You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Episcopal Church Won't Stop Supporting Gay Marriage Despite Anglican Suspension, Says Bishop
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
ChurchSoldier
Guest
No surprise.
So it goes.
So it goes.
P
Padres1969
Guest
Expected response and in line with what Bishop Curry said immediately after the suspension was announced as well. I find his reasoning for being accepting of the decision as “fair” to also make sense even if most Episcopalians don’t agree with the suspension itself. It also tracks with what the Archbishop of Canterbury said after the meeting indicating that the suspension was more for the ECUSA acting unilaterally than it was for the changes that were made. Overall though I find it hopeful that both Bishop Curry and Archbishop Welby seem hopeful that the Communion will continue to walk together despite disagreements.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Personally I see no reason why TEC should stop supporting gay marriage if it something the Church has come to understand differently and has come to accept and believe in along its path to understanding God.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
What are the chances of there being a formal schism sometime in the future between the TEC and Anglican churches which influenced this outcome?
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Padres, you know far more about things than do I. Had ECUSA not acted unilaterally, could the change have been made considering the AC’s African contingent’s opposition?Expected response and in line with what Bishop Curry said immediately after the suspension was announced as well. I find his reasoning for being accepting of the decision as “fair” to also make sense even if most Episcopalians don’t agree with the suspension itself. It also tracks with what the Archbishop of Canterbury said after the meeting indicating that the suspension was more for the ECUSA acting unilaterally than it was for the changes that were made. Overall though I find it hopeful that both Bishop Curry and Archbishop Welby seem hopeful that the Communion will continue to walk together despite disagreements.
A
Aslan10
Guest
“The amity that wisdom knits not, folly may easily untie.”
P
Padres1969
Guest
Probably not as quickly. And doubtful it would have happened with the full assent of the entire communion given African and Asian opposition. More likely if it hadn’t happened the way it did, it would have been more a bilateral or multilateral thing between several members of the communion by now or at a future date would be my guess. But in that case I’d expect the likelihood of schism would have increased since it would have set up a far more formal us against them situation with the churches agreeing to the change in opposition to those that oppose it in GAFCON.Padres, you know far more about things than do I. Had ECUSA not acted unilaterally, could the change have been made considering the AC’s African contingent’s opposition?
Frankly I think the way it occurred with the ECUSA (and presumably ACIC in the near future) acting on their own it allows the rest of the communion to slap them for the unilateral action rather than focusing the argument on the underlying doctrinal differences. And ultimately may have prevented a schism since they can focus on the action rather than the point disagreement.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Thanks for your insight.Probably not as quickly. And doubtful it would have happened with the full assent of the entire communion given African and Asian opposition. More likely if it hadn’t happened the way it did, it would have been more a bilateral or multilateral thing between several members of the communion by now or at a future date would be my guess. But in that case I’d expect the likelihood of schism would have increased since it would have set up a far more formal us against them situation with the churches agreeing to the change in opposition to those that oppose it in GAFCON.
Frankly I think the way it occurred with the ECUSA (and presumably ACIC in the near future) acting on their own it allows the rest of the communion to slap them for the unilateral action rather than focusing the argument on the underlying doctrinal differences. And ultimately may have prevented a schism since they can focus on the action rather than the point disagreement.
E
Erich
Guest
If TEC is going to depart from traditional Anglican doctrine which upholds marriage as between a man and a woman in faithful, lifelong union, then I see no reason to wait three years to reconsider TEC’s suspension from the Anglican Communion. Just make the suspension permanent and be done with it. After all, TEC has in effect excommunicated itself; it’s not like the rest of the world somehow forced them to make the decisions they’ve made.Personally I see no reason why TEC should stop supporting gay marriage if it something the Church has come to understand differently and has come to accept and believe in along its path to understanding God.
The secular purpose of marriage is to unite a father and mother with their offspring (i.e. it provides a relatively uniform social institution through which to produce and raise children). It’s all about the children! So too is adoption. Gay “marriage”, on the other hand, is all about the desires of the partners in the relationship – and in the case of adoption, specifically deprives children of both a mother and a father. How selfish is that?
P
Padres1969
Guest
Thing was, the suspension was more for the unilateral action than for the canon change behind the action at least according to the Archbishop of Canterbury. They’re not really punishing the ECUSA for the doctrinal difference.If TEC is going to depart from traditional Anglican doctrine which upholds marriage as between a man and a woman in faithful, lifelong union, then I see no reason to wait three years to reconsider TEC’s suspension from the Anglican Communion. Just make the suspension permanent and be done with it. After all, TEC has in effect excommunicated itself; it’s not like the rest of the world somehow forced them to make the decisions they’ve made.
The secular purpose of marriage is to unite a father and mother with their offspring (i.e. it provides a relatively uniform social institution through which to produce and raise children). It’s all about the children! So too is adoption. Gay “marriage”, on the other hand, is all about the desires of the partners in the relationship – and in the case of adoption, specifically deprives children of both a mother and a father. How selfish is that?
And secularly, your definition of what marriage is, is essentially wrong for better or worse. Secularly marriage is recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and if they have any their children and their in-laws. Children can be involved of course, but that’s not the sole purpose secularly and has not been for some time.
L
Little_Sheep
Guest
I personally think it’s highly doubtful that schism will happen. What I suspect will happen is that the fuller Anglican communion will follow in TEC’s footsteps on this issue.What are the chances of there being a formal schism sometime in the future between the TEC and Anglican churches which influenced this outcome?
L
Little_Sheep
Guest
Thanks for your insight. I’ve had the same thoughts.Probably not as quickly. And doubtful it would have happened with the full assent of the entire communion given African and Asian opposition. More likely if it hadn’t happened the way it did, it would have been more a bilateral or multilateral thing between several members of the communion by now or at a future date would be my guess. But in that case I’d expect the likelihood of schism would have increased since it would have set up a far more formal us against them situation with the churches agreeing to the change in opposition to those that oppose it in GAFCON.
Frankly I think the way it occurred with the ECUSA (and presumably ACIC in the near future) acting on their own it allows the rest of the communion to slap them for the unilateral action rather than focusing the argument on the underlying doctrinal differences. And ultimately may have prevented a schism since they can focus on the action rather than the point disagreement.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Even the African churches?I personally think it’s highly doubtful that schism will happen. What I suspect will happen is that the fuller Anglican communion will follow in TEC’s footsteps on this issue.
L
Little_Sheep
Guest
Eventually, yes, even them.Even the African churches?
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Is this a personal opinion? Because from what I can see and understand is that the African church actually holds to a Sexual ethic which is Christian if the attitudes of their Bishops who attended the recent gathering indicate that. I pray you are wrong.Eventually, yes, even them.
L
Little_Sheep
Guest
Oh, absolutely a personal opinion.Is this a personal opinion? Because from what I can see and understand is that the African church actually holds to a Sexual ethic which is Christian if the attitudes of their Bishops who attended the recent gathering indicate that. I pray you are wrong.
Many African churches have a sexual ethic that embraces practices (polygamy, for one) that the broader Anglican Church does not accept. Possibly, polygamy is Christian in your view - certainly, it’s Biblical.
In any event. I may well be wrong, of course. But, if I had to put money on it, I’d still say that the broader Anglican communion will open its eyes to TEC’s stance on homosexuality. I think that most other Christian denominations will come around to our way of seeing this issue as well. It won’t happen overnight, of course, but it also won’t take centuries to happen.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Define Many. Has there been a census taken of such beliefs amongst the African Churches as to the status of Polygamy? I imagine on a local level it is a problem in Africa though I confess ignorance on this.Oh, absolutely a personal opinion.
Many African churches have a sexual ethic that embraces practices (polygamy, for one) that the broader Anglican Church does not accept. Possibly, polygamy is Christian in your view - certainly, it’s Biblical.
In any event. I may well be wrong, of course. But, if I had to put money on it, I’d still say that the broader Anglican communion will open its eyes to TEC’s stance on homosexuality. I think that most other Christian denominations will come around to our way of seeing this issue as well. It won’t happen overnight, of course, but it also won’t take centuries to happen.
On a deeper note however, what do you think should happen to the Christians in your communion who do not accept at all the legitimacy of Homosexual unions? Should they continue to stay Anglican? Or perhaps find another Church?
L
Little_Sheep
Guest
I don’t have any links at my fingertips, but the generally accepted number from internet research on my part (for Africans of all Christian faiths) and from talking to people more knowledgeable of this subject is this: 25% of the African congregations are involved in plural marriages. In the Anglican tradition, such families are admonished to NOT take any new wives after they have converted. But still - there they remain in full force. Polygamous marriage is socially and culturally accepted (even revered) by Afrikans of all stripes.Define Many. Has there been a census taken of such beliefs amongst the African Churches as to the status of Polygamy? I imagine on a local level it is a problem in Africa though I confess ignorance on this.
On a deeper note however, what do you think should happen to the Christians in your communion who do not accept at all the legitimacy of Homosexual unions? Should they continue to stay Anglican? Or perhaps find another Church?
IP, In my Church, there are more than a few followers who I love with all of my heart who struggle with acceptance of homosexual unions. Clearly, I don’t struggle with that and neither do most people in my wider church denomination, but I make absolutely NO judgment of their confusion. It is valid confusion and I respect it.
I hope those people never leave us because, for me, it is a tiny difference. We all put too much emphasis on it, imho, and I do understand why we do this. TEC is about so much more than sex. Christ is about so much more than sex. I adore all my fellow Christians even when we don’t see eye to eye on doctrinal issues. I want us all to be about the work of bringing God’s kingdom into our midst.
C
commenter
Guest
Marriage was a defined heterosexual institution long before any of the governments we have. It’s not a “church initiative” like going to services on Sunday, it was there before the churches, and the churches, and atheists, and others, upheld it. It’s not like a “religious” type preference, as compared to a “secular” alternative. Governments, and the TEC, do not have the authority to invent something else, and call it “marriage”.Thing was, the suspension was more for the unilateral action than for the canon change behind the action at least according to the Archbishop of Canterbury. They’re not really punishing the ECUSA for the doctrinal difference.
And secularly, your definition of what marriage is, is essentially wrong for better or worse. Secularly marriage is recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and if they have any their children and their in-laws. Children can be involved of course, but that’s not the sole purpose secularly and has not been for some time.
If the government legalized child abuse next week, and the Catholic Church opposed it, would you say opposing child abuse is just a “religious” option, compared to an equally valid, sanctioned “secular” option, that it is ok to abuse children?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.