1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removed"Sex is for married heterosexual couples only, says Church of England. Pastoral guidance also calls for Christians in gay or straight civil unions to be abstinent"
I would suggest the Church of England can "say" whatever it wants, but they seem to be forgetting Matthew 7: 1-3 that says "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and James 2: 10 that reminds us "For the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person who has broken all of God’s laws"
I can understand the Church's reasoning - up to a point, but condemning one group for a specific sin, when all of humanity stands guilty of breaking God's law makes little sense to me. I think the young people's attitude is more justified than they've been given credit for.
@mott-the-hoople saidDo you really not understand "Judge not"?
“"Judge not, lest ye be judged"
I have never understood why people thinks that means you cant judge someone else. Explain it to me.
It literally cannot get more clear than that.
The Bible is not written for morons, sorry.
Maybe you could learn to read first.
@mott-the-hoople saidI wonder what the church of England thinks of people like you that only have sex with yourselves.
“"Judge not, lest ye be judged"
I have never understood why people thinks that means you cant judge someone else. Explain it to me.
"Sex is for married heterosexual couples only, says Church of England"
Boy are you screwed. lol...
@mott-the-hoople saidNo one ....
who is being forced to attend this church?
But it sure is nice that we have separation of church and state.
In the the UK and US and in most of the civilized world.
Let's keep it that way.
The post that was quoted here has been removedRegarding your last paragraph, the document referred to in the Grauniad article [1][2], activists who campaign for the Church [3] to bless same sex Civil Partnerships may see this as an equality or prejudice issue, however they won't bless opposite sex Civil Partnerships either. They explain why in the document [1] as follows:
19.Because of the ambiguity about the place of sexual activity within civil partnerships of both sorts, and the church’s teaching that marriage between a man and a woman is the proper context for sexual intercourse, we do not believe that it is possible for the church unconditionally to accept civil partnerships as unequivocally reflecting the teaching of the church.
The emphasis on the importance of vows is made explicit in section 28:
28. As a civil partnership is not entered into through vows, the question of broken vows does not arise in the case of a former civil partnership. [fragment]
So as far as civil partnerships in general are concerned the Church is being even handed. They will not bless same sex civil partnerships. The difficulty arises in that they regard church marriages as being for members of the opposite sex, I don't know where post-op trans-gender people fit in - if they're both opposite sex transgender?
18.The House [of Bishops] advised in 2005 that the practice of the Church of England needs to reflect the pastoral letter from the Primates of the Anglican Communion at Pentecost 2003 which said: ‘The question of public rites for the blessing of same sex unions is still a cause of potentially divisive controversy. The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke for us all when he said that it is through liturgy that we express what we believe, and that there is no theological consensus about same sex unions. Therefore, we as a body cannot support the authorisation of such rites’.
This is a problem for them. They feel that they cannot alter their position unless there is a clear theological consensus that doing so is the right thing.
Being in a civil partnership is not, of itself, a bar to ordination and is unconditionally not a bar to membership of the Church:
23. The Church should not collude with the present assumptions of society that all close relationships necessarily include sexual activity. The House of Bishops considers it would be a matter of social injustice to exclude from ministry those who are faithful to the teaching of the Church, and who decide to register a civil partnership. There can be no grounds for terminating the ministry of those who are loyal to the discipline of the Church.
29. The House considers that lay people who have registered civil partnerships ought not to be asked to give assurances about the nature of their relationship before being admitted to baptism, confirmation and communion.
30. In relation to infant baptism, Canon B 22.4 makes it clear that, while baptism can be delayed for the purposes of instruction (including on marriage and the family), it cannot be refused. The responsibility for taking vows on behalf of the infant rests with the parents and godparents. Provided there is a willingness, following a period of instruction, to give those vows, priests cannot refuse to baptise simply because those caring for the infant are not, in their view, living in accordance with the Church’s teaching.
So, the Church will not turn away lay members for being in a civil partnership. The Canon regards marriage as being the sole way one can legitimise sex. Presumably because of Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and probably most significantly:
4 And he [Christ] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Matthew 19:4-6 AKJV
the Church feels it cannot consecrate same sex marriages. There are counterarguments, largely to do with mistranslation of the passages from Leviticus. This is the standard position of the Anglican communion world wide - the Episcopal Church (US), the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, having the more liberal positions. They cannot lightly ignore what it says in the Bible.
So, to summarise,
1) the Church of England has the same position on opposite sex Civil Partnerships as it does on same sex ones.
2) the Church of England regards sex as being permissible only within marriage.
3) the Church of England regards marriage as only being possible between a male and a female.
4) the document is silent on transgender issues.
5) being LGBT is not a bar to membership of the Church.
The combination of 2 and 3 are going to be a problem for LGBT people, but the Bible is important to Churches.
[1] https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/Civil%20Partnerships%20-%20Pastoral%20Guidance%202019%20%282%29.pdf
[2] Fans of Private Eye might recognise this...
[3] i.e. The Church of England, that being the relevant one here.
The post that was quoted here has been removedThe difficulty for the Church is that their theological position regards sex outside of marriage as sinful, and marriage as only being possible between persons of opposite sex. Unless they can work out a theologically satisfactory way of allowing same sex marriages they're stuffed on this one.
