CofE’s top female cleric: I would have ‘no problem’ with blessings for gay marriages

[Decanus]

CofE’s top female cleric: I would have ‘no problem’ with blessings for gay marriages - Telegraph

Thought this may be of interest to some of you here.

While I applaud Rev Vivienne on saying what a lot of us are thinking and I personally think this is a very positive thing.

However, I don't like her justification for it. It seems to just be a case of "Society is changing and therefore we must change too". I'd have preferred a more theological basis for her reasoning. She did touch on her belief that the blessing of a same sex marriage is not theologically a problem for her, but it stops at that.

I'd like to know what you all in STR think of this

Good day/night to you all!

 

[FireDragon76]

While I applaud Rev Vivienne on saying what a lot of us are thinking and I personally think this is a very positive thing.

However, I don't like her justification for it. It seems to just be a case of "Society is changing and therefore we must change too". I'd have preferred a more theological basis for her reasoning. She did touch on her belief that the blessing of a same sex marriage is not theologically a problem for her, but it stops at that.

If it's anything like what happened in the Episcopal Church, there will not be a lot of deep theology on the issue, it'll come down to politics. Pro-gay-marriage advocates tend to rest on culture or an appeal to sentimentality, and the traditionalists rest on, well, tradition.

Most of the good theology on gay relationships is being done in the Evangelical (free-church) world and Roman Catholicism (Fr. James Alison is a good example). Mainline Protestant churches in the US have settled the issue through politics, not theology.

 

[Decanus]

If it's anything like what happened in the Episcopal Church, there will not be a lot of deep theology on the issue, it'll come down to politics. Pro-gay-marriage advocates tend to rest on culture or an appeal to sentimentality, and the traditionalists rest on, well, tradition.

Most of the good theology on gay relationships is being done in the Evangelical (free-church) world and Roman Catholicism (Fr. James Alison is a good example). Mainline Protestant churches in the US have settled the issue through politics, not theology.

I agree (even though I do wish there was a balance of cultural arguments AND theological). While I believe that appealing to the culture and sentimentality of people is an effective way of doing things, I think that building a coherent theological argument will be just as effective, if not more (especially with conservatives). There are plenty of good theological arguments out there that are in favour of Same sex marriages/blessings/relationships. Perhaps it would not be such a bad idea to present these to people also.

 

[everbecoming2007]

If it's anything like what happened in the Episcopal Church, there will not be a lot of deep theology on the issue, it'll come down to politics. Pro-gay-marriage advocates tend to rest on culture or an appeal to sentimentality, and the traditionalists rest on, well, tradition.

Most of the good theology on gay relationships is being done in the Evangelical (free-church) world and Roman Catholicism (Fr. James Alison is a good example). Mainline Protestant churches in the US have settled the issue through politics, not theology.

Yeah, it seems mostly political to me. Otherwise I don't know why a union could be blessed in one parish or even married in another parish (yet some priests can refuse on theological grounds), and in yet another parish a couple might be denied Communion regardless of whether another priest blessed/married them. I think what will end up happening is that the ECUSA will eventually just embrace same-sex marriage. Discrimination against ordaining transgendered persons is already banned, too - I wonder if such a person could receive a marriage in the ECUSA if their partner is the opposite sex of their newly assigned sex even if genetically they are a same sex couple? Or what if a woman is surgically altered and presents as male but has a male partner? Can they be denied marriage even though genetically they are the opposite sex? What if they were already married? If they divorce could the trans man be denied marriage to another man? It's all so convoluted.

I have read some theology by Catholic priests and authors on same sex relationships that was more compelling than arguments I often hear based on cultural change alone, although of course they are out of sync with the Vatican. Oddly enough, The Church and the Homosexual received permission to print from the Vatican to open up discussion, but it was revoked when the author/priest did not limit discussion of the book to scholars alone.

 

[Arcangl86]

If it's anything like what happened in the Episcopal Church, there will not be a lot of deep theology on the issue, it'll come down to politics. Pro-gay-marriage advocates tend to rest on culture or an appeal to sentimentality, and the traditionalists rest on, well, tradition.

Most of the good theology on gay relationships is being done in the Evangelical (free-church) world and Roman Catholicism (Fr. James Alison is a good example). Mainline Protestant churches in the US have settled the issue through politics, not theology.

Have you read "I will bless you and you will be a blessing?" I didn't get far because life got in the way, but i thought it made some good comments on the theological arguments for same sex blessings.

 

[Sean611]

Using the "society is changing" argument is plain lazy and useless. I want to read good theological arguments on the issue.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I agree with what she says, but I too would prefer a theologically based argument for her position... which I think can be effectively done.

 

[Decanus]

I'm glad to see i'm not the only one that thinks a theological argument would be more effective if not better in backing up this position.

I think that as a Church, and as a member of the clergy, it is her Job to look to the more spiritual and theological arguments rather than the social and cultural factors which mainly are a product of secular society. A Theological argument would be best for those of faith who are looking for answers to this issue.

 

[Albion]

...and if there is NO really good theological argument?

I'm getting the point that what is wanted is merely something theological that'll "cover" for a decision already made on socio-political grounds. If so, it's already there from the days when women's ordination was the hot topic. You know--God loves everyone; Jesus didn't say anything explicitly against it; freedom is what the Gospel is all about; with God, there is no Greek nor Jew, etc etc.

 

[Decanus]

...and if there is NO really good theological argument?

I've heard a few good ones.

 

[mark46]

I agree that women's ordination and SSB (or marriage) are similar in kind, and strategy by proponents.

The first theological issue is whether each of these issues is doctrinal, dogmatic or merely adiaphora. Perhaps, the Church can decide on the definition of the minor sacraments of holy orders and matrimony. Perhaps these are doctrinal.
What is clear is that Scripture does not speak for itself, without interpretation by the Church.

I agree that requiring theological argument, and argument from Tradition, is preferred. However, having the theological arguments as the primary argument undermines their position. The Church does indeed make certain changes because of cultural context. These must not be in CONFLICT with Scripture. This is somewhat different than saying that Scripture should be interpreted as blessing same sex marriages and ordination of women.

The difference is NOT a subtle one. We can look to Scripture for examples of how to act, and act in no way not modeled by Scripture. Or we can look to Scripture with regard to how to act and not act in ways prohibited by Scripture.
There are some Orthodox Jews who do not drive cars (not in Scripture) and fly airplanes (Isaiah flew on the wings of eagles).

Personally, I understand the cultural needs. I also understand the Tradition of the Church with regard to interpretation of Scripture. Personally, I support allowing same sex couple to secular right to marry, but do not think that Church should perform such marriages. Such decisions should be made by the Church as a whole.

That being said, I'm not sure that the Anglican Communion is presently capable
of making any decisions by the Church as a whole. The default is to not make any decisions or to expect each primate and province to act, alone or in a group of other primates.

...and if there is NO really good theological argument?

I'm getting the point that what is wanted is merely something theological that'll "cover" for a decision already made on socio-political grounds. If so, it's already there from the days when women's ordination was the hot topic. You know--God loves everyone; Jesus didn't say anything explicitly against it; freedom is what the Gospel is all about; with God, there is no Greek nor Jew, etc etc.

 

[MKJ]

I agree that requiring theological argument, and argument from Tradition, is preferred. However, having the theological arguments as the primary argument undermines their position.

Yeah.

The thing is, one can construct a theological argument to say almost anything. It is harder if you are really insistent that it is part of a whole logical system, but not impossible. Which is why it is always considered important to have the Tradition on side as well. And, as you say, unanimity, or close to it.

 

[ebia]

CofE's top female cleric: I would have 'no problem' with blessings for gay marriages - Telegraph Thought this may be of interest to some of you here. While I applaud Rev Vivienne on saying what a lot of us are thinking and I personally think this is a very positive thing. However, I don't like her justification for it. It seems to just be a case of "Society is changing and therefore we must change too". I'd have preferred a more theological basis for her reasoning. She did touch on her belief that the blessing of a same sex marriage is not theologically a problem for her, but it stops at that. I'd like to know what you all in STR think of this Good day/night to you all!

In fairness her position seems to be "society has changed and so we need to rethink how we respond". What seems to be lacking then, is any real rethinking or imagination on what that response might be. Though of course a newspaper article may well be missing out a fair bit of stuff.

 

[Liberasit]

Scripture > Reason > Tradition

We cannot put Tradition (from a narrow period of the history of the church) dictate doctrine.

We have to understand scripture, in the power of the Holy Spirit, and in light of what we know about the nature of God.

If we only ever look at a literal view of scripture against a backdrop of a few hundred years of cherry-picked thought post Christ, why even bother having a living God? This mindset means that his work is finished, job done.

The Christian faith is a revealed faith and that revelation continues in these times (and nothing to do with Latter Day Saints, before anyone suggests this).

 

[mark46]

You have an interesting understanding of Tradition. I have a much different one.

Tradition is not a cherry picked set of views over a few hundred years. It is Scripture and the teaching of the apostles passed on to us for over 2000 years. The Church has interpreted Scripture and apostolic teaching for over 2000 years. And yes, the Church is capable of error in this regard.

Yes, God is a living God and the Church is a living Church.

It does NOT follow that 2000 years of Tradition have no value.

HOMOSEXUALITY
Can we not wait for the Anglican Communion to speak on this issue? Marriage is a minor sacrament modeled in the bible many, many times. It is NEVER between 2 men, or between 2 women. No one has yet pointed out a time before 1950 when the Church married same sexed couples into a union between two people. No one has pointed out where the Church has accepted sexual activity between same sexed couples as anything but sinful.

I am NOT saying that the Church cannot change its understanding of Scripture. However, Tradition is important. And the Church cannot ignore both Scripture and Tradition as interpreted by the Church for over 2000 years.

BTW, I am NOT convince by the verses involving prohibitions. The words can be translated differently. Also, there were many examples of same sex adult couples in the ancient world. This is not a new idea. It is much more concerning that there are no biblical examples of married same sex couples, or even same sex couples with a clear sexual bond.

So, for me, the issue is whether we as a society can decide that Scripture and Tradition simply don't matter because our experience tells us that homosexuality is a blessed expression of our sexuality.

WOMEN'S ORDINATION
Bishop Wright gives the biblical support. The Anglican Church has allowed it provinces to have female priests. His argument had nothing to do with 20th Century and 21st Century civil rights and equal treatment. This cannot be decisive factors.

But, make no mistake, this is not a clear issue. There were ZERO female apostles, and ZERO female bishops until the last 50 years. Yes, there were women who went out among the 70. Yes, there were women who baptized and performed functions in the early Church. Because of modesty, women were needed to baptize and annoint naked women. This is hardly a strong argument for accepting women priests today.

So, yes, I accept women priests in the Anglican Church (and in some Protestant denominations). I just don't think that the issue should be a matter of equal rights for women.

Scripture > Reason > Tradition

We cannot put Tradition (from a narrow period of the history of the church) dictate doctrine.

We have to understand scripture, in the power of the Holy Spirit, and in light of what we know about the nature of God.

If we only ever look at a literal view of scripture against a backdrop of a few hundred years of cherry-picked thought post Christ, why even bother having a living God? This mindset means that his work is finished, job done.

The Christian faith is a revealed faith and that revelation continues in these times (and nothing to do with Latter Day Saints, before anyone suggests this).

 

[Liberasit]

You have an interesting understanding of Tradition. I have a much different one.

I'm an evangelical and you are a catholic so that's a given.

To me, it's important to understanding what scripture has to say within the culture that it was said, and to use the lens of what we understand about our compassionate and merciful God.

I will admit to not having done a lot of research on this topic, as God has not put it on my heart, but I know that I have had a change of heart in recent months.

For various reasons, I have visited about 8 different churches over the last six months. Every single time, the sermon has talked about the command to love one another. I think God has been speaking to me personally though this seemingly random set of churches, from different traditions, all giving the same message - to encourage me to soften my heart and accept people who are different to me.

When we look at scripture, we need to understand the local context. We have to accept that within the Jewish culture it was essential to produce heirs to take over the land, and that marriage (hetero-sexual, obviously) was a legal contract. to bring this about.

We have to disconnect a Christ-centred, lifelong, monogamous relationship from promiscuity.

On a purely secular level, we have come a long way from kerb crawlers behind Kings Cross and their one-night stands. We are in a much better position with everything out in the open, and with dignity.

 

[MKJ]

The Christian faith is a revealed faith and that revelation continues in these times (and nothing to do with Latter Day Saints, before anyone suggests this).

No, actually, that isn't what Christianity teaches.

 

[Decanus]

I'm an evangelical and you are a catholic so that's a given.

To me, it's important to understanding what scripture has to say within the culture that it was said, and to use the lens of what we understand about our compassionate and merciful God.

I will admit to not having done a lot of research on this topic, as God has not put it on my heart, but I know that I have had a change of heart in recent months.

For various reasons, I have visited about 8 different churches over the last six months. Every single time, the sermon has talked about the command to love one another. I think God has been speaking to me personally though this seemingly random set of churches, from different traditions, all giving the same message - to encourage me to soften my heart and accept people who are different to me.

When we look at scripture, we need to understand the local context. We have to accept that within the Jewish culture it was essential to produce heirs to take over the land, and that marriage (hetero-sexual, obviously) was a legal contract. to bring this about.

We have to disconnect a Christ-centred, lifelong, monogamous relationship from promiscuity.

On a purely secular level, we have come a long way from kerb crawlers behind Kings Cross and their one-night stands. We are in a much better position with everything out in the open, and with dignity.

Here here!

 

[ebia]

There were ZERO female apostles, and ZERO female bishops until the last 50 years.

We need to be a lot more precise - none of The Twelve were female; they couldn't be, since they had to be twelve men to be the symbolic action they were called to be. Apostle has more than one meaning in the N.T.

And there were zero recorded female bishops.

 

[Rhamiel]

...and if there is NO really good theological argument?

I'm getting the point that what is wanted is merely something theological that'll "cover" for a decision already made on socio-political grounds. If so, it's already there from the days when women's ordination was the hot topic. You know--God loves everyone; Jesus didn't say anything explicitly against it; freedom is what the Gospel is all about; with God, there is no Greek nor Jew, etc etc.

I agree with Albion.... oh man it feels weird to say that....

(those who post in GT will get this joke)