From here:
The Archbishop of Canterbury today expressed deep concern about the stress for the Anglican Communion following the US Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops’ resolution to change the definition of marriage in the canons so that any reference to marriage as between a man and a woman is removed.
While recognising the prerogative of The Episcopal Church to address issues appropriate to its own context, Archbishop Justin Welby said that its decision will cause distress for some and have ramifications for the Anglican Communion as a whole, as well as for its ecumenical and interfaith relationships.
Other than the fact that I am still waiting with considerable anticipation for an archbishop to voice a shallow concern, what I find most interesting about this is that Welby’s worry is not so much whether it is Biblically sound to redefine marriage, but whether TEC’s decision will hasten the demise of the pallid but still twitching carcass belonging to what used to be the Anglican Communion.
In order to remain credible, and in the absence of any more potent stricture on TEC than deep concern from Canterbury, what choice will Provinces that take the Gospel seriously have but to further distance themselves from TEC – and Canterbury?
Incidentally, does anyone doubt that the Anglican Church of Canada will follow in TEC’s footsteps? Anyone?
Very interesting comments from you David and also from the Arch. The Arch’s comments always seem hand wringing, fretful and bemused – as if this was all an unpleasant surprise!
Yes, I will still be doubting that until it actually happens. Love hopes all things.
It would save Canterbury years of committee meetings and tea parties if they would just move the definition to its logical but inclusive conclusion:
Marriage is the non-judgemental union of one or more sentient beings and/or inanimate objects in which at least one of the parties is consensual. To avoid the unpleasant stigma of divorce, marriages may be renewed on an annual basis by any of the parties. If the union dissolved, instead of being divorced, they will simply be unrenewed.
Of course there is Scripture to back this up:
As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
Marriage was instituted by God as a life long commitment of a male and female reinforced by Jesus and Paul .Since God instituted it only He can change the rules. And it is also time that the church deals with divorce ,for as it says in scripture “I hate divorce” Your solution a very good example that your thinking is in lock step with the world but polar opposite to scripture “Do not be conformed to this world,but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect”
I was writing satirically Tony. I’m sorry that that was not clear to you.
I am sorry that I never picked up on your satire but unfortunately I have come across people who would be in full agreement in what you have said.
Thank you Tony — it doesnt take a prophet to see which way the wind is blowing…
Tut tut! But there will always be an England…………………
Yup: The Islamic Republic of………
Britain becomes Britainistan
Canada becomes Canadistan
And the USA become Infidelistan
And its an ill wind that blows no good!
I bloody well hope the ACC follows suit. I wish the Anglican Communion and the CofE well, but, you know, buh-bye.
You now fall “corrected” – on the basis of the sermon delivered on Sunday, June 7, 2015 – from Galilee.
I can’t parse this. Apologies. 🙁
Your claim to have listened to the sermon of ‘The Peoples’ Church’ (Toronto), delivered by Mrs. Hillary Price, Sunday, June 14 (not 7th, sorry), 2015, whose message offers us each with but two options as pertains to permitting Biblically defined sin to infect our lives, or to infect by false doctrine, The Body of Jesus Christ, His Church:
for the unrepentant, “Ichabod” + Ezekiel 8;
for repentant, “Peace be unto you” + John 20.
“I stand corrected”, you averred, after having claimed to have listened to that sermon; yet, here you opt for what is wholly sinful because wholly contrary to Jesus’ Teaching in His Infallible Holy WORD.
Thereby, you now “fall” corrected; as does the false Priest who is misleading you into eternal perdition.
Have another listen to that sermon -while there is time, for all who persist in their sins Jesus warns + John 8:21,
“I go My way, and ye shall seek Me,
and shall die in your sins:
whither I go, ye cannot come.”
Oh, this is delightful. See, there’s a reason I use smilies on this board: some posters seem incapable of getting irony.
No no no, I did not listen to that sermon, nor did I claim to have done so.
What happened in that exchange was this: you were playing quotations ping pong with someone else and getting nowhere fast. I remarked on the fact that this seemed like a less than productive method of communication. You countered with rather a long block of gobbledygook that made my eyes water. I answered “I stand corrected”. Hint: I meant the exact opposite (i.e. “I think you just proved my point”).
I’m sure that Abigail is a nice lady but her writing style is so unorthodox that I would guess that most do not understand her comments.
Actually my good people…………the CoE in all its many permutations………..is moribund.
No one really cares anymore because we are all so far away from the levers of power.
It is seen as a nice piece of antiquity from all and sundry. Sigh. Its impact on ‘the people’ is so little. Its attraction to any one who might be looking for a ‘church home’ has gone wanting.
And I am going to retire to Bedlam.