in God's natural order/norms of creation.He wanted to be like the un-created/Eternal God;and for this,he was cast out of heaven.Isaiah 14:12 and Ezekiel 28.<br /><br />His proposition to Eve questioned the God given image of man Gen 1:26 and his place in the natural order of creation Gen 3:5.Until Adam and Eve ate of the Fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; that is,until they challenged their place in the God given natural order/norms of Creation ,the Creation was perfect.After they partook of the fruit,did they become gods? nope;they just died in the fullness of image God had given them.<br /><br />To this very day,this issue is the basis of many of the conflicts and distress we face.Having descended from Adam and Eve,we share with them ,the vulnerability to be deceived about the true nature and value of all things including our God given image and God's NATURAL ORDER/NORMS OF CREATION. As Dr John Stott writes: "There can be no liberation from God's Created Norms,true liberation is found only in accepting them."<br /><br />Satan's rebellion against and his stubbornness in not accepting his God given identity has led man to being tempted, to follow his example. In Romans chapter 1,St Paul was echoing the words of Samuel to Saul:"For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,and stubborness is as iniquity and idolatry." 1 Sam 15:23.<br /><br />Blessing same sex relationships and marriage is not BEST PRACTICE PASTORAL CARE and should not be accepted in the ACANZP.Glen Youngnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-60703006424659253792016-10-03T08:24:32.789+13:002016-10-03T08:24:32.789+13:00For a “long march through the culture” from Franci...For a “long march through the culture” from Francis Schaeffer's perspective, "How should we then live?" is well worth reading (and viewing). It's decades old, but I doubt that it's out of date. One of his theses: art and culture (of all shades) is the vehicle for philosophy to hit the streets... For good or ill.Jnathannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-31282257873169868092016-10-02T21:19:19.925+13:002016-10-02T21:19:19.925+13:00"Cultural Marxism, dubbed “the greatest cance..."Cultural Marxism, dubbed “the greatest cancer in the Western world”, is the ideological driver behind political correctness. It is the destructive criticism and undermining of all institutions of Western civilization and the traditional values underpinning it.<br /><br />Cultural Marxism was formulated as a way to subvert Western nations and civilization using methods other than direct political action.<br /><br />Cultural Marxism is largely a synthesis of Marx and Freud. It is Marxism as applied in the cultural sphere and the analysis and control of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in society, often with an emphasis on class, race and gender.<br /><br />Two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci of Italy and Georg Lukacs of Hungary, concluded that the Christianised West was the obstacle standing in the way of a communist new world order. Gramsci said that Christianity had corrupted the working class and the West would have to be de- Christianised by a “long march through the culture” – starting with the traditional family and completely engulfing churches, schools, media, entertainment, civic organizations, literature, science, and the presentation (and revision) of history."<br /><br />http://australian-news.net/articles/view.php?id=235<br /><br />"MY orders are to fight; Then if I bleed, or fail, or strongly win, what matters it? God only doth prevail. The servant craveth naught, except to serve with might. I was not told to win or lose, – my orders are to fight." ~ Ethelwyn Wetherald <br /><br />"The Lord thunders at the head of His army, His forces are beyond number, and mighty are those who obey His command." - Joel 2:11Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-19266478512695822972016-10-02T20:46:34.663+13:002016-10-02T20:46:34.663+13:00Is this encyclopedia starting to demonstrate the p...<br />Is this encyclopedia starting to demonstrate the porosity of the liberal argument on why the ACANZP should compromise The Word of God,Her Constitution,Formularies and Canons,and Her legitimate Doctrine;by turning a blind eye and letting Bishops allow Priests to bless same sex relationships (marriages ????),without such blessings having any Canonical authority or constraint.All in the name of diversity and inclusiveness;when it is arguably nothing more, than conforming the Church to a secular society,whose ideologies, She should be standing against.A society based on an eclectic mix of Neo-Darwinism,cultural/economic Marxism and rampant commercialism.<br /><br />Neo-Darwinism and cultural/economic Marxism go hand in hand,rather like the proverbial horse and cart.The former denies the existence and/or the Creating God and His right to determine the Natural Oder of His Creation, while the latter denies His Ownership and Right to rule over His KINGDOM which He created. St.Paul speaks in Romans chapter 1, of what happens when man rejects the Natural Order of God's Creation, that is clearly seen in the world around us.They fail to recognize his eternal power and Godhead.St Paul says, that for this,they are without excuse.They glorify Him not and are not thankful.They become vain in their imaginations and their foolish hearts become darkened.Professing themselves to be wise ,they become fools.Then they begin to worship the created things rather than the CREATOR.They then think that it is their right to redefine the order of things.What Paul tells the Romans is as true today ,as when he wrote those words.<br /><br /><br />In the USA.,by Federal Law and Supreme Court Decisions,which distort Constitutional Rights;the rights of Orthodox Christians,to live and act by a conscience which understands that there is a Natural Order determined by the <br />Creating God and not by a secular Government;has been taken from them.These Supreme Court decisions,which "sail with the winds of libertinism', have removed from Orthodox Christians,the RELIGIOUS FREEDOM to live and run their business according to their Discipleship ,as in the case of the baker who was fined thousands of dollars for not supplying a cake for a same sex marriage.<br /><br />Sadly,TEC has thrown petrol on these flames of contra-discrimination with it's false doctrines and flawed practices.Traditional Christians are at a CRUCIAL JUNCTURE of where they are at and how do they respond;and TEC does not have a clear and precise message for them.Thankfully,God has raised up a faithful remnant to ensure that His Glorious Gospel is still preached and His flock have a shepherd.<br /><br /><br />Glen Youngnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-75470009530867310532016-10-02T18:54:57.521+13:002016-10-02T18:54:57.521+13:00This conversation is just another symptom of the r...This conversation is just another symptom of the reign of the Anti Christ who is running the world at the moment<br /><br />Bow done to him at your peril!<br /><br />Or pretend he doesn't exist and while away your life in empty sophistry while he continues his rampage against the Church, which he hates<br /><br />Your choice - make it wiselyAndreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-43552924534729792572016-10-02T17:13:44.344+13:002016-10-02T17:13:44.344+13:00"Logic tells us that, if the Marriage Feast o..."Logic tells us that, if the Marriage Feast of the Lamb were to do with gender, then that would define Jesus as male (fact) and the 'bride' as female."<br /><br />Yes, and that is correct. Jesus is male and the Bride is female. Metaphorically.<br /><br />"This would mean only women were able to be take part in the marriage."<br /><br />No, because the use of Bride is gendered metaphor. It's not about the literal individual people who make up the church, but about the church as a whole.<br /><br />"Obviously, the 'bride' here is only metaphorically female."<br /><br />Exactly. But metaphorically female does not lead to your original claim of gender neutrality or a genderless Bride and Bridegroom.<br /><br />And even as metaphor, a metaphorically gendered Bride and Bridgroom clearly does not work as an argument for homosexual marriageAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-53947432105570107302016-10-02T15:21:12.699+13:002016-10-02T15:21:12.699+13:00Wrong assumption, Shaun.
Logic tells us that, if ...Wrong assumption, Shaun.<br /><br />Logic tells us that, if the Marriage Feast of the Lamb were to do with gender, then that would define Jesus as male (fact) and the 'bride' as female. This would mean only women were able to be take part in the marriage. Obviously, the 'bride' here is only metaphorically female. <br /><br />Also, the Mystery of Christ is that He wasn't only representing the male of the species in his humanity, but all of humanity. Otherwise, it might only be the men who are represented in and by Christ - which is the argument of the anti-women as priests brigade. This is a different form of marriage from heterosexual union. - My last word on the subject!Father Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-54140998840151614192016-10-02T14:13:45.831+13:002016-10-02T14:13:45.831+13:00I disagree. The metaphorical language of the marri...I disagree. The metaphorical language of the marriage feast of the Lamb is gendered, thus the use of Bride and Bridegroom, which in Biblical times meant a men and a women. Filial relationship in Biblical marriage means filial relationship between men and women.<br /><br />Procreation is not relevant to the issue, as gender is not merely about procreation, though that is a vital part of it. Gender is a gift from God, and the richness of that gift is about much more then procreation or biology. It creates the biological and spiritual differentiation and complementarity needed for true love through the union of opposites. Each gender, and there are only two, male and female, are rich in spiritual gifts and meaning. The Biblical understanding of gender is so much more than mere biology.<br /><br />This is why Scripture uses gendered marriage, the union of opposites, in describing the marriage feast of the Lamb. Without gender, it would be meaningless.<br /><br />This is also why Jesus uses Father, and not Parent, in describing His and our relationship to the first Person of the Trinity. Father is more than biology, much more. It has spiritual meanings, and filial meanings, that neither gender neutral language nor the term Mother can convey. Of course the Bible also uses feminine language to describe our relationship to God, though never in naming God.<br /><br />And this is why gender neutral language, or "inclusive" language, is a bad idea. It would strip Scripture and the liturgy of profound spiritual truths and meanings that are vital to us, to our relationship with God, and our spiritual growth.<br /><br />This is why homosexual marriage is both morally wrong and spiritually meaningless. It is not the union of opposites that creates true love and union. In fact it is an inversion of the union of opposites, which is why the Bible refers to it as abomination.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-9705222073014069142016-10-02T12:45:11.469+13:002016-10-02T12:45:11.469+13:00To come back to this thread in a different way fro...To come back to this thread in a different way from that which was denied to me earlier, Peter:<br /><br />"The marriage feast of the Lamb is between Jesus (male) and His Bride, the Church, a reflection, an icon, of marriage between a man and a women (sic). So yes, metaphorically, gender is relevant." - Shaun Herles -<br /><br />Not logically correct! Why? - If there is an equivalence between the Marriage feast of the Lamb and human Marriage - it is in the intensity of filial relationship - not in its capacity for sexual procreation. In other words; Marriage in that context is a very different matter, denying anyone the luxury (or otherwise) of full comparison. They are different marriages.Father Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-90018534012921067402016-10-02T11:40:58.490+13:002016-10-02T11:40:58.490+13:00Hi Ron.
"I must say, I do have to smile at t...Hi Ron.<br /><br />"I must say, I do have to smile at the constant reference to liberals as 'cultural Marxists'."<br /><br />My apologies for being unclear. I do not mean to say that all liberals are cultural Marxists, or that the two ideas are the same thing. Liberalism existed for a very long time before cultural Marxism came around after WW2.<br /><br />There are of course liberals who are not in any way cultural Marxists. Classical liberals and libertarians in particular. Ayn Rand was a liberal, but certainly not a cultural Marxist!<br /><br />CM has had though a great deal of influence on the modern West, and on certain kinds of liberal Christianity. In the same way that you can tell a man who has an engineering degree by the technical language he uses to talk about that subject, you can identify a cultural Marxist by the phrases and ideas they use. So, as an example, someone who said, "we must embrace the Other, and reject the heteronormative dominance of white, patriarchal heterosexual males" would definitely be thinking from a cultural Marxist perspective.<br /><br />Of course, what both liberalism and cultural Marxism do have in common is that they both forms of modernism.<br /><br />It is important to me that in discussing the issue at hand, we must be aware of of the philosophical, cultural, and political context we all live in, and the way in which secular politics influences the Church. <br /><br />"Then I supoose the opposition must be labelled 'cultural Fascists'"<br /><br />As Peter points out, mainstream conservative Christians are not cultural Fascists because they are simply supporting the status quo. Also, when it comes to secular politics they are not necessarily right wing. I have met many mainstream conservatives who vote for the Left. So beyond preserving the status quo, I doubt many mainstream conservatives are anything other than standard, small-c conservatives.<br /><br />I myself however am not a mainstream conservative, or a conservative at all in the current understanding of that term. Cultural Fascism would be a term that I would not reject outright in describing myself, though it's not entirely accurate either. I am profoundly anti-modern, and luke warm at best when it comes to modern democracy, and I am not remotely interested in preserving the status quo where the West is concerned. I am much closer to the European Nouvelle Droite than to mainstream conservatism.<br /><br />As far as the debates and discussions on ADU are concerned I only ever speak for myself and my views, and not on behalf of any tribe in the Anglicanism, conservative or otherwise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-54493057080560318152016-10-02T01:32:36.196+13:002016-10-02T01:32:36.196+13:00"Cultural Fascists" - if such exist toda..."Cultural Fascists" - if such exist today - are simply "Fascists" since Fascism is first of all a cultural movement. It is about radical, national authoritarianism allied with syndicalism (control of trades and industries by trade unions). It is generally anti-religious and anti-conservative. It is, in fact, a cousin of Marxism (the clue is in the name 'National Socialism') but disavows the latter's internationalism. It may incorporate racial supremacy theories and anti-Semitism but these are not necessarily part of it. Fascism as it was formulated by Italian intellectuals was not anti-Semitic, whereas this was integral to National Socialism and is now resurfacing as a significant force in the British Left (a reflex of Islamist and Pakistani policies feeding into the British Labour Party). <br />It is the polar opposite of conservative Christianity in just about anything you care to mention.BrianR https://www.blogger.com/profile/11084982458935874569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82104617387606612772016-10-01T21:46:29.679+13:002016-10-01T21:46:29.679+13:00Not at all Ron
Cultural Marxism is the phenomenon ...Not at all Ron<br />Cultural Marxism is the phenomenon of waging revolution by changing the culture of society rather than its economics.<br />What conservatives are doing here is not the "cultural Fascist" opposite but the simple action of preserving the status quo.<br />That, in my book is conservatism, not Fascism!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-14292710915653319112016-10-01T21:32:07.849+13:002016-10-01T21:32:07.849+13:00I must say, I do have to smile at the constant ref...I must say, I do have to smile at the constant reference to liberals as 'cultural Marxists'. Then I supoose the opposition must be labelled 'cultural Fascists'<br />That's one of the problems, I guess, with extremists - especially of the political kind.Father Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-74894883724776220622016-10-01T20:55:57.313+13:002016-10-01T20:55:57.313+13:00Well, you've beaten me on that score Peter. I ...Well, you've beaten me on that score Peter. I have only 2 services and 2 preachings.<br /><br />No hard feelings. Agape, RonFather Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-46807270150257462162016-10-01T19:47:31.697+13:002016-10-01T19:47:31.697+13:00Hi Ron
There is some strong criticism of ideas, ar...Hi Ron<br />There is some strong criticism of ideas, arguments and suppositions here.<br />That is as it should be.<br />But once remarks here tackle the "man" and not the "ball" then I fear my time is going to be taken up untangling one ad hominem from another near ad hominem.<br />Etc.<br />And time, as you know, is precious ... three services and two sermons tomorrow :)Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-61409349695994817882016-10-01T19:31:59.974+13:002016-10-01T19:31:59.974+13:00Giving some of your commenters - especially one of...Giving some of your commenters - especially one of them - unlimited scope for criticism of those of us who have different ideas, Peter, is hardly conducive to a proper conversation. However, it is your blog and you have that right.Father Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-40374514561507510752016-10-01T15:46:30.923+13:002016-10-01T15:46:30.923+13:00This little article is short but nails the issue i...This little article is short but nails the issue in terms of society as a whole.<br /><br />'I’m Gay, And I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage'<br /><br />"By all measures, this fight is over. Gay marriage won.<br /><br />As a 30-year-old gay man, one would expect me to be ecstatic. After all, I’m at that age where people tend to settle down and get married. And there is nothing in this world I want more than to be a father and raise a family. Yet I can’t seem to bring myself to celebrate the triumph of same-sex marriage. Deep down, I know that every American, gay or straight, has suffered a great loss because of this.<br /><br />I’m not alone in thinking this. The big secret in the LGBT community is that there are a significant number of gays and lesbians who oppose same-sex marriage, and an even larger number who are ambivalent. You don’t hear us speak out because gay rights activists (most of whom are straight) have a history of viciously stamping out any trace of individualism within the gay community. I asked to publish this article under a pseudonym, not because I fear harassment from Christian conservatives, but because I know this article will make me a target of the Gaystapo."<br /><br />Read on..... it is a source of hope to me that there is a significant number of gay people who understand what is at stake for society.<br /><br />http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/28/im-gay-and-i-oppose-same-sex-marriage/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-62544533916934609582016-10-01T15:25:53.259+13:002016-10-01T15:25:53.259+13:00No, Ron.
Stick to issues, pelase.
The issue, curre...No, Ron.<br />Stick to issues, pelase.<br />The issue, currently, is whether any and every kind of marriage approved by humans is also approved by God ...Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-41178749496576665522016-10-01T14:43:01.759+13:002016-10-01T14:43:01.759+13:00Hi Peter,
Bendan raises a valid point when he ask...<br />Hi Peter,<br /><br />Bendan raises a valid point when he asks whether same sex marriages are in fact marriages in the eyes of God. Surely we can not do anything behind God's back.The institution of marriage is certainly part of the Created Order, Instituted by God and of God (one man and one woman);before the "FALL".Since the fall,man has distorted and perverted the Natural Order of the Creation.He compares the NATURAL with the SUPERNATURAL;instead of seeing the antitheses of NATURAL as being UNNATURAL.This is the point St.Paul is making in Romans 1:26 &27:"For this cause God gave up unto vile affections:for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men,leaving the natural use of woman,burned in their lust one toward another;men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." Paul is stating succinctly that the NATURAL CREATED ORDER IS BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN;and that same sex relationships,irregardless of how loving and faithful they are,are against the Natural Order of the Creation.They, like all other sin, is part of FALLEN MAN.Glen Youngnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-87097985731453077102016-10-01T14:31:16.342+13:002016-10-01T14:31:16.342+13:00"The institution of Marriage is a part of the..."The institution of Marriage is a part of the Created Order.<br /><br />Therefore, All Marriages could be considered to be 'before God'"<br /><br />The institution of marriage, which is by God's decree in Genesis and in the Gospels, one man and one women, is part of the created order.<br /><br />Therefore only marriages between one man and one women are before God.<br /><br />"There is, for instance - contained with the New Testament Scriptures - mention of "The Marriage Feast of The Lamb", which has nothing to do with procreation, gender or sexual intercourse."<br /><br />The marriage feast of the Lamb is between Jesus (male) and His Bride, the Church, a reflection, an icon, of marriage between a man and a women. So yes, metaphorically, gender is relevant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-80418129342074032452016-10-01T14:20:11.137+13:002016-10-01T14:20:11.137+13:00AMEN! And yet again I say. Amen! Alleluia!AMEN! And yet again I say. Amen! Alleluia!Father Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.com