Catch the latest breaking news stories and current events from around the world.

Church of England rejects Gay Marriage

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Church of England rejects Gay Marriage

    It seems the rift between the Anglican and Episcopalian churches won't be healed any time soon. The Church of England Synod rejected changes to its stance on gay marriage. I do find myself somewhat concerned by the claims by LGBT campaigners that gay bishops are betraying them. If a bishop isn't married, they should be celebate, so their sexuality is irrelevent. Also a bishop's first loyalty should be to God and the Bible, not his own self-interests, so again their sexuality is irrelevant.
    The bishops of the Church of England have sided with its conservative wing in refusing to offer any change in the teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman.

  • #2
    Originally posted by ChatterBox View Post
    It seems the rift between the Anglican and Episcopalian churches won't be healed any time soon. The Church of England Synod rejected changes to its stance on gay marriage. I do find myself somewhat concerned by the claims by LGBT campaigners that gay bishops are betraying them. If a bishop isn't married, they should be celebate, so their sexuality is irrelevant. Also a bishop's first loyalty should be to God and the Bible, not his own self-interests, so again their sexuality is irrelevant.
    Then why are they still identifying themselves as a homosexual? Jesus said that one is guilty of adultery if he looks upon another woman with lust, is not a homosexual guilty of sodomy if he looks at a man or young boy with lust?

    If he no longer lusts and is sexually inactive then why identify as a homosexual?

    IMO, the Episcopal church is apostate. Distance yourself from them.

    God bless,
    William
    Comment>

    • #3
      Originally posted by William View Post
      Then why are they still identifying themselves as a homosexual? Jesus said that one is guilty of adultery if he looks upon another woman with lust, is not a homosexual guilty of sodomy if he looks at a young boy with lust?

      If he no longer lusts and is sexually inactive then why identify as a homosexual?
      Many of these bishops don't identify as gay. The LGBT campaigners identify them as gay.

      The C of E does allow bishops who are in civil unions, but only if they are "sexually abstinant" a.k.a celebate, again making their sexuality irrelevant in the matter of gay marriage.
      Comment>

      • #4
        Originally posted by ChatterBox View Post
        Many of these bishops don't identify as gay. The LGBT campaigners identify them as gay.

        The C of E does allow bishops who are in civil unions, but only if they are "sexually abstinant" a.k.a celebate, again making their sexuality irrelevant in the matter of gay marriage.
        You didn't answer my question, though, dear Chatterbox. Are they still attracted to the same sex? I realize not everybody will agree with me, but the qualifications for overseer are spelled out in 1 Timothy 3. I would object to having a homosexual overseer, that is, one that has the desire or attraction to the same sex regardless if they refrain from activity. Again Jesus said that a man that lusts after another woman is guilty of having committed adultery. Do sodomites have some special privilege?

        3 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer[a] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,[b] sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
        Now tell me how a single male or a homosexual qualifies biblically?

        God bless,
        William
        Comment>

        • #5
          Originally posted by William View Post
          You didn't answer my question, though, dear Chatterbox. Are they still attracted to the same sex?
          I can't read minds, so I don't know. However I will point out that it is very easy for someone with an agenda to point fingers at an unmarried celebate churchman and say they are gay, and very hard for the churchman to say they are not and be believed.

          The idea that someone would "give up lust" in this era is completely alien to many people, so obviously 'if he's not married he must be gay...' I've heard that idea expressed about too many churchman, even our local vicar who when he eventually married (a dreadful shock to the local campaigners) then had to face cries that he was using his wife as a cover. Anyone who knew them knew that was rubbish.
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by ChatterBox View Post
            I can't read minds, so I don't know. However I will point out that it is very easy for someone with an agenda to point fingers at an unmarried celebate churchman and say they are gay, and very hard for the churchman to say they are not and be believed.

            The idea that someone would "give up lust" in this era is completely alien to many people, so obviously 'if he's not married he must be gay...' I've heard that idea expressed about too many churchman, even our local vicar who when he eventually married (a dreadful shock to the local campaigners) then had to face cries that he was using his wife as a cover. Anyone who knew them knew that was rubbish.
            I suggest you read what I posted, 1 Timothy 3 doesn't have a provision for single males or celibate homosexuals, it does say that an overseer must be above reproach, and further qualifies. I see no place for single males either, especially homosexual single males (as though there is any other such thing) because Scripture rejects any marriage outside of a man-woman union). I am divorced and remarried, therefore, I do not qualify, but you're suggesting that a homosexual does?

            Seems to me that the whole ordeal could have been avoided if the biblical outline for overseer was followed.

            Now to address some objections before they begin:
            Peter’s Wife - All the Women of the Bible - Bible Gateway
            Was the apostle Paul married?

            God bless,
            William
            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by William View Post
              Now to address some objections before they begin:
              ... now where's the fun in that! I object to addressing unraised objections on general principle. :)

              Comment>

              • #8
                Originally posted by William View Post
                I suggest you read what I posted, 1 Timothy 3 doesn't have a provision for single males or celibate homosexuals, it does say that an overseer must be above reproach, and further qualifies. I see no place for single males either, especially homosexual single males (as though there is any other such thing) because Scripture rejects any marriage outside of a man-woman union). I am divorced and remarried, therefore, I do not qualify, but you're suggesting that a homosexual does?

                Seems to me that the whole ordeal could have been avoided if the biblical outline for overseer was followed.

                Now to address some objections before they begin:
                Peter’s Wife - All the Women of the Bible - Bible Gateway
                Was the apostle Paul married?

                God bless,
                William
                And as I pointed out in my post, with a specific example, married churchmen have been subject to these claims. Being married does not prevent false or unsubstantiated accusations, it simply means the wife is accused of being "in on it".

                You appear to also be assuming that every claim of homosexuality by the campaigners is valid and correct? As I also said, many of the priests deny these claims completely. Unfortunately a lot of people assume that where there is smoke there must be fire, not someone with an agenda leaping up and down and shouting "fire".

                Regarding unmarried churchmen, Martin Luther's reformation occurred roughly 500 years after the church formally decreed celebacy, sold the wives of its clergy into slavery and decreed children born to them were illegitimate and slaves (1089), and 1,000 years after the first uncentralised occurances of this(589 A.D - 655 A.D.). Is it really surprising that after another 500 years the church hasn't finished moving back? I'm not kidding about the CofE being conservative, in the sense that it really dislikes change.
                Comment>

                • #9
                  Originally posted by William View Post

                  Then why are they still identifying themselves as a homosexual? Jesus said that one is guilty of adultery if he looks upon another woman with lust, is not a homosexual guilty of sodomy if he looks at a man or young boy with lust?

                  If he no longer lusts and is sexually inactive then why identify as a homosexual?

                  IMO, the Episcopal church is apostate. Distance yourself from them.

                  God bless,
                  William
                  I understand what you are saying, William, and I agree.

                  I also agree about the Episcopal church. It has gone off the rails, and I don't think it bears the marks of a true church any longer.



                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ChatterBox View Post
                    Regarding unmarried churchmen, Martin Luther's reformation occurred roughly 500 years after the church formally decreed celebacy, sold the wives of its clergy into slavery and decreed children born to them were illegitimate and slaves (1089), and 1,000 years after the first uncentralised occurances of this(589 A.D - 655 A.D.). Is it really surprising that after another 500 years the church hasn't finished moving back? I'm not kidding about the CofE being conservative, in the sense that it really dislikes change.
                    Where does the Bible require ministers in Christ's church to be celibate? It doesn't, but rather teaches the opposite (1 Tim. 3:2-5,12, see 1 Cor. 9:5).

                    I wouldn't consider your definition of Conservatism correct. Isn't there another word that better describes the body or individual that holds others to their own standard outside of Scriptural orthodoxy? Lemme be kind by suggesting "Traditionalist".

                    God bless,
                    William
                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      Just out of curiosity, while I do not view celibacy as a requirement, I was wondering if you would reject the Apostle Paul as unqualified to hold a position of authority in the church (and if so, does that bother you)?
                      Comment>

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by atpollard View Post
                        Just out of curiosity, while I do not view celibacy as a requirement, I was wondering if you would reject the Apostle Paul as unqualified to hold a position of authority in the church (and if so, does that bother you)?
                        To begin, the office of Apostle was not brought into question. You realize the Apostle Paul may of have been married or may of have not been married, and could have been a widower? There is no specific mention, however, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, this is a matter of not modeling ourselves after his life (Apostolic Succession), but rather what the Holy Spirit writ. The qualification for Overseer was made - a set of qualifications greater than what is expected from Deacons and Church members.

                        Take for example what Chatterbox wrote (an overseer married). I have heard of entire congregations falling apart because of incidents such as these, because other women were found wanting, hurt, and even jealous when an overseer picked one woman over another. Not to mention there is an issue with whether the Overseer should even court amongst his congregation or outside. An Overseer's qualification also includes children, further problems are the result from congregants that have an issue listening to a celibate man with no family experience whatsoever on matters pertaining to child rearing.

                        I am not suggesting anything the Scripture does not explicitly state. If 1 Timothy's 3 principle is sexual purity, and a celibate life is the epitome of an overseer's life than what is the desire for marriage?

                        God bless,
                        William
                        Comment>

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by William View Post
                          To begin, the office of Apostle was not brought into question. You realize the Apostle Paul may of have been married or may of have not been married, and could have been a widower? There is no specific mention, however, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, this is a matter of not modeling ourselves after his life (Apostolic Succession), but rather what the Holy Spirit writ. The qualification for Overseer was made - a set of qualifications greater than what is expected from Deacons and Church members.

                          Take for example what Chatterbox wrote (an overseer married). I have heard of entire congregations falling apart because of incidents such as these, because other women were found wanting, hurt, and even jealous when an overseer picked one woman over another. Not to mention there is an issue with whether the Overseer should even court amongst his congregation or outside. An Overseer's qualification also includes children, further problems are the result from congregants that have an issue listening to a celibate man with no family experience whatsoever on matters pertaining to child rearing.

                          I am not suggesting anything the Scripture does not explicitly state. If 1 Timothy's 3 principle is sexual purity, and a celibate life is the epitome of an overseer's life than what is the desire for marriage?

                          God bless,
                          William
                          Haste makes waste, and in my case, I was too pressed for time to properly communicate my point and question.

                          First, my point had nothing to do with the office of Apostle but was focusing on one specific individual ... who just happens to have be widely known in the modern era as "the Apostle Paul". So the reference was just to clearly identify the specific individual that I had in mind.

                          1 Corinthians 7 was written by Paul on the subject of Marriage and Celibacy. While Paul may or may not have been married at one time, there was clearly a period (the writing of his letter to the church at Corinth) when he was both unmaried and celibate and urging others to live likewise to be of greater service to God.

                          1 Corinthians 7:32-35 [NIV]
                          I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.


                          So I acknowledge the criteria for an Elder or Overseer from Scripture (which is not dissimilar to the qualifications for a deacon). My observation, point and question is that a strict reading of those requirements disqualify from service within the offices of the church the very people who would obey Paul's call to serve God with less distraction in 1 Corinthians 7. Indeed, the person named Paul, whom God found adequate to the task of training Timothy and writing the guidelines we are embracing would not, by our strict reading of his letter, be qualified to serve as a Deacon or Elder in a modern church.

                          Are you comfortable with an interpretation of scripture that makes the special dedication of one part of scripture a disqualification for service in another part of scripture?
                          Are you comfortable with the thought that Paul could be trusted to train Timothy, bring the gospel to the gentiles, correct errors in churches and write most of the New Testament, but cannot be trusted to fulfill the role of Deacon?

                          1 Timothy 3:12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well. ... Would exclude an unmarried Deacon as well.

                          I guess the question boils down to how can one reconcile 1 Timothy 3 and 1 Corinthians 7 to understand how an unmarried individual may serve God and the Church?
                          One suggests greater opportunity while the other suggests less opportunity.



                          Comment>

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by atpollard View Post
                            My observation, point and question is that a strict reading of those requirements disqualify from service within the offices of the church the very people who would obey Paul's call to serve God with less distraction in 1 Corinthians 7. Indeed, the person named Paul, whom God found adequate to the task of training Timothy and writing the guidelines we are embracing would not, by our strict reading of his letter, be qualified to serve as a Deacon or Elder in a modern church.

                            Are you comfortable with an interpretation of scripture that makes the special dedication of one part of scripture a disqualification for service in another part of scripture?

                            Are you comfortable with the thought that Paul could be trusted to train Timothy, bring the gospel to the gentiles, correct errors in churches and write most of the New Testament, but cannot be trusted to fulfill the role of Deacon?
                            Cannot be trusted? Lets just say that I hope I would take the position of the Bereans in Acts 17, and qualify anyone including the Apostle according to Scripture. Yes, even Paul should be held accountable to them. Fact:
                            • Apostle Paul was not an elder: nowhere in the Bible is Paul referred to as an elder. Paul wasn't married: 1 Cor 7:7, therefore was not even qualified: 1 Ti 3:2,4,5.
                            • Peter on the other hand, was both a full-time preacher and an elder. 1 Peter 5:1 "I [Peter] ... your "FELLOW elder.

                            I think what you are putting forth on these matters are "hypothetical" arguments shared by those from the liberal camp. The author made a strict mention outlining the qualifications. So your statement and seemingly "strict" mention to me comes as whether the biblical qualifications should be followed?

                            I reject anyone from the office of overseer that does not qualify. And Yes, I reject the liberal interpretation of Scripture (which clears out churches and probably forums). Matter of fact, I just walked past an Episcopalian church ran by a female pastor. The church has a rainbow promoting homosexuality on the sign for the church, and another sign on the opposite corner saying Illegal Immigrants welcome with a picture attempting to convey Mary and Joseph as such.

                            God bless,
                            William
                            Comment>

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by William View Post
                              Peter on the other hand, was both a full-time preacher and an elder. 1 Peter 5:1 "I [Peter] ... your "FELLOW elder.
                              Did Peter have children?

                              1 Timothy 3:1-7 (Qualifications for an Elder)
                              1 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.


                              I, too want to be like the Bereans, but I want to avoid becoming like the Pharisee while doing it. :)
                              So I sincerely question whether the intent of this scripture is to present a checklist that an 'overseer' must:
                              1. have a wife
                              2. have children
                              If he only has one child, would that fail to meet the qualifications for elder?
                              If his children die, should he be required to step down as elder?

                              Or is 1 Timothy 3:5 more of a summary of the point about the wife and children.
                              Not that an overseer MUST have a wife and children, but that an overseer must not have his own house in disorder.

                              I am not seeking to cheat or ignore the word, I am attempting to correctly divide it. I wish to take from scripture the lesson Paul and the Holy Spirit intended to convey. Not to subtract from it, but also, not to add to it.

                              God Bless,
                              Arthur
                              Comment>
                              Working...
                              X
                              Articles - News - SiteMap