(Church Times) Jeffrey John makes the argument for Same Sex Marriage

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Culture-Watch, * International News & Commentary, * Religion News & Commentary, --Civil Unions & Partnerships, Anglican Provinces, Anthropology, Church of England (CoE), England / UK, Ethics / Moral Theology, Europe, Law & Legal Issues, Marriage & Family, Other Faiths, Same-sex blessings, Secularism, Sexuality, Sexuality Debate (in Anglican Communion), Theology, Theology: Scripture

9 comments on “(Church Times) Jeffrey John makes the argument for Same Sex Marriage

  1. carl+ says:

    “This covenant theology of marriage does not depend on gender or childbirth.”
    Quite right – it assumes it, just as without exception, Scripture does and presents it so.
    For a man who must be presumed to know his Articles (XIX, XX), his appeal to the church is ingenious, at best.
    However, his antecdote concerning seminary locates the “problem” precisely.

  2. A Senior Priest says:

    I always wondered about that guy. He’s totally bought in to the Christian heterosexual mythos of marriage and intimate relationships yet cannot express that mythos heterosexually. His views are directly contrary to those held by most gay men I know, and contrary to lived gay experience. I feel sorry for him. He’s gay but for some reason can’t live as a gay man, and instead desires to act out the heterosexual Christian ideal in a context which is offensive to it.

  3. Yebonoma says:

    Help me out here, but isn’t he assuming a false premise right from the start? If you begin with a false premise then all your reasoning does is lead to a logically false conclusion.

  4. Cennydd13 says:

    I despise the efforts at trying to ram homosexual ‘marriage’ down our throats without so much as a “by your leave.”

  5. moheb says:

    Dr. John writes: ” Even in Genesis, the reason why God makes Eve is because “God saw that it was not good for man to be alone.”

    One would think that God knew what He was doing in creating the woman rather than another man to give Adam company!

  6. Archer_of_the_Forest says:

    I know I seldom agree theologically with people like Jeffrey John, but cannot these people actually at least attempt make a convincing argument? There are so many non sequiturs in this argument that I don’t even know where to begin. He jumps from half thought to half thought without really bothering to flesh out any of them. He is an intelligent guy; he can do better that something that seems to be been written by a college freshman.

  7. dwstroudmd+ says:

    Alas, this “the argument” and it remains as non-convincing and un-argumentative as ever. No interpretation of scripture, indeed, an ignoring of scripture and Tradition. In short, the usual “argument” from experience. Rather like the short version of to set our hope on experience submitted by the EcUSA some years ago.

  8. drummie says:

    First, can any man (human) loves as God does? I don’t think we are capable of such generous love. Second, why does John think he knows better than God? Nowhere does God say homosexual behavior is OK, good, moral, holy or any other positive adjective. It is a sin from the workd go. John knows this, he just doesn’t want to give in to God, and he claims to be a priest? I feel sorry for this man and those that will follow his teaching.

  9. tired says:

    No serious engagement with scripture, mere religious window dressing. Jeffery John does assume his conclusion without offering support. The bulk of his time and effort appears to be spent arguing utilitarian ethics as justification for appropriating revealed moral standards of marriage for application to SS relationships.

    Of course, there is no scriptural support for requiring a SS pair to be faithful and to remain a matched union. Jeffrey John is not entitled to coopt revelation and apply it to behaviors or situations to which it does not pertain.

    He gives me the impression of trying to: (i) give the appearance of being measured; (ii) address certain utilitarian objectives; (iii) market to the squeamish or hesitant (‘…see, it can be presentable’).

    (I am no etymologist, but it strikes me that it would be improper to refer to a SS pair as being “monogamous” or “dyadic,” given that those words refer inherently to the complementary nature of marriage.)