TEC vs the continuum

[The highchurchman]

The issue I was discussing was indeed marriage. If there is no marriage, then any sex outside marriage precludes an active homosexual from being ordained. This is the same situation as it would be for heterosexuals. We cannot be saying that it is OK for homosexuals to have sex outside of marriage and that heterosexuals cannot. Both are sinful and should preclude ordination.

I was asking which churches had actual marriage ceremonies of same sex couples. Did they use the BCP for the vows and prayers? Was this marriage treated the same as a heterosexual marriage?

Yes, there are bishops and many who look the other way with regard to sex outside of marriage. Many Anglicans do not consider the bedroom activity of others to be of great interest. HOWEVER, sex outside of marriage is sinful. That is what the Church teaches. That is the standard of CF.

I do agree with that, despite my support for homosexuality I agree that sex within marriage is a norm. which is why I support gay marriage.

 

[MKJ]

The issue I was discussing was indeed marriage. If there is no marriage, then any sex outside marriage precludes an active homosexual from being ordained. This is the same situation as it would be for heterosexuals. We cannot be saying that it is OK for homosexuals to have sex outside of marriage and that heterosexuals cannot. Both are sinful and should preclude ordination.

I was asking which churches had actual marriage ceremonies of same sex couples. Did they use the BCP for the vows and prayers? Was this marriage treated the same as a heterosexual marriage?

Yes, there are bishops and many who look the other way with regard to sex outside of marriage. Many Anglicans do not consider the bedroom activity of others to be of great interest. HOWEVER, sex outside of marriage is sinful. That is what the Church teaches. That is the standard of CF.

In my diocese, where legally same sex couples can marry, the ACC will bless relationships of same-sex couples who are not married, but not opposite sex couples that are not married. The ramifications of the moratorium are seemingly unimportant to them.

 

[Adam Warlock]

When I read the original thread title, I thought that Q now had the TEC on trial for opposing the continuum.

 

[The highchurchman]

In my diocese, where legally same sex couples can marry, the ACC will bless relationships of same-sex couples who are not married, but not opposite sex couples that are not married. The ramifications of the moratorium are seemingly unimportant to them.

I agree that is wrong. it's possibly just a case of church not catching up to the current laws i.e they would bless same-sex couple b4 same sex marriage was legal, now it's legal the blessing should be halted. churches are often slow in changing things both negative and positive.
but i agree entirely with you, if same sex marriage is legal where you are then the church should could stop blessing same-sex couples who are not married.

 

[brightmorningstar]

The Bible says same sex relations are error and indecent. The Bible says they are a wicked suppression of the truth.
If posters are going to post about gay marriage I will point out its against God's purposes and His word.

 

[The highchurchman]

The Bible says same sex relations are error and indecent. The Bible says they are a wicked suppression of the truth.
If posters are going to post about gay marriage I will point out its against God's purposes and His word.

no no no, Your interpretation of the bible only. this is your problem bms, your not respectful of other peoples interpretation of scripture.

if scripture was as really as black and white as you make out there would not be thousands of Christian denominations today, all which have their own unique interpretation of scripture.

I respect your interpretation of scripture, but please refrain from making it sound as if your interpretation is the only one.

btw If I offended you last evening, I wish to apologize, I was basing my bias of you on what I've seen you write to other people and realized too late that until last evening you and I have never had a convo perosnaly. thus I shall reserve judgment of you and base it not on how Ive seen you treat others but on how you treat me. so I once again sincerely apologize.

God Bless

 

[MKJ]

I agree that is wrong. it's possibly just a case of church not catching up to the current laws i.e they would bless same-sex couple b4 same sex marriage was legal, now it's legal the blessing should be halted. churches are often slow in changing things both negative and positive.
but i agree entirely with you, if same sex marriage is legal where you are then the church should could stop blessing same-sex couples who are not married.

No, actually this decision was made well after the law for same sex marriages was passed. At the same synod, they voted to bless non-married partnerships of gays, and defeated a motion for non married partnerships of heterosexuals.

Not to mention they seem to have totally ignored the fact that in the Western Church, a marriage is precisely the blessing of a committed monogamous relationship. To say one is a blessing and one is a marriage is disingenuous, or perhaps a symptom of the lazy and sloppy theological thinking that characterizes this issue all over.

Not to mention ignoring the moratorium. Why it is that people that don't give a rat's nest about the Communion cling so hard to being the "official" Anglican Church of Canada, while those who actually care about it are forced out, is a major question for me. Unfortunately the only answers I have come up with are power and prestige and control and money.

 

[Adam Warlock]

Not to mention ignoring the moratorium. Why it is that people that don't give a rat's nest about the Communion cling so hard to being the "official" Anglican Church of Canada, while those who actually care about it are forced out, is a major question for me. Unfortunately the only answers I have come up with are power and prestige and control and money.

Indeed

 

[brightmorningstar]

Not to mention ignoring the moratorium. Why it is that people that don't give a rat's nest about the Communion cling so hard to being the "official" Anglican Church of Canada, while those who actually care about it are forced out, is a major question for me. Unfortunately the only answers I have come up with are power and prestige and control and money.

Very good post, but I would go further and be more frank. It is clearly not about power and money it is an attack on the gospel as warned about in the NT. False teaching.
This is a very different worldview which is fundamentally humansim and disguised as Christian, yet few seem able or willing to call it out because the world supports these people in their attacks on those who do.
It is quite arguable that we are seeing some end time turning away and falling away of believers.

 

[brightmorningstar]

The highchurchman,

NZ defiantly. they have ordained actively gay priests in at least 2 dioceses with full knowledge of the people.

Ok so Lambeth 1.10 denounces both homophobia and the blessing of same sex relations or the ordaining of those in active same sex relations. Yet these 'gay' types complain about homophobia in the church.
They are the people the least justified in complaining about homophobia.

The question to you is how do you feel about homophobia, because we are forever hearing these gay priests wingeing about it.

 

[ebia]

The highchurchman,
Ok so Lambeth 1.10 denounces both homophobia and the blessing of same sex relations or the ordaining of those in active same sex relations. Yet these 'gay' types complain about homophobia in the church.
They are the people the least justified in complaining about homophobia.

The question to you is how do you feel about homophobia, because we are forever hearing these gay priests wingeing about it.

John says x and y. John is wrong about x does not imply that John is wrong about y.

It is possible to agree with the Lambeth resolution on both, either or neither of it's main points. The last would be a strange place to be, but each of the other three positions is not uncommon.

 

[mark46]

I am NOT commenting in this post regarding ordination.

QUESTION
Hasn't the Church always accepted all civil marriages? For example, when those divorced were allowed to remarry by the state, did not the Church accept those marriages. When heterosexuals living in continuing sin are married, does not the Church accept those marriages?

We are dealing with two separate questions. The Church has it own definition of marriage (as it should). Also, the Church has always accepted and blessed the civil standard of marriage in each of the countries and states in which it exists.

 

[brightmorningstar]

ebia,

John says x and y. John is wrong about x does not imply that John is wrong about y.

So homophobia could be ok and same sex relations not.

Hmmn. Nonetheless Lambeth 1.10 warns against both.

 

[brightmorningstar]

mark1,

QUESTION
Hasn't the Church always accepted all civil marriages? For example, when those divorced were allowed to remarry by the state, did not the Church accept those marriages. When heterosexuals living in continuing sin are married, does not the Church accept those marriages?

heterosexuals? who? Marriage is man and woman. And thats the point, not divorce and remarriage, marriage.

We are dealing with two separate questions. The Church has it own definition of marriage (as it should).

Hang on. Marriage is man and woman to God, other groups and other religions also recognise what God has ordained. The church is either in line with God or not.

 

[ebia]

ebia,
So homophobia could be ok and same sex relations not.

A lot of Anglicans in, say, Uganda, seem to think so.

The Lambeth Resolution condemns both. One can potentially agree with it on both or on either one but not the other.

Quoting Lambeth is fine. Quoting it as though one has to agree with it all or disagree with it all makes no sense.

 

[mark46]

You continue to be consistent. There seem to be one critical issue for you: homosexual conduct.

mark1,
heterosexuals? who? Marriage is man and woman. And thats the point, not divorce and remarriage, marriage.

Hang on. Marriage is man and woman to God, other groups and other religions also recognise what God has ordained. The church is either in line with God or not.

 

[brightmorningstar]

ebia,

A lot of Anglicans in, say, Uganda, seem to think so.

A lot? Are you sure? Have you any evidence that there are a lot? Is for example the leadership of Uganda for it?

Quoting Lambeth is fine. Quoting it as though one has to agree with it all or disagree with it all makes no sense.

So you are saying agreeing with homophobia or same sex blessings is ok for Anglicans? Thats what it seems.
That would make no sense, no point in making a Communion statement if everyone can simply ignore it.

 

[brightmorningstar]

mark1

You continue to be consistent. There seem to be one critical issue for you: homosexual conduct

And you have a problem with that?
This thread discussed trhe issue for pages before I joined in.
So tell me in what way does a person's sexuality, hetero or homo, affect a marriage when it is always man and woman?
We need to be careful we dont fall into the same fault way of thinking by using the faulty terms.

 

[brightmorningstar]

What we are seeing in all of this is a chipping away at marriage bit by bit. There is only one marriage in God's eyes, man and woman, it matters little how a 'union' is composed and considered by a world that doesnt know God.

 

[Brian Daniel]

We seem to have some problems respecting differing views at all at moment.

But also CF rules are not neutral at this point in time.

And while TEC may be the largest Anglican body in the US and the Communion member there it's position on the elephant is a minority one considering even the global Anglican Communion, let alone the whole of Anglicanism.

What is the Elephant?