Good one, vicar.

[Rhiannon]

Nice move from the House of Clergy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38989304

[floo]

Not a good move at all!

[Rhiannon]

Why? They rejected the report that supports the status quote and told the House of Bishops to come back with something better. The original report caused huge hurt. The bishops don't get away with not considering the views of the LGBT+ Anglican community this time. I'm not expecting miracles but this is a clear signal from the front line clergy that they want to be able to minister more effectively. My guess is that this will lead to clergy being able to offer blessings to couples in same sex marriages as they currently can do for divorcees remarrying.

[Anchorman]

I very much doubt that the bishops CAN come up with a differing report. They might soften the language a bit, but if the same theologians are on the panel, the conclusion cannot be different if they wish to continue in communion with the Anglican Church worldwide (and the Christian Church in general).

[Rhiannon]

No, but I think schism is inevitable. About bloody time too. Should have happened twenty years ago.

This was why I lost my vocation and my belief in the church long before I lost my faith. Justice and compassion matter far more than the Anglican Communion.

[Nearly Sane]

Not a good move at all!

I think you have misunderstood what happened. The House of Clergy stopped the report being approved.

[Anchorman]

I'm afraid that, were a schism to occur, Rhi, I'd side firmly with the evangelicals. Whilst I in no way condemn secular gay marriage, any reading of the New Testament brings me to the inescapable conclusion, that, for the Christian, the only acceptable marriage is man and woman.

[Rhiannon]

And you are entitled to that opinion and schism will allow you to maintain it. It is indefensible that the Anglican Church currently does not offer the same freedom of belief to those who support gay marriage.

[Anchorman]

Schism is not the answer, though. The sad fragmentation of the Church of Scotland shows that to anyone who cares to look. At the last count, there were twelve presbyterian denominations here - eight of them splits of sub-splits of the Free Church, itself a split from the CofS. Such fragments become atrophied and insular, and need a real kick to change the most minute aspect of their make up......for instance, it took the Free Church over 120 years to allow musical instruments in the church if the Kirk Session consented.....this resulted in yet another mini-schism. Once a denomination picks up the habit of Schism, the momentum is unstoppable. The actual numbers attending may not change (actually, in the case of the Free Church, they are increasing and new churches are being planted), but the voice of the church is fractured.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And you are entitled to that opinion and schism will allow you to maintain it. It is indefensible that the Anglican Church currently does not offer the same freedom of belief to those who support gay marriage.

If there are denominations who do allow their clergy to marry they should join them rather than present antichristians with wankfodder.

[Rhiannon]

The Church's voice at present is seen by many to be unjust and lacking compassion - few outside of it take it seriously because it voices opinions that are uncaring and unloving, making a mockery of its claim to serve a loving god. If it has to fragment in order to gain any kind of sympathetic hearing from the wider society I don't see why believers would see that to be a bad thing.

[Rhiannon]

If there are denominations who do allow their clergy to marry they should join them rather than present antichristians with wankfodder.

Why should an Anglican have to pretend to be a Quaker or a Unitarian in order to marry?

[Anchorman]

The Church's voice at present is seen by many to be unjust and lacking compassion - few outside of it take it seriously because it voices opinions that are uncaring and unloving, making a mockery of its claim to serve a loving god. If it has to fragment in order to gain any kind of sympathetic hearing from the wider society I don't see why believers would see that to be a bad thing.

Yet the primary purpose of a congregation is to gather those who accept discipleship and spread the Gospel, both in service and by word. To spread a Gospel which is not in agreement with the New Testament (and therefore the New Covenant sealed by Christ) would not be serving God. [/quote]

[Rhiannon]

Others interpret the Gospel differently. I did as a believer. If things had gone differently and I'd been ordained I'd be defrocked by now for blessing gay unions anyway.

[floo]

Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick when listening to the news this morning. Of course I am in favour of gay marriage.

[Rhiannon]

The rejected report was one against it. Hopefully this will pave the way for a change in attitude within the church. Of course the likely outcome will be compromise and fudge, it always is with the Anglican church, but it's a hopeful sign.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Church's voice at present is seen by many to be unjust and lacking compassion - few outside of it take it seriously because it voices opinions that are uncaring and unloving, making a mockery of its claim to serve a loving god. If it has to fragment in order to gain any kind of sympathetic hearing from the wider society I don't see why believers would see that to be a bad thing.

Wider society cannot lecture anyone on care or loving and is completely incapable of a sympathetic hearing.

The trouble is that a church can be used as a useful bulwark against a loving God.

The chief gift of Protestantism is the reminder that we can come to Christ and that we can open the door to him without the middlemen.

same sex marriage is a recent development with all sorts using and abusing it.

Its potential for linguistic mischief making is immense as is it's potential for secular humanism to try to sink it's old enemy in a bit of thought fascism.

The equality argument is blown as long as heterosexuals cannot have civil partnership.

[Rhiannon]

I'm in favour of straight civil partnerships, in fact you can have them on the Isle of man, they are popular with English couples.

Isn't the church supposed to be *exactly* the body that lectures the rest of us on love and compassion? Yet it seeks to deny the full expression of love to some of its members while others are free to enjoy it to the full. If there is a god of love it must be making him weep.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm in favour of straight civil partnerships, in fact you can have them on the Isle of man, they are popular with English couples.

Isn't the church supposed to be *exactly* the body that lectures the rest of us on love and compassion? Yet it seeks to deny the full expression of love to some of its members while others are free to enjoy it to the full. If there is a god of love it must be making him weep.

Nobody forces people to become Anglican priests.
Since it is OK cos you can have a civil partnership in the IOM
then it must be OK cos you can become a married gay clergyman in another denomination.

[Aruntraveller]

The equality argument is blown as long as heterosexuals cannot have civil partnership.

Really -that's your argument, after the number of times we've been over this?

The only reason Civil Partnerships don't exist is because the government doesn't see it as useful to do (more pressing things to do like wreck the NHS and destroy the economy). Every voice that I have ever heard talk on this debate has said that CP's for heterosexuals should be made available. This is simply some kind of security blanket you go back to stroking when you have no form of valid argument.

[ProfessorDavey]

same sex marriage is a recent development with all sorts using and abusing it.

Evidence please of people abusing same sex marriage.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evidence please of people abusing same sex marriage.

Antitheists protesting at the policy of the C of E. In this case it is another weapon at hand.

Same sex marriage is not an historically cherished position.

[Aruntraveller]

Evidence please of people abusing same sex marriage.

Well there may be - but then there are people who abuse marriage period. So why gay people should be singled out for abusing the institution I don't know.

Two words: Britney.Spears.

or another two: Elizabeth. Taylor.

or ZsaZsa. Gabor. (Ok that may be 3)

[Rhiannon]

Nobody forces people to become Anglican priests.
Since it is OK cos you can have a civil partnership in the IOM
then it must be OK cos you can become a married gay clergyman in another denomination.

No, it really isn't ok. If you are an Anglican you are an Anglican. And it isn't just priests who face hate and discrimination - all done with the love of the Gospel of course. It is gay couples who wish to marry in church or at the very least have their unions blessed in the sight of God.

Effectively you are saying that the Anglican Church is right to force its children to be homeless or to have to find shelter elsewhere. How completely loving.
Th

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well there may be - but then there are people who abuse marriage period. So why gay people should be singled out for abusing the institution I don't know.

Two words: Britney.Spears.

or another two: Elizabeth. Taylor.

or ZsaZsa. Gabor. (Ok that may be 3)

I am not singling out gay people.....I am singling out antitheists who see this as a way to stick one on a church.....and that's it.