Thursday, June 14, 2012

FURTHER COMMENTARY ON CHURCH OF ENGLAND STATEMENT ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Here in PDF format is the Church of England's statement in response to the Home Office Consultation on Equal Civil Marriage, if you'd like to read it all.  The very first paragraph of The Church's understanding of marriage made me smile.
1. In common with almost all other Churches, the Church of England holds, as a matter of doctrine and derived from the teaching of Christ himself, that marriage in general – and not just the marriage of Christians – is, in its nature, a lifelong union of one man with one woman. 
 Well, there's sticky matter of divorce and remarriage, which is permitted by the church despite its understanding of marriage as a "lifelong union of one man with one woman," which seems to me to undermine their case against same-sex civil marriage from the very beginning.

Moving on...

Tim Ellis, Suffragan Bishop of Grantham:
‘...in what way can the statements of the prelates be taken to be the mind of the Church of England in this and other related matters?’ For, in truth, the bishops in the media have not spoken for me or the way in which I understand this thorny matter and, I suspect, they do not speak for a sizeable minority or even majority with the life of the Church. However, it is possible that I will soon be approached by the local media to defend the position taken up by my colleagues and the pressure will be on to ‘toe the line’.
Tobias Haller at In a Godward Direction:
The authors hammer away on the alleged "complementarity" of the sexes as a necessary component of marriage without apparently recognizing either the circular nature of that argument or the dangerous tendency towards Christological heresy inherent in its anthropology. The circular nature of the argument is: “Marriage can only take place between a man and a woman because only a man and a woman are of different sexes.” This is, of course, merely restating the premise. The more dangerous, and heretical, trend of this argument lies in the suggestion that the sex difference implies a different order of being for men and women. This is known as sexism, and it undercuts the orthodox doctrine of the incarnation. One would think the church might be more sensitive to that issue, though one wonders how many English bishops actually believe the doctrine.
Alan Wilson, Suffragan Bishop of Buckingham:
The mightiest act of God is his commandment to love him as we love our crooked neighbour with all our crooked heart. It’s shockingly unconditional. Someone wrote to me last month to say it beggared his belief that a bishop should think that “Love thy neighbour as thyself” applied to homosexuals. It beggars this bishop’s belief that anyone should think that it doesn’t.
Themethatisme at conscientisation:
There is the biological usage of complementarity, (not definition) and 'tis this, that is liberally sprinkled through the document as the Bishops seek a good legalistic euphemism for saying men's bits are designed to fit ladies bits and you shouldn't be doing anything else with that arrangement. Which owes more to the traditional definition of the word in which 'This port complements the stilton' or 'that handbag really complements those shoes'.  The two becoming one and being something else, a new ensemble, a new flavour, a fresh expression.
I've suggested a rather long reading assignment for two reasons: The first is that I believe all four posts are worth reading whole and entire.  The second is that three out of the four bloggers are Church of England, all but Tobias, and the statement claims to speak for the church.  Since the statement was released unsigned, the posts quoted and linked above make it clear that whoever put together the statement does not speak for ALL members of the Church of England.

6 comments:

  1. Among the many flaws in this document is the strange assertion that there is no difference between church and secular marriage. Tell that to the RCC! I can point to any number of books on my shelf of books on marriage and matrimonial institutions that show the teaching of the Christian church as declaring that the marriage of non-Christians is not "marriage" at all -- or at least not Christian marriage. How could it be! Scripture also shows, in Paul's permission to non-Christians to divorce, that he regarded pagan or secular marriage as distinctly different from Christian marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tobias, I read through about half of the complete document, and I encountered (I won't be as polite as you and the other commentators above), such a load of bullshit, that I could not stand the smell, and I quit. Whoever put statement together should be ashamed. Do they think we are all stupid? Reading half the statement made me very angry. I so understand the English who respond, "Not in my name!"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh I do like what Bp Wilson has to say - that's very good.

    Regarding the CofE's position, which I'm not going to bother to read because I know it's the same old jackassery we've heard on this side of the pond for so long, and still are:

    - This is the church that from 1660 to 1753 (Lord Hardwicke's Act) screamed and squalled that it was the ONLY possible authority to conduct marriages in England - finally they relented and let Jews and Quakers do their own weddings.

    - Still more screeching and squawking from the CofE until Parliament in 1836 finally legalized Roman Catholic weddings, oh my the end of the (Anglican) world.

    - You ain't never heard such a ruckus as the CofE and all those deeply devout, soooo very godly prelates put up over the Deceased Wife's Sister's Bill in about 1887. My God, what an unholy, world-destroying law! And yet, who now ever gives it a single thought.

    - Somewhere in all this, and I'm too lazy to go look it up, Parliament also decided to start allowing civil marriages at the local registration office, with no clergyman of any kind present. Whenever it was, I'm sure the episcopal knickers were terribly twisted over that.

    - As you mentioned, a hundred years ago right now if you search the newspaper headlines, you will find the CofE among others screaming their hearts out over "the divorce evil" - now they are even willing to let people remarry in church. Meh.

    - They will get used to the gay thing too, sure as shootin'. They'll have to - God knows at least half their clergy are g-a-y! Not to mention all those marvelous singers, organists, choir directors, etc., etc. Who do these reactionary old jaybirds in purple cassocks think the Church is, anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Russ, from the comments to an earlier post:

    Erp said...

    Antichrist, Or The Reunion Of Christendom: An Ode
    G. K. Chesterton

    ‘A Bill which has shocked the conscience of every Christian community in Europe.’ —Mr. F.E. Smith, on the Welsh Disestablishment Bill.

    ARE they clinging to their crosses,
    F.E. Smith,
    Where the Breton boat-fleet tosses,
    Are they, Smith?
    Do they, fasting, trembling, bleeding,
    Wait the news from this our city?
    Groaning ‘That’s the Second Reading!’
    Hissing ‘There is still Committee!’
    If the voice of Cecil falters,
    If McKenna’s point has pith,
    Do they tremble for their altars?
    Do they, Smith?


    The conscience has been shocked time and again, and life goes on, but this fight will drive even more folks out of the pews of the CofE.

    ReplyDelete
  5. OMG the poem is too funny, thank you for that - and so apropos.

    But about those pew-leavers: most of them probably have stickers on their bumpers saying "I'd rather be in ROME," don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Russ, not at all. This latest cockamamie statement has already driven out certain LGTB persons and their fellow supporters of equality. They are tired of the lack of understanding by the leaders in the church that their words affect real people, some of whom have had enough.

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous commenters, please sign a name, any name, to distinguish one anonymous commenter from another. Thank you.