L
Little_Sheep
Guest
Smear? That’s fascinating. Moral high ground…adorable!
Episcopal Church Won't Stop Supporting Gay Marriage Despite Anglican Suspension, Says Bishop
- Status
T
theropod
Guest
Well, thankfully you don’t frequent some of the forums I do. There are some angry Piskies out there.
L
Little_Sheep
Guest
It’s so much better to frequent actual churches and not “forums.”
T
theropod
Guest
I know, I know. Morality is relative, so a “moral high ground” is soooo quaint.
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
Excuse me, but - correct me if I’m wrong - it seems polygamy is treated in a fairly heavy-handed manner even by the Anglicans. Whereas TEC has accepted same-sex marriages wholesale.
What makes you think the African bishops of the Anglican Communion are going to accept SSM in the same way, when they don’t even accept polygamy wholesale?
Also TEC is vastly outnumbered. The ACoSA alone is double the number of communicants in TEC - never mind the many autonomous churches such as the Church of Uganda (6x the size), or the Church of Tanzania (1,000,000 members bigger). Why should the African Churches respect the opinions of such a small, contrarian group?
I would, half-seriously, like to know. It’d help me understand how the Anglican Communion compromised on abortion and contraception among other things.
What makes you think the African bishops of the Anglican Communion are going to accept SSM in the same way, when they don’t even accept polygamy wholesale?
Also TEC is vastly outnumbered. The ACoSA alone is double the number of communicants in TEC - never mind the many autonomous churches such as the Church of Uganda (6x the size), or the Church of Tanzania (1,000,000 members bigger). Why should the African Churches respect the opinions of such a small, contrarian group?
I would, half-seriously, like to know. It’d help me understand how the Anglican Communion compromised on abortion and contraception among other things.
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
One factor - and not the only one, by any means - is money. Who do you think funds much of the African churches?
G
GKC
Guest
Wondered if that would come up.
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
It’s a piece of the picture. I know people in the National Church who want to leave it out of the equation for now, but we all know the millions of dollars in aid going to Africa.
I think if there is a way to fund projects within Dioceses rather than the administrations, it would go easier on this end. Handing money to Bishops who are angry at TEC does NOT go down easy.
We’ll see.
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
Very pragmatic. Can’t wait for the day the Gates dynasty buys you guys out.
But seriously, what makes pro-gay marriage supporters think they are “on the right side of history”? It’s obviously not got a stunning historical or cultural track record (which the Africans could boast regarding polygamy, if they wanted to embrace it). It’s actually probably the one novelty of our times. Not homosexuality as such, but institutionalising a gay relationship as monogamous or anything the like.
Tell me more about why you think TEC will win out, though, in the long run.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
What’s the Gates dynasty?
C
commenter
Guest
Not sure, but I don’t think he is referring to the Pearly Gates.
G
GKC
Guest
Or perhaps Mammon loses in the arm wrestle. Check book. Prayer Book. Tossup.
Maybe.
B
Brendan
Guest
The clergy certainly do not look the other way, and neither do most in the pews
They are still free to marry, and quite a few do. One of the teachers in one of the schools that I worked at was in this situation. Her ‘brother’ as she referrers to him, funded her education to become a teacher. She is now married and has a fine son (toddler).
That is not uncommon. It is only the richer men who can afford multiple wives. No woman would enter into a marriage as a second wife if it meant a life of starvation and poverty. And very few parents would let them, they would be of more use living at home at the very least.
The richer men ( and remember that they are now Christian) are the ones financially capable and motivated to ensure that their ‘sisters’ can support themselves in an appropriate way.
Not only would doing so be the Christian thing to do, but it speaks well of their character to do so.
Think on the Gospel story of the Rich Young Man. The men in this case are told that to follow Christ, they must give up their other wives. And, unlike the Rich Young Man, they chose to do so. They tend to be more committed to the Faith than most others, as they had to give up a lot of their previous lifestyle to do so, when they could have easily remained pagan.
My work is in rural Tanzania, and there was very little polygamy, as there was much poverty. The traditional religion men still aspire to it though, like any other sign of wealth.
The only one I’ve met who actually DID have multiple wives was a Professor at the University of Dodoma. He was a Muslim.
C
commenter
Guest
The TEC likely will find ways to directly support missionaries, or mission projects that in philosophy or practice won’t explicitly go against the local bishop, but will be more compatible with TEC’s beliefs. If Africa can offer episcopal oversight to churches in the US, then the US or Canada churches may expand their funded projects or chapels into de facto parishes in Africa; or even kind of diocese.
The bigger issue is that, I believe, most African bishops and older clergy and laity were evangelized or spiritually formed prior to the expansion of mass media to much of the population of Africa, and other parts of the Global South. That is part of the reason they are as strong as they are; they have to deal with Islam pulling people out of Christianity, but have not - yet - been as exposed to the media seeking to redefine Christianity.
However, over the next 20 years, they will have to deal with more adults, including clergy, who will have been more molded by media telling them “You can still be a Christian, and believe X, Y, and Z”. There will be more internal pressure from their flocks to modify certain doctrines.
People may say they have to compromise on certain beliefs or else people will join that new chapel, funded by the USA but with local staff.
E
Erich
Guest
From someone else’s post, on a different thread:
From the second link:
To the contrary, no one has ever argued that same-sex marriages are “unheard of.” **Rather, it has been argued only that the world’s major civilizations, and most of its minor ones, have not conferred upon same-sex unions the status of marriage as that has been understood in each of those civilizations. **
P
Padres1969
Guest
Never said it was prevalent thing in the ancient world. Just that it’s not a new concept. And frankly for an institution that has been continually defined and redefined both secular and religiously by civilizations through history that’s hardly unexpected.
E
Erich
Guest
You mentioned Rome. Roman law did not recognize marriage between me.
From this link (emphases mine):
The word matrimonium, the root for the English word “matrimony,” defines the institution’s main function. Involving the mater (mother), it carries with it the implication of the man taking a woman in marriage to have children. It is the idea conventionally shared by Romans as to the purpose of marriage, which would be to produce legitimate children; citizens producing new citizens.
As I said earlier in this thread, marriage is all about the children.
Not the selfish desires of the adults.
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
I meant, of course, the Gates family. As in, Bill and Melinda Gates - Bill being the richest man in the world.
I do, of course, mean it ironically.
Apply this logic to, say, suicide. The vast majority of societies and cultures in human history have, rightly, despised it. But there are a few cultural events across the globe and history - such as the Cathars, the love suicides of Japan - where suicide is seen as a good thing.
Of course, the same could be said of anything once new under the sun, so I’m not saying it is definitive. But there* is some* common sense in saying, “If anyone since the beginning has ever thought of this before, obviously they were a minority all this time. Therefore, it is probably not a good idea. At very least don’t let it spread like wildfire.”
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
Apply this logic to, say, suicide. The vast majority of societies and cultures in human history have, rightly, despised it. But there are a few cultural events across the globe and history - such as the Cathars, the love suicides of Japan - where suicide is seen as a good thing.
Of course, the same could be said of anything once new under the sun, so I’m not saying it is definitive. But there* is some* common sense in saying, “If anyone since the beginning has ever thought of this before, obviously they were a minority all this time. Therefore, it is probably not a good idea. At very least don’t let it spread like wildfire.”
L
Little_Sheep
Guest
Many people who get married do have the idea of raising a family in mind. That choice is more commonplace than not, I believe, though of course it has never been a requirement for marriage that the couple intend to raise children.
I feel like the Supreme Court, in Oberegefell, certainly recognized that children could be an important part of marriage and that children needed to be protected by the outcome of the Judges’s decision. That is just one of the reasons they penned an opinion which would make marriage available to same sex couples who are raising children.
In some ways, marriage is also about the self-interest of two adults. The Bible seems to be clear that it is not healthy for human beings to be alone. Having a committed life partner (whether or not kids are in the cards for the two) is one of the greatest gifts in the world. I would not call the desire to have that gift selfish in a pejorative sense. I would call it human.
- Status