In the 19th and 20th centuries, however, the relationship of the spouses assumed new importance, as the church came to understand that marriage was a profoundly spiritual relationship in which partners experienced, through mutual affection and self-sacrifice, the unconditional love of God.
The Episcopal Church’s 1979 Book of Common Prayer puts it this way: “We believe that the union of husband and wife, in heart, body and mind, is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is God’s will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord.”
Our evolving understanding of what marriage is leads, of necessity, to a re-examination of who it is for. Most Christian denominations no longer teach that all sex acts must be open to the possibility of procreation, and therefore contraception is permitted. Nor do they hold that infertility precludes marriage. The church has deepened its understanding of the way in which faithful couples experience and embody the love of the creator for creation. In so doing, it has put itself in a position to consider whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
Theologically, therefore, Christian support for same-sex marriage is not a dramatic break with tradition, but a recognition that the church’s understanding of marriage has changed dramatically over 2,000 years.
It seems 4 or 5 people could “marry” under Chane’s logic, which might have been more succinctly written, “What is truth?”
One of the comments posted in response to Bishop Chane’s article at the Newsweek site is most revealing:
[blockquote]Why are we trying to base our laws and rights on the musings of Bronze Age people? Societies evolve. We cherry pick the parts we want to shove down people’s throats. Lev 18 mentions lots of abominations. I refuse to live my life according to the contradictory rules of a bunch of ignorant savages. If you decide to do so, carry your own cross and leave me alone.[/blockquote]
Much could be said about how this succinctly summarizes moral attitudes and commitments (or the lack thereof) of many people today. But what really struck me is the anti-Semitism bubbling up from below the surface. After all, just who are the “ignorant savages” the author references? Why, the Jews, of course.
Since the founding of the Church, no change has occurred in the definition of what a marriage is. Christian Marriage is, and has always been, the union of one man and one woman for life. There have been many discussions and some changes on the purposes of marriage – actually, the changes have been on the priority on the many purposes listed. That a Bishop would not know the difference between defining what something is and asking why it exists or what its purpose is is very sad.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
This is not an argument or ‘case’ based on a series of premises – the conclusion is neither inductive nor deductive – it is unrelated to the previous propositions, completely subjective, and based on a plurality of assumptions. This is not reasoning. I would place this in the category of self-serving piffle, a failure in communication for its abandonment of logic, much less history or Christian teaching.
TEC is indeed making a radical break with tradition and Christian teaching – notwithstanding such protestations. I hope the source has better reasoning for his position, otherwise, I can only speculate that the obfuscation of this ‘case’ is intended to deceive the inattentive or lazy.
🙄
I guess Lamberth got it wrong and the Pope is a savage. What an attitude. This is theology?
Amen, tired. This not an argument in any logical sense. It is the presentation of emotive offering. The closest items to assertions of “change” are refuted by reality and history. Piffle, indeed.
For lo, these many years on, the reappraising side lacks a competent theologian to make the case for same-sex marriage. John Bryson Chane is an embarrasment to all who hold the office of Bishop.
Yes, tired, I too agree. I think it boils down to the everpresent “it is this way because I want it to be.”
Proud to be an ignorant savage!
“Theologically, therefore, Christian support for same-sex marriage is not a dramatic break with tradition, but a recognition that the church’s understanding of marriage has changed dramatically over 2,000 years.”
Perhaps someone skilled in such matters could parse Chane’s sentence and demonstrate that it is meaningful.
The General Convention of The Episcopal Church is neither by definition “Christian” nor identical in space and over time with “the church.” For such tender mercy may God be praised!
Bishop Chane should not be allowed to play with Theology for the same reason I don’t allow my three year old grandson to play with glitter, paste, scissors and construction paper. It’s too complicated for someone with his limited skills and I know dang well he’ll make a bloody mess of things.
“I would say respectfully to my fellow Christians that people who deny others the blessings they claim for themselves should not assume they speak for the Almighty.”
….yet the good Bishop and others of his ilk assume the exact same thing.
The difference is that “man and woman” have 2000 years of collective Christian doctrine in their “assumption”, as well as the natural order of God’s design since Eden.
I’ll stick with that one.
The tragedy is that because Bishop Chane has the title of “Bishop” there are people who will take his historical inanities as carrying some weight.
The evolution from same-sex blessings to same-sex marriage did not take long – less than ten years. Back in 1997, revisionists were arguing that same-sex blessings were in another category than heterosexual marriage. Now they have dropped the pretence, as have many secular progressives. This is at least more honest than the earlier fig-leaf theory that “blessings” in this context could be anything other than nuptial. At that time, [url=http://www.stephenswitness.org/2007/08/two-sexes-one-flesh-chapter-1.html] I insisted [/url] that the Church needed to treat these innovations for what they are: a fundamental revision of the Church’s teaching on marriage:
[blockquote]Any rite “honoring love and commitment between persons of the same sex” will require a revision of the Church’s understanding of Holy Matrimony, with the result that same-sex unions will be considered identical or equivalent to marriage. Attempts to circumvent the marriage-like character of same-sex unions highlight the conceptual necessity of equating marriage and same-sex unions.[/blockquote]