 |
| Source: Church in Wales |
"There can be no room for seeking to undermine sincerely held views. Neither should we seek to walk away from each other." - Church in Wales bench of bishops.
The hypocrisy of it.
Highlighted in Provincial News, top of the Agenda for the forthcoming meeting of the Governing Body of the Church in Wales from September 6-8 is a Bill to authorise a service of blessing for same-sex partnerships.
"Same-sex couples will be able to have their civil partnership or marriage blessed in Church in Wales churches for the first time if new legislation is passed next month (September)."
No doubt seeking their usual secular support an article has already appeared in BBC News.
The bishops have issued a set of ‘Pastoral Principles’ intended to 'guide people towards thoughtful and considerate discussions'.
Introducing them they say: “There can be no room for seeking to undermine sincerely held views. Neither should we seek to walk away from each other. Our union in Christ is at the heart of our life and the bonds and character of our baptism hold us together; sharing a commitment to each other as together we seek the Kingdom of God. We hope these materials will stimulate this quality of engagement.”
But that is precisely what they have done to faithful Anglicans who have not been swayed by secular desires. Undermined for years they have been ignored by the bench and left with no hope.
Clearly regarded as less worthy than same-sex couples desiring a blessing of their union, the bishops have walked away from traditionalist Anglicans who hold sincerely held views with no thought for their spiritual welfare.
One has to wonder if the bishops of the Church in Wales really do believe in the Kingdom of God.
Then there is no room for theological argument. Not a healthy place for a Church to be.
ReplyDeleteThe cards are marked, the 'right' dealers have shuffled them so does anyone want to bet on the outcome?
ReplyDeleteIt is not a 'flowers on the altar' issue regarding marriage, but something much more profound. Marriage is a pillar of society, for the bearing of children in a family of man and woman. The Church MUST NOT introduce same sex blessings and gay marriage contrary to God's will.
ReplyDeleteLW
There's a confusion about this proposal, and one which has been evident before now - it's identical to that inherent in offering a 'service of blassing' to divorced people whose remarriage the church decined to solemnize in the normal way.
ReplyDeleteThe Church has long taught - in the west at least; perhaps Matthew can say if the emphasis in the east is differently nuanced - ihat the 'essence' of marriage is that the couple marry one another by exchanging their vows. Put another way, in Christian marriage they themselves are 'the ministers of the sacrament'; not the officiating minister nor the Church. The Church's role, expressed by the presiding priest or bishop, is purely and solely to pronounce God's blessing on the particular marriage union. So you can't really say 'the vicar of X married us', or even 'the Church in Wales married us'. The teaching is that you married each other!
So if the Church's role in 'traditional' marriage is simply to 'bless' it, what exactly does it mean for it to be impossible to 'bless' a union in the long-established way, but for there to be a provision to bless it in some other way? Does blessing, like rail anf air travel, come in 'classes'?
I've been searching for an authoritative statement on the difference in understanding between Orthodoxy and the West, but can only offer a hazy memory of what I've read I know not where. As you point out, in the West the couple themselves are regarded as the ministers of the sacrament, the role of the priest being primarily that of a witness and secondarily as bestower of the Nuptial Blessing; in extreme circumstances a marriage contracted without the presence of a priest (and therefore of the Blessing) would, I think, be reckoned as valid (cp lay Baptism). In Orthodoxy, on the other hand, the couple are recipients rather than ministers of the sacrament, and the presence of a priest is regarded as essential.
DeleteI think I agree with that assessment. If you're right, there does seem to me to be a significant difference between east and west on this issue. But I'm not adequately clued up on this to really evaluate it.
DeleteBut as Anglicanism has historically associated itself with a western understanding of marriage, it seems to me that the point that I have raised still has validity, and needs to be examined.
As to our exchange on the other thread, I'm still chewing it over, and will respond when I've chewed some more!
Saw your letter in the Tablet, AB.
ReplyDeleteDom
#Dom: The only recent letter in the Tablet from an address in South Wales was from a retired clergyman who doesn't use the internet.
Deleteam I on a black list. Several recent comments not appeared.
ReplyDeleteCymraes yn Lloegr
No Cymraes yn Lloegr, there is no black list but you are not alone. Others have complained that their comments have not appeared. The reason is unclear but I have disabled captcha to see if it makes a difference. I will have to enable it again if junk mail piles up.
DeleteAB,it can be down to popup settings, you think you've published but your operating system has blocked the captcha and the comment is lost in the ether.
DeleteWhamab
The Letter in The Tablet a week earlier was from the Venerable Martin Williams, retired Archdeacon of Margam... AB? Nice one, Dom
ReplyDeleteHypocrisy? In the Church?
ReplyDeleteNo sh*t, Sherlock!
I agree with your post AB, many long held values have been and continue to be eroded by the state and for some reason, ie new age popularity, the CIW has been increasingly following the same outward tide against traditional values for some time. Our understanding from nature is that eventually every tide finds its low point and turns back to land, once more replenishing the life that thrives on the abundant incoming flow of waters. If today’s dangerous under-currents within the CIW continue then I fear the life giving waters will be lost forever and we will be left in a barren desert where only extinction of all can prevail. Sad times.
ReplyDeleteDolly
(ps, apologies no pseudonym on previous attempt)
I am somewhat confused, Ancient Briton. The write-up on next week's GB on the CiW website states that if GB members vote for the Bill next week, then services of blessing will be permissible. It used to be the case that a Bill had to go through three readings. Has this been changed? Do any of your more enlightened readers know if three readings is still the requirement?
ReplyDeleteWhat GB members need to realize is that the courts have never looked favourably on Christians claiming that they couldn't do something "in conscience". Just think of the baker in Northern Ireland, who did not wish to make a cake for a gay couple's wedding. Or the couple who ran a guest house in Devon, and in conscience, did not wish to rent a room to a gay couple. In each case, the judge ruled that if a group or an organization provided a "service", it had to provide that service to all without prejudice. By voting for this Bill and relying on the conscience clause, GB members could be assigning members of the clergy to a very difficult legal position. The gay lobby are never going to accept that Father X in the neighbouring parish will bless our partnership when Father Y will not. They will push until every cleric will be forced to capitulate; by the courts, if needs be. The House of Clergy, at least, need to take their courage in their hands and clip the bishops' wings. It is high time the GB told the bishops where to get off and to take their liberal ideas with them.
Seymour
Seymour, this is my understanding of the procedure from the Constitution but who knows in the Church in Wales where just about anything goes.
ReplyDelete"32.(1) If the bill is passed by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting of each of the three Orders, the President shall promulgate it as a canon of the
Church in Wales, and it shall thenceforth be a law of the Church in Wales and binding on all its Members.
(2) If a bill be rejected by two out of the three Orders, it shall not be introduced
again for a period of three years."
https://churchinwales.contentfiles.net/media/documents/CH02-en2062.pdf (page 15)