Church of England apologizes for saying sex only for heterosexual married couples

[redleghunter]

Church of England apologizes for saying sex only for heterosexual married couples


CANTERBURY, England, January 31, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) ― The leaders of the Church of England have apologized for saying that sex is only for heterosexual married couples.

In a statement released yesterday, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Justin Welby, and the Anglican Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu, stated:

We as Archbishops, alongside the bishops of the Church of England, apologise and take responsibility for releasing a statement last week which we acknowledge has jeopardised trust. We are very sorry and recognise the division and hurt this has caused.

At our meeting of the College of Bishops of the Church of England this week we continued our commitment to the Living in Love and Faith project which is about questions of human identity, sexuality and marriage. This process is intended to help us all to build bridges that will enable the difficult conversations that are necessary as, together, we discern the way forward for the Church of England.


Last week the Mother Church of the Anglican Communion surprised the world by issuing a pastoral statement that professed faith in the traditional, Scripture-based, Christian definition of marriage.

More ambiguity at the link: Church of England apologizes for saying sex only for heterosexual married couples

 

[chevyontheriver]

Church of England apologizes for saying sex only for heterosexual married couples

Last week the Mother Church of the Anglican Communion surprised the world by issuing a pastoral statement that professed faith in the traditional, Scripture-based, Christian definition of marriage.

They have apologized for their temporary lapse into Christianity.

 

[SkyWriting]

They have apologized for their temporary lapse into Christianity.

Jesus was not like that.

 

[redleghunter]

They have apologized for their temporary lapse into Christianity.

That about sums it up.

 

[redleghunter]

Jesus was not like that.

I’m quite concerned what the above actually means.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That about sums it up.

Oh, and that wasn't even original. I stole it from Fr. Z here: The church of England apologizes for its temporary lapse into Christianity | Fr. Z's Blog

I seldom have a totally original thought.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Church of England apologizes for saying sex only for heterosexual married couples



Last week the Mother Church of the Anglican Communion surprised the world by issuing a pastoral statement that professed faith in the traditional, Scripture-based, Christian definition of marriage.

Gavin Ashenden
@gavinashenden

I think this means “we don’t appear to know what we are doing or what we believe, but please like us.” Always a danger for a church that ignores what Jesus said and puts therapeutic culture & populist support before Christian obedience & self denial.

Gavin says this about himself: Author, theologian,'quondam capellanus regineus', columnist; ex-academic-ex-BBC presenter, fitful opera singer, anti-egalitarian,anti-fascist.
What he didn't say in English but did in Latin was that he was recently Anglican chaplain to the Crown. He also didn't say that he gave that up (or why) and became, as of a few short weeks ago, a Catholic.

 

[Athanasius377]

Best quote from Gavin Ashenden: I think this means “we don’t appear to know what we are doing or what we believe, but please like us.”

I have followed Gavin for some time and he has run full circle from theologically liberal to charismatic to orthodox believer. His insights are great and sometimes border on brilliance. He was a bishop in a continuing Anglican body in England and felt that he needed to become Roman Catholic and so he did. He is not acting in any clerical manner and may never do so again. Which would be a big loss to the RCC in England in my opinion if that were to happen.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Best quote from Gavin Ashenden: I think this means “we don’t appear to know what we are doing or what we believe, but please like us.”

I have followed Gavin for some time and he has run full circle from theologically liberal to charismatic to orthodox believer. His insights are great and sometimes border on brilliance. He was a bishop in a continuing Anglican body in England and felt that he needed to become Roman Catholic and so he did. He is not acting in any clerical manner and may never do so again. Which would be a big loss to the RCC in England in my opinion if that were to happen.

We shall see what doors open to him and which ones he goes through. He would be a near perfect candidate for the Ordinariate in England if he wants it, to be ordained as a Catholic priest following the Anglican usage. We shall see. I hope he does in good time.

 

[seeking.IAM]

In fairness, they apologized for the timing of the release of the statement, not for the statement itself. The timing of release complicated other concurrent conversations with different factions within the communion, thereby "jeopardizing trust." The statement was not rescinded.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

At which point does the Anglican Church begin to stand for something that I could identify as Christian? Every time I hear about the mainstream Anglican Church it's always them apologizing or surrendering to the cultural forces of the day.

Yes, telling homosexuals their sexual lives are illicit and immoral will burn bridges. It will offend people, but why is this something to apologize for? You only apologize for something you're ashamed of or you think is mistaken.

 

[chevyontheriver]

In fairness, they apologized for the timing of the release of the statement, not for the statement itself. The timing of release complicated other concurrent conversations with different factions within the communion, thereby "jeopardizing trust." The statement was not rescinded.

Which is even crazier. They made a statement and then they apologized when the usual subjects screamed about it but the statement stands and anyone who wants to ignore it has, what, their blessing? I thought the statement was a hopeful sign of Christianity within Anglicanism. What does the apology represent?

 

[seeking.IAM]

Which is even crazier. ...What does the apology represent?

Perhaps it represented embarrassment at revealing their position before their talks concluded, while falsely representing the matter was open for discussion? That's all I can figure. It reminds me of an employer I once new who gave a candidate a token interview after the position had been offered to someone else. More than a bit disingenuous, I'd say.

 

[hedrick]

The headline seems a bit misleading. The change behind all of this was the UK extending civil unions (which had been created for same-sex unions) to opposite-sex pairs. They did this because an EU court ruled that you couldn't have different laws for same and opposite-sex couples.

The Church of England then issued guidance, which, while full of waffling, seems not to permit blessing such unions. On the other hand, the guidance notes that in some cases there might be no real difference between these unions and marriage, and that there might be situations where a civil union had benefits.

They also note the civil unions do not include a presumption of sexual activity. While they didn't give specifics on how else it could be used, there are certainly friends who live together without sex. There might be practical reasons why they would want to be able to take legal responsibility for each other, or perhaps jointly foster a child.

Nominally, the apology is because there is currently a study under way on topics of sexual ethics. Issuing guidance before that is finished would seem to be preempting the process. The apology notes that this breaks the trust of people who expected decisions by the Church to be guided by this process. The apology does not, however retract the guidance. Thus this looks rather like a non-apology apology.

The guidance also seems to lack pastoral flexibility. One could imagine, for example, that a relationship not involving sex could merit a blessing, and even one involving sex might if there were vows equivalent to marriage vows and there was some reason that a marriage couldn't be used.

 

[dms1972]

They also note the civil unions do not include a presumption of sexual activity. While they didn't give specifics on how else it could be used, there are certainly friends who live together without sex. There might be practical reasons why they would want to be able to take legal responsibility for each other, or perhaps jointly foster a child.

That's all fine, but when it comes to fostering a child, whats this about? What a child needs or what a same-sex couple want? A child who for whatever reason is in social care, is vulnerable, lacking a stable family setting. There are loving stable families available, however in some countries they are discriminated against by the System unjustly for holding traditional values. If people want to talk about discrimination and injustices, talk about that for a change!

I agree with you though re the headlines. I have noticed the headlines on Life-site News are sometimes misleading (and sometimes the article content)

 

[hedrick]

That's all fine, but when it comes to fostering a child, whats this about? What a child needs or what a same-sex couple want?

This discussion has nothing to do with same-sex people Guidance on that was already in place. The new guidance was on civil union for *opposite* gender people. And fostering a child was my example. I have no idea whether people in this relationship would want to do it or not.

 

[dms1972]

This discussion has nothing to do with same-sex people Guidance on that was already in place. The new guidance was on civil union for *opposite* gender people. And fostering a child was my example. I have no idea whether people in this relationship would want to do it or not.

I was talking about opposite sex couples holding a traditional view of marriage!!

 

[dms1972]

Jesus speaks of Blessedness, eg. "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness (right-relatedness)", and the Psalmist also speaks of blessedness - eg. "Blessed is the man whose transgressions are forgiven" Psalm 51.

If two men or women have a close spiritual non-sexual friendship, like David and Johnathan, even share a house etc. that's fine. A co-dependent (in the psychological sense) relationship is not the same thing though.

God wants christians to straighten up into relationship with Him in Christ through faith and repentance, through that vertical relationship our other relationships will be blessed. When we are bent towards each other in dependency we are not whole or emotionally mature.

All the church can do is provide a ministry towards personal wholeness in Christ, thats how blessing comes to us if we are stuck in needy co-dependent relationships.

Blessing operates within the Kingdom of God, not on those yet outside it through sin and ignorance. They need to be shown the way in to that Kingdom.

 

[hedrick]

I was talking about opposite sex couples holding a traditional view of marriage!!

I don't know how people in the UK actually use this law. But the Anglican document notes that not all uses would be a denial of marriage, because the unions do not necessarily imply any intention to have sex. Would anyone actually use a civil union for a non-sexual purpose? I don't know. But I can say that as a 70 year old unmarried guy with most of my relatives dead, I'm feeling sort of exposed. If I get sick, what happens? I could imagine having a non-sexual covenant with a friend who is in a similar situation, to let us take care of each other. It may be easier to do this with a civil union.

I could also imagine a situation where for tax or some other reasons someone didn't want to use marriage, but was prepared to take the same vows and make the same commitment. There's nothing in Scripture to require a marriage to be registered with the government.

 

[hedrick]

My point is that no one really knows how civil unions will be used. It wasn't created on purpose, but because a court required it. Civil unions were originally created for gays, when they didn't have marriage. The purpose was clear then: to provide an equivalent of marriage. But for opposite sex couples that doesn't make sense.

Given that we have little idea how it's going to be used, it seems odd for the Church of England to come up with rules. Why not wait a bit to see how it's used, and who (if anyone) actually wants a church blessing?