Archbishop Rowan Williams has tried to take the issue of gay marriage off the table at the Lambeth Conference, which begins in three weeks. But the celebration of a gay relationship at one of London’s oldest churches last month, and the well-publicised gathering of anti-gay Anglicans in Jerusalem this week, suggest the controversy must eventually be faced squarely.
Conservative Christians say opening marriage to gay couples would undermine an immutable institution founded on divine revelation. Archbishop Henry Orombi, the primate of the Church of Uganda, calls it blasphemy. But, theologically, 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.
Christians have always argued about marriage. Jesus criticised the Mosaic law on divorce, saying “What God has joined together let no man separate”, but even that dictum appears in different versions in the Gospels, and was modified in the letters of Peter and Paul. Christians had to square the ecstatic sensuality of the Song of Songs with Paul’s teaching that marriage was a fallen estate, useful primarily in saving those who could not be celibate from fornication.
Which may lead us to an evolving attitude as to why we need bishops like this.
C-O-M ….P-L-I… ANCE….
Yes, boys and girls, just like its own Constitutions and Canons, the
ECUSA/TEC/GCC-EO-PAC is complying bull-steam ahead with the Windsor Report.
So, the next time you commit to a plan of action discussed ahead of time with your adult imposers of traditional out-dated near-animist views, remember the magic word! Just sing…
C-O-M…P-L-I… ANCE…. (and know we luv you).
If any such adult calls you on your deviations from word in your deeds, please feel free to use the word P-O-L-I-T-Y to explain your stance!
Remember the basic creed, logic is unnecessary, BS in sufficient quantities will do the trick everytime. See citations here supplied to the Chane-Chane-Chane ticket.
And, remember the word for today is EMISSION, brought to you by PB Schori. Look for PB Schori and a legal team near you, soon!
Have a nice day!
“Different versions” usually means different ways of saying the same thing…….or am I missing something here?
RE:”Christians have always argued about marriage…”
That may well be…but not, to my knowledge, about the definition of marriage.
RE:”Our evolving understanding of what marriage is leads, of necessity, to a re-examination of who it is for…”
Really? And how does that follow?
Bishop Chane gives clear evidence of the sadly diminished theological minds inhabiting those who have undergone the right of ordination to the episcopacy! There are so many logical fallacies and outright misinformations in this screed that to dignify them with responses is unnecessary.
When a man and a man lay down together, or a woman and a woman lay down together, what they say with their bodies cannot be the design of God. They are participating in the polymorphous sensuality born of rebellion to God and spawned by the twisted American credo of radical autonomous individuality.
[b]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.[/b]
This just shows how deceived many Anglicans in the West in particular have become. First, The church does not begin and end with “Western” Liberal Anglicans. Sure, there are other denominations who have lost the way, but it is just a fact that the global church in general has not had this so-called deepening of understanding. Second, scripture (Romans 1 in particular, which is I think a reflection on creation, the fall, and its consequences as history unfolds in scripture), draws a direct line from suppressing the truth about God to idolatry, and then to sexual sin, with emphasis on homosexuality. Anyone who’s had morning coffee can see that this is exactly what has happened in Western society. Europe and North America have suppressed the truth about God, and the church has joined the party, if not thrown it themselves. And with that has followed idolatry and revived paganism (Grace Cathedral San Francisco is a great example in TEC) and all sorts of sexual license with homosexuality now running out front. The only thing that has deepened is our tolerance for deviance of all kinds and sin, unless of course the sin is against us.
[i]Christians who want to deny others the blessings they claim for themselves should not assume they speak for the Almighty.[/i]
What a cheap shot.
How about: “Bishops who want to deny the plain reading of Scripture should not assume they speak for the Almighty.”
For what it’s worth… all blessings are not the same. The suggestion that the Lord God blesses everything that walks in the door or every idea or desire that we human beings have is a sad rejection of the reality of sin. I would commend this weeks Gospel text to the good Bishop. That is…. The unedited, un-sanitized text of all of Matthew 11. The Church cannot be children in the market place wanting want they want, dance when I say dance, mourn when I say mourn, enjoy what the marketplace has to offer… all the while missing the point that the wisdom of God isn’t about self-satisfaction. That’s why the passage ends…”Come to me all you who are weary and are carrying heavy burdens…” The burden spoken of here is about keeping council with your own will/desire instead of listening to Jesus. We all would do well to temper our absolute conviction about what is right with a little humility.
[blockquote] What a cheap shot. [/blockquote]
Basically, cheap shots are just about all the revisionists have left. Theologically, their position is a barren wasteland. They have abandoned rational discourse, viz [i]emission[/i] , cheap shots, et cetera. GAFCON has been a stern blow to the revisionist position. Expect more of the same smack from the left, folks, it’s all they’ve got. The streets are going to get meaner.
#9 has said the Word: Barren. That so much of America will not realize this is a measure of how far we have allowed Agenda to create Reality.
Once again, this is the language of affect, what we have come to call “touchy-feely.” To demand logic of _+Chane is to demand what he has no use for, nor any reason, by his lights, to undertake the search for. SSM “feels” right to him and he asserts that it feels right to others – should feel right to everyone, in fact. Hence accurate reference to scriptural text is not a propos. It is only if we understand this that we can understand how a man like this can write like this, can write thus and not suppose that the rational world bursts into laughter at such puerilities.
And we must understand once again that a cognitive wasteland becomes a spiritual wasteland. Larry
Here, in this article, we read everything that has evolved incorrectly in TEC. I really cannot understand why we have bishops like this who are determined to bring to and end the growth of TEC. Every time this happens, more leave. I thought I would get to a point where I didn’t sigh anymore but simply say, “Nothing new.” But I continue to sigh and lament. There is nothing good in Bishop Chane’s reflection. The mill stone is going to go around his neck and the water is deep.
I thought that the purpose of Christianity is to die to self so we can be raised to new life. I thought that our lives were hid with God in Christ. I thought that we were no longer our own, but that we had been bought with a price and were to glorify God with our bodies.
It seems that we are our own and that we must celebrate the self and that we cannot be bought by any price and that what was once hidden as shameful actions are now to be proclaimed as blessed and good.
[url=http://www.deaconslant.blogspot.com/]Being Slanted can be good for you[/url]
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Mr Chane needs to go to Deacon Phil’s blog and learn some logic:
[url=http://deaconslant.blogspot.com/2008/07/logica-fallacy.html]A logical fallacy.[/url]
“…the church’s understanding of marriage has changed dramatically over 2,000 years”.
Sorry, but that should read, the Church’s MISunderstanding. just because the Chane Gang and fellow travelers can’t get it doesn’t mean that the CHURCH has shifted.
Arrogant.
You know, the Almighty does a very nice job of speaking for the Almighty. In fact, Christians have even referred to Jesus *as* the Word. He speaks pretty well, too. I don’t need to speak for Him. There are alot of Anglicans who just don’t like what they hear.
Actually, The Church has been pretty consistent in its teachings about marriage. Some churches however have been all over the board on this subject, as also just about every other article of faith.
ICXC NIKA
John
“Orthodox Christianity – proclaiming the Truth since 33 AD”
As a rule, I don’t feel the necessity to respond to things Bp Chane has said, or for that matter, bishops’ statements that try to spin their way into an already held opinion or position.
In this case, I find an objection to something Bp Chane has done that I am guilty of, as well, and that is co-opting a behavior, action or statement of Jesus himself to suit my own needs or rhetoric.
“But even Jesus…..”
So I repent of such one-liners of my own doing. Shame on me.
And I object and judge as unrighteous Bp Chane’s doing the same. Shame on you. Repent.
One silver lining, though. The presumption is that Bp Chane believes that Jesus actually said or did or behaved in such a way, which leads one to further presume that the good bishop accepts the gospel(s), at least, as true, authentic, trustworthy and authoritative. No sarcasm here. He may not even recognize the quandry in which he’s placed himself.
RGEaton
Better-CHRIST has been proclaiming what marriage is; and that by reiterating what The Trinity stated about matrimony from the beginning.
“He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)
Let’s break it down, shall we? 1) God created them male & female
2) The man shall leave the already established union under which he was given birth, “his father and mother”, not his two daddies or two mommies [you know, as in “Heather has two mommies”?] to start an identical union of his own with his wife [not another male-“male & female”], so the two may become one flesh. To erase any further doubt, God Himself establishes the very first marriage, between *Adam and Eve*-as an example-as it was “in the beginning male & female”, which fact Christ Himself vigorously confirmed.
I have written this to counter the false argument that Christ never spoke out against gay coupling, because He indeed did so-by strongly reiterating Gods plainly stated plan for matrimony, to be expressly carried out in male/female unions.
“Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God?”
Let such bishops remember the streets of hell are paved with the skulls of apostate and heritic bishops.
His article reads as follows:
gay
gay
anti gay
gay
gay
gay.
Was there anything else Bp Chane? Nice to know that you as a consecrator of Bishop Robinson are fully welcomed at Lambeth Palace. TTFN.
Intercessor
Further illogic. Bp claims our understanding of marriage has changed and cites 79 BCP, which moves procreation to last place as far as purposes of marriage. So change BCP and then cite it as evidence of a “changed understanding” of marriage. Seems pretty circular to me.
But the ultimate proof of the lack of sincere truth-seeking by Bp Chane and allies is their utter refusal to discuss or even mention any of the ample evidence about the harm of gay relationships. Until there is a good faith willingness to discuss both the theological and biological contraindications of same sex relationships, they cannot honestly claim to be seeking conversation.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.†Joseph Goebbels.
“A lie told often enough becomes truth†Vladimir Lenin.
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea.” None of the above.
“Have always therefore printed in your remembrance, how great a treasure is committed to your charge. For they are the sheep of Christ, which he bought with his death, and for whom he shed his blood. The Church and Congregation whom you must serve, is his Spouse, and his Body. And if it shall happen that the same Church, or any Member thereof, do take any hurt or hindrance by reason of your negligence, ye know the greatness of the fault, and the horrible punishment that will ensue. Wherefore consider with yourselves the end of the Ministry of God, toward the Spouse and Body of Christ; and see that ye never cease your labour, your care and diligence, until ye have done all that lieth in you, according to your bounden duty, to bring all such as are or shall be committed to your charge, unto that agreement in the faith and knowledge of God, and to that ripeness and perfectness of age in Christ, that there be no place left among you, either for error in religion, or for viciousness in life.” 1928 Book of Common Prayer, Bishop’s charge to those about to be ordained Priests in the Church of God.
Yet another version of the prevailing ethos that the nearer to the present something happened the more right it must be.
I wish he had quoted some more of the one Bible passage he did choose to quote. It would have been interesting to hear how he justifies saying Jesus said nothing about homosexuality when he said: blockquote]
Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them [b] male and female.’ [/b] ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his [b] wife, [/b] and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” [/blockquote]
But I forget – Jesus too lived before the enlightenment of the succeeding twenty centuries.
Oh Margarette did you ever get that right!! Scripture definitely cries out for the marriage of a man and woman to definitely be IT!!
Bp Chane, when he was a cathedral dean, referred to his conservative bishop as “an idiot”. Seems to me that the same reference should be made in reference to him.
willr
You re all missing the point. Chane is under no obligation to speak logically and to adduce evidence that supports his argument. He hasa no need for this. Rather, he knows how he feels about this subject. That he feels it is the only evidence necessary to justify its existence. He can therefore say what he will without regard for the language of cognition, for he has already met his standard for Truth; he STARTED with it, the Truth that is, and this truth is intuitively so or he would not so feel it. What he is doing now is searching for those who feel as he does, and when he finds them, they will comfort each other by repeating, over and over, in many forms, their affirmation of the Intuition of the True. It is his hope that this intuition will find others, not immediately in tune with him objectively, but whose intuitions will override their interest in evidence, and he will therefore demonstrate again the validity of the Universal Subjective, a mind set that CANNOT BE DISPROVED. He is safe, and we rail at him quite pointlessly. Larry