Bishop Gene 'banned'

Episcopal Cafe has a good story in its 'lead', that Bishop Gene Robinson has been denied permission by the Archbishop of Canterbury to preach while in this country during Lambeth. I've been following this for some time, as there was a story going round that Sir Ian McKellen, the gay actor, would take part in a service and 'preach' the sermon for Bishop Gene while he stood silently beside the pulpit. Sir Ian is understood to have expressed his sympathies for Bishop Gene in writing. Also, when my own husband interviewed him a while back for The Times Magazine, although these quotes didn't make it into the finished article because they weren't relevant, Sir Ian was clear in his outrage at the Anglican goings-on. When I spoke to Sir Ian about it a few days ago he was adamant that he wished to make no comment. And Sir Ian's office tells me he has no plans to do anything for Bishop Gene at present. In any case, whether he did or not would depend on Bishop Gene being banned from preaching in the first place. So has he or hasn't the bishop been banned? Will Bishop Gene and Sir Ian put on a 'double act' at St Mary's Putney, an event that would be a massive publicity coup for Inclusive Church and Bishop Gene's supporters? (Update: see Peter Carey's follow-up to this story.)

It does make me wonder whether the Archbishop of Canterbury has deliberately given them the opening they need to do just this. Because if Lambeth Palace hadn't denied him permission to preach, he could hardly make such a powerful protest against a non-existent injunction. But maybe that's a conspiracy theory too far.

Church House, Westminster were explicit on Canon Law when I checked last week.

To preside at the eucharist, a priest visiting the Church of England from another province needs permission from a diocesan or provincial. Merely to preach, permission is not needed. All that is needed is an invitation from the incumbent.

Bishop Gene, as he did last time he visited England, nevertheless wrote out of courtesy to Lambeth Palace to request permission to preach. Episcopal Cafe reports, and I understand this to be accurate, that he received an response back from an official advising that this would not be prudent. Apparently this was what the response was last time as well.

So the constant complaint we hear from Lambeth is that it has no authority to intervene in anything. Yet here it is, by effectively imposing a ban, accruing to itself authority that is in fact without the Church's own Canon Law. Still, as a journalist I am grateful. I hope Sir Ian comes on board and gives us the drama we've all been waiting for. Because with the schedule so far making it look like nothing more than one gigantic three-week prayer meeting, there's going to be precious little else to write about at Lambeth.

Comments

[A Renegade Priest]

Bishop Robinson is an elected (which is more than can be said for any CofE bishop) and consecrated bishop in good standing, and yet he is banned from exercising any of the functions of his orders in England. Why? because he is gay?; plenty of CofE priests are. Because of his civil partnership?; in which case there are multitudinous clergy in England who 'merit' similar censure, not least the Dean of St. Albans. Given the 'dont ask, dont tell' culture, I can only conclude that +Gene's real offence is not 'sodomy' or 'partnership' but honesty.

Oh dear. Ruth, I feel so sorry for Bishop Gene. At the end of the day, he is a human being, who hurts, bleeds and cries; yet he is treated alternately as a progressive's mascot, and a traditionalist's bete noir
Not only that, has anyone noticed, irrespective of theology, what an exceptionally nice and sensitive and gracious person he is. I pray for him every day. I think that those who attack him in personal, derogatory and vitriolic terms really need to repent, as do those liberals who vilify African Christianity as 'little better than witchcraft' (Spong).

Now, Ruth, I'm a simple soul, and I do not have all the answers, but what I know is that Jesus loves and died for (among others, i.e. everyone, I aint no calvinist) Gene Robinson, Peter Akinola, Katharine Schori, John-David Schofield, Rowan Williams and Peter Jensen. Now if he did that for them (and for us), then what is the very least we can do in return???

Maybe gather round his table together and share bread, wine, stories, experiences, joys, triumphs, rejections, sadnesses.

"Richer than gold is the love of my Lord, better than splendour and wealth"

For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

[st. anonymous]

"Will Bishop Gene and Sir Ian put on a 'double act' at St Mary's Putney, an event that would be a massive publicity coup for Inclusive Church and Bishop Gene's supporters?"

A publicity coup? Possibly, for the secular world. But while McKellen is a successful actor, he is also well known as an outspoken hard-line atheist who hates any form of organized religion. It is hard to see how his participation would endear Robinson to church traditionalists. It'd just be another case of "preaching to the choir".

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Gene Robinson has not been given to officiate in this country for a number of reasons.

He has allowed himself to become a champion for gay issues rather than a Christian minister, and rather than caring for his diocese he is already in the UK promoting his cause and selling his book. If he were a sensitive soul, one might have thought New Hampshire would be a more comfortable place.

His relationship with his male partner, about which he has spoken openly, is in direct contradiction both to biblical and Christian teaching about sexuality, and to the injunction in the New Testament that a bishop should be the husband of one wife. Gene has set aside his wife (which alone would disqualify him from being a bishop in the Church of England) and has announced his intention to "marry" his male partner in June.

He has very evidently set sail to court controversy and to enter into conflict with most of the Anglican Communion, whose primates (including Frank Griswold) signed a statement requesting ECUSA not to consecrate him as a bishop.

It should therefore come as no surprise that he has not been given permission to function as an ordained minister in the Church of England while staying in this country.

[Question of Identity]

Ruth

How sad that you want Gene to preach in order to 'sex up' the proceedings at Lambeth.

As a conservative evangelical I too am a little suspicious that prayer is at the top of the agenda in order to avoid controversy that might take place if there was debate - I hope I am wrong and that serious prayer and reconciliation and repentance take place. How newsworthy it would be if this happens!

[Michael Stevens]

Has Bishop Robinson been excommunicated by the CoE? If not, as a Bishop with full Apostolic succession, and leading a more blameless life than many, I find the Archbish's position strange to say the least.

[Peter Kirk]

I know "this would not be prudent" is sometimes Anglican-speak for "this is not allowed". But perhaps in this case the words really mean what they usually mean, that Lambeth Palace doesn't think Bishop Gene preaching is a good idea but knows very well that it has no power to ban it.

[saint]

Bwaaahahahahahhaha Renegade do stop. You're breaking our hearts.

Gene Robinson is what we in Australia call "a media tart".

We shall leave your rather peculiar notions of what a bishop in good standing means aside. Clearly, the concept eludes you.

[Stephen Marsden]

It's a bit of a leap, Ruth, to suggest that a letter from Lambeth Palace saying that it would not be prudent to do something is the equivalent of 'effectively imposing a ban, accruing to itself authority that is in fact without the Church's own Canon Law'.

It really is time that this shameless self-publicist was outed properly. He presides over a diocese (sic) where the Average Sunday Attendance is down to 4,553 (2006 stats.). Compare that to, say, the diocese where you go to Church on a Sunday, where the ASA is over 40,000! TEC is a joke, and so is VGR.

[George Parr]

What a sensitive post from our Renegade Priest, who clearly puts humanity before thoughtless dogma. In this, he captures the common ground between left and right, Christians and Humanists, and by doing so roundly condemns the thoughtless and severe judgmentalism which currently is eroding the church.

The day will dawn when the damage these presumptuous people are doing to society in the name of their religion, will become apparent; and their treating of the issue seen for the disproportionate nonsense it really is. There is a general mourning within faith groups for a re-instatement of Christian values in a society judged by some as decadent. Valuing their own members as human beings and recognizing sincerity might replace these harmful self-righteous interpretations of human behaviour.

[NP]

Alan Marsh - you still seem to think that facts, scripture and agreements matter in the CofE!

Years of compromises have left the CofE in a weak position, making up things as it goes along into terminal decline....just talk about how persecuted you feel and you can get away with almost anything ...it's all about not hurting feelings and keeping the club together, not rocking the boat...it ain't about truth or integrity, has not been for years....sadly

[George Parr]

Alan Marsh,

There is of course no question that Gene Robinson is sincere in his attempts to speak for the gay percentage of the Christian church that undoubtedly reflects society? Other prelates write books without attracting comments. You wish to suggest where he might travel to, based on notions of his sexuality?

He can't 'court controversy' on his own. It's a real shame that you live in such an authoritarian world bound by rules, conflict, injunctions, disqualification and sought-after permissions.

It seems highly likely that Bishop Robinson is actually addressing the world from a realistic position he recognises he cannot change, and which prevails, unlike those who, in trying to silence him, who display a nervous intolerance to accepting reality and cannot conceieve of seeing it through different, more tolerant eyes.

Do you really believe that the world's homosexuals are the victims of evil and variations of the same genetic structures that produced you? Is it really sensible to allow issues of sexuality or divorce to censure the otherwise worthy efforts of human beings? Should a person's unhappy marriage have consequences? It makes no sense.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

The Christian faith is about making personal moral choices, based on the word of God revealed in scripture, and a bishop is very much expected to be a personal representative and example of those values.

If you do not share that faith, then such values will not commend themselves to you, but the Church is for those who do share those values and frame their lives accordingly.

The sexual bond between man and woman has been from the very beginning in Genesis - one of the oldest texts in the bible - a pattern defined by God as an exclusive relationship which is lifelong. Other types of sexual activity are held by both Old Testament and New Testament to be contrary to that Jewish-Christian anthropology.

This is the understanding held almost universally by the Church from its beginning to the present day, as expressed in Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Anglican teaching, with the exception of some who no longer accept the authority of scripture in the way which is generally understood elsewhere.

Because a bishop is expected to exemplify Christian teaching he cannot hold office if his own lifestyle is profoundly at odds with it. He may relinquish office and live according to his conscience as a layman, but not as a bishop. Equally he is expected to believe and teach what the Church teaches.

Sexuality and divorce can not be dismissed as irrelevant to human nature as Christians understand it, precisely because the only moral expression of sexuality is within the marriage of one man with one woman, exclusive of all others, until death parts them.

As I say this may not commend itself to you if you do not accept the Christian faith, but it is the standard by which the very great majority of the world's Christians seek to live, and even when they do fail, it remains their aspiration for the future.

[Malcolm+]

Personally, I don't dispute Rowan Cantuar's right to deny permission to Gene New Hampshire.

I am struck, however, that bishops who are equally indefiance of Lambeth resolutions and of the Windsor Report (ie, Peter Abuja, Greg Buenos Aries etc.) are not similarly restricted.

[Lone Star]

I would suggest that the Archbishop of Canterbury recognizes that the Bishop of New Hampshire is a notorious and unrepentant sinner.

[The Rev. Karen MacQueen]

As a priest in TEC, I find this business of the ABC denying permission to Bishop Robinson to preach or celebrate the Eucharist in England to be more than a little distressing. How can there be a listening process when the only openly gay and partnered bishop is silenced? Who will speak for LGBT persons at Lambeth? Their ostensibly non-gay allies? Can anyone imagine that the progressives in TEC will forbear the election and consecration of other gay bishops or the blessing of same sex unions any longer than General Convention 2009, when this forbearance has resulted only in more insults, exclusion, and condemnation? I for one have had enough of this hypocrisy. As for those who have referred to Genesis and the biblical standard of marriage on this blog, can you be serious? The standard of Genesis includes polygamy and virtually no rights for women. Shall we go back to that standard? Nowwhere in the Bible is that standard overturned. The idea that the Bible is an authority for the standard of marriage as an institution created by God for the union of one man and one woman is just poor biblical theology.

[George Parr]

Alan, you demonstrate a high level of selectivity in your post which for some is evidence of nothing more than a willing condemnation of those regarded by heterosexuals as 'other'. It simply is not good enough to isolate texts appropriate to your mindset and then tailor them to fit biased notions of sexuality.

Genesis contains fine examples of standards which modern society finds unacceptable and cannot be held up as an infallible measure stick with which to beat homosexuals. Compare and contrast Alan. What about the appalling medievalist treatment of women contained within these early texts? Why does that 'standard' still not apply in what seems to be a fairly corrupted way of Christian thinking? How can you transfer the varying advice over marriage and sexual union en masse and make only parts of it relevant to contemporary notions of faith?

Human nature is human nature surely. Attempts by Christians to interpret in their own way to suit their varying purposes (upon which not all agree) or re-define it are bound to fail.

It seems to me a great sadness that some Christians exist embracing a set of unrecognisable values which, in their ferocity tend to cancel out those which are generally shared and accepted. Mr Robinson is one viable avenue along which to approach the subject of homosexuality. Roundly to ignore him closes any processes of discussion. And, undeniably, gay and lesbian people exist in all churches as a percentage of society. Since it must be accepted that they represent the status quo, is it not the case that by using biblical texts selectively, the current situation reflects only thinly-disguised prejudice and an unwillingness to engage at all.

[John]

I take it that Ms Macqueen has either not read Matthew 19 recently, or does not regard the Bible as an authority for anything.

The pattern for marriage described in Genesis is reiterated quite uncompromisingly by Jesus in response to those who want to water down - one might say liberalise - the scriptures. His response is;

Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.

The biblical teaching is not polygamy and not two men (or women) purporting to "marry" each other.

The TEC long ago abandoned any kind of restraint on divorce and remarriage. One of its bishops is now in his third marriage. If it has so little respect for the teaching of Jesus in this regard, it is no surprise to find that it also disregards any other biblical teaching which it finds inconvenient.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

The situation of Gene Robinson is unique. All the primates of the Anglican Communion (including, curiously, PB Frank Griswold) signed a communique urging that ECUSA (as it then was) should not proceed to consecrate him.

As a divorced man he would not be permitted to serve as a bishop in the Church of England, but much more than that, he is publicly living in an unholy relationship with another man, and has declared his intention to enter into some form of civil marriage with him. Nor is this just a private act of conscience, but it is being used as a campaigning tool in order to promote teaching which is directly in conflict with the Church's understanding of scripture and of holy orders.

The primates have accepted that "boundary crossings" will continue until such time as TEC reforms itself, but not only has it not done so, those who consecrated Gene Robinson have been invited to Lambeth, in clear conflict with the recommendations of the Windsor Report.

I note however that Gene Robinson is not alone in not being invited to Lambeth. A number of bishops ministering to congregations which no longer form part of TEC have also not been invited.

[Christopher Johnson]

Biblical illiteracy is pretty much de rigueur for priesthood in the Episcopal Organization these days. But "the [biblical] standard [for marriage] of Genesis includes polygamy," Karen?! How do you figure considering that the bibical standard for marriage was articulated in Genesis 2:24, a point which the Incarnate Son of God made a point of reminding the Pharisees in Matthew 19:5.

[Rick Beekman]

All;

Since I do not know much about the Anglican Church or the man himself in question I will simply say first; Doesn't his photograph remind you of the late actor Charlton Heston as Moses in "The Ten Commandments"??...Or a little like the Maharishi in India The Beatles went and visited in the late 60's?

That said let me simply quote what Apostle Paul Stated about A Bishop..etc.

1Timothy 3 v 1 to 7; "This is a true saying..if a man desire the office of a bishop he desireth a good work. A Bishop then must be blameless..the husband of one wife..vigilant..sober..of good behaviour..given to hospitality..apt to teach. Not given to wine (Repeat) not given to wine..no strikerstriker..not greedy of filthy lucre (money) but patient ..not a brawler..not covetous. One that ruleth well his own house..having his children in subjection with all gravity. For if a man know not to rule his own house..how shall he take care of the house of God? Not a novice est being lifted up with pride he fell into the condemnation of the devil."

First; please notice The Bishops are Males not Females. God Never called any Woman to preach or Rule over Males. (Read Genesis 3 as to the reason).

Secondly; The RCC teaches that their male clergy must be single like a Eunich. Paul said plainly that a Bishop must rule his Children etc.

Conclusion; Bishops are allowed to be married and have children (Sorry about that RCC) Woman cannot be Bishops no matter what modern thinking dictates. And Gays cannot be in the Ministry. Amen

[Robert Ian Williams]

Bishop Robinson is listed as bishop of New Hampshire in both Crockfords Clerical Directory and the Church of England Year Book.

His ordinations are recognised by the Church of England as valid....but Presiding Bishop Schorri's are not!

[Fr Mark]

Alan Marsh: your comments read as if they come from someone who has been living with his head stuck in the sand since the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967.

The taboo has been broken; the centuries of stigma have, thank God, finally ended, and no amount of angry refusal to cohabit a modern world with your gay fellow Christians is going to change that.

So Bishop Robinson's crime is that he is radical. Would Jesus himself (who never said a SINGLE WORD on this topic, remember) be regarded as acceptable to hold services in the C of E, according to the Archbishop, or would his radicalism just make the Archbishop uncomfortable and therefore force him to stand outside in the street with all the other outsiders?

Whose position is the more Christlike: the one who sits in a palace with a load of likeminded self-important old men; or the one excluded and thrown out by his own people?

[robroy]

Malcolm and others are still trying to equate tearing of the fabric of the Communion with border crossing, which DeS did not bless but did acknowledge as a necessary temporary interventions.

[George Parr]

So then Rick, according to Timothy not only must bishops be male, they must also not drink wine and should rule a household, in particular their children - in subjection.

You must know that in a civilised society none of this applies. Bishops drink wine. Anyone seriously suggesting that the subjugation of women is necessary or appropriate would be considered mad, in a western context. Male-dominated households in which children are unduly influenced or treated disproportionately severely by men are unusual and can result in massive behavioural problems arising. Modern society is not founded on any of these things. So why on earth regard this text as instructive regarding the non-problem surrounding the consecration of homosexuals?

It can only be that it fits in with your rather singular interpretation of an ideology that you have seized on to create some form of personal identity can't it? This possibly elevates and separates you from other people and allows you to advise them. Their wide-eyed incredulity re-inforces your own notions of religious superiority? All you have to do is stick to The Book and you can carry on, ad infinitum...

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Dear Mark

Adultery has been decriminalised for far longer than homosexual practice, but that does not make it either moral or Christian, let alone appropriate for a Bishop.

Jesus publicly affirmed (Mt. 5.17) that he had not come to abolish the Law, in which both adultery and all other forms of unholy relationship were forbidden to God's people. Nowhere does he relax the Law's teaching about adultery: on the contrary he condemns it outright, Mt. 5.27-28.

These discussions arose because the religious authorities had been bending the Law's teaching about adultery to permit divorce. The radical Jesus is radically conservative in such matters.

There is no recorded comment by Jesus in the gospels concerning homosexual practice because this was not an issue between him and the authorities. Both upheld the teaching of the Law that it is immoral.

The more Christlike position is one which is obedient to his teaching: such as Mt. 5.18 -

Truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

[Malcolm+]

Robroy, boundary crossing is not new.

It has been condemned by successive Lambeths. So, if 1998 1.10 is binding on the Communion (as you and your'n falsely claim) then so are those condemnations.

Boundary crossing was likewise rejected by the Windsor Report - which you and your'n similarly, and falsely, claim is binding on the Communion.

The Primates' statements from both Dromantine and Dar likewise rejected boundary crossing - while acknowledging it was happening.

At Dromantine, Venables of Argentina committed himself to refrain from boundary crossing - and flew directly to Canada to initiate a new crossing.

You and your'n falsely claim that the utterings of the Primates meetings are binding on the Communion - yet we see continued boundary crossing (contra Dromantine) and new boundary crossing initiatives (contra Dar).

The liberal position is at least consistent. None of these - Lambeth, Windsor or Primatial pronouncements - are binding on the Communion.

The "conservative" position is awash in hypocrisy. All of these are binding - but only the bits we like.

[David Cohen]

The concept of "boundary crossing" only makes sense for Anglicans within the context of a national church, such as the Church of England.

Elsewhere in the Communion, although Anglicans lay claim to sometimes vast geographical territories, the reality is that people belong to congregations, as members of one denomination among many.

When they have ceased to belong, either as a congregation or as individual Christians, to a diocese or province which has ceased to be recognisably Anglican because it has abandoned Anglican faith and teaching, then they are no longer under any kind of jurisdiction claimed by the local (formerly) Anglican bishop. They are free to associate with whatever orthodox bishop they prefer, even if he is, like the pope, or the PB of the Southern Cone, or the Abp of Canterbury, several thousands of miles away.

Those who have actually driven out faithful individuals or congregations, deposing their clergy and forcibly seizing their buildings, certainly have no right to protest when their victims look elsewhere for spiritual support.

There have been no such "boundary crossings" in England - provision is made for the conscience of those who find themselves pushed to the Evangelical or Catholic margins.

If the dioceses of Connecticut and New Westminster, and the litigation machine of TEC were not so intent on grabbing property belonging to local churches, there would be no need for any of this.

As it is, they resort to the courts, but one thing they cannot compel is conscience, and there will always be Christian leaders like Venables who are willing to reach out to those whose consicence is being trampled upon.

[Fr Mark]

Alan Marsh: you haven't noticed that Jesus' biggest targets for criticism were the Pharisees, then? Surely they were the ensconced power-wielding religious authorities, the defenders of an institution that was harsh, judgemental and legalistic, and who preferred to ostracise anyone who didn't fit, anyone who was different and therefore unclean. Sound familiar?

[Mike Homfray]

If we seriously have to take the OT law as acceptable for a civilised society, then no wonder Christianity is dying in the progressive, developed nations!
As an ex-Christian, I think the answer is to reject this rather sad and sorry religion forthwith

[Rick Beekman]

Mr. Parr;
I don't think God really cares a Hoot about "Modern Thinking" and trying to change and pervert what God's Word says; "Forever O Lord Thy WORD is settled in Heaven" (Psalm 119 V 89). Also It states in Malachi; "I Am The Lord..I Change Not". So There Goes Your "Modern Thinking"..Right Down the Tubes...Amen.

[George Parr]

The 'issue' is about condemning vast numbers of people, who would otherwise be speedily included by their peers because of their faith. Leaders and prospective candidates for leadership are in the unbalanced position of finding themselves more vulnerable than others.

The gap between the ideal and the reality is responsible for the acres of denial the churches own.
The sane way of dealing with this is to embrace the same standards of human rights recognised by the rest of society even if it means acknowledging that homosexuality has existed since time immemorial.

Numerous severe biblical texts have been discarded as innaplicable if not laughable, the reason given is always couched in revision, in a context of what is now acceptable, either culturally or under the law.

The truth of the failures in this never ending non-issue seems to lie somewhere between the insolent pride of conservatives, who seem to revel in displaying higher levels of piety than others, possibly elevating themsleves accordingly - and liberal open-minded Christians who are under constant attack whilst trying to fend off charges of homophobia that actually do not apply to them.

In short the rancorous debate paints the collective as intolerant and backwards-facing. What better avenue to approach the subject through healing dialogue than through the honesty of Mr Robinson? I suppose there is a tradition of demonising and crucifying the one who stands out from the mainstream. It nearly always identifies either self-interest or inherent fear.

[Dion]

As for the comments regarding Apostolic succession, no Anglican has possessed it since the 16th century. To claim such is a falsehood.

As to the obvious defects of such a situation regarding homosexuality and the Christian faith, can anyone seriously claim that [snip]. If not, why has it taken 20 years to expose this charade for what it is?

[J Pearce]

My dear Mr Marsh,

The "nuclear family" model of human co-habitation, as espoused by Christianity, is not the only workable - or indeed, most efficient - means of social grouping.

For instance, in societies where women have outnumbered men significantly, polygamy makes eminent sense. Not least because it maximises available resources and is the most obvious means of ensuring the continuation of the species.

[I am also convinced that early Christians invented this one man, one woman partnership edict simply because they weren't getting any themselves - because they were so interminably dull, as is the religious wont].

The bottom line is that there is nothing "holy" about Christian marital mores, they are just a social convention. To assume that they have some kind of divine seal of approval is frankly farcical.

As for the judgement that homosexuals are "immoral"…well, according to your predecessors, scientists have been "immoral", Jews have been "immoral", Protestants have been "immoral"…its not really a judgement based on sound evidence or rational thought, is it? And given the Church's penchant for rampant hypocrisy on all matters moral, I really don't think you - or the Church - is well advised to pass judgement on what constitutes morality, do you, Alan?

What makes me laugh is the fact that now we have legal arrangements for gays to engage in serious long-term partnerships - thus encouraging them to do precisely what whinging, pompous Christians have always criticised them for not doing - we still get the usual complaints from the conservatively religious rabble.

I'd call that institutionalised religious homophobia, Alan.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Dear Mark

That is the popular caricature of the Pharisees, but if you look carefully at the debate between them and Jesus, you will see that he is critical of them precisely for interpreting the Law in a manner which undermines its intention. Their legalism, in other words, facilitated casuistry, enabling people to get around the requirements of the Law while maintaining the appearance of conformity.

That is why Jesus said this about them in Matt.23.2-3:

The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practise what they teach.

[George Parr]

You heard it first here. Preacher Beekman cannot connect with modern thinking and does not give a hoot. To relate to forms of modernity is to corrupt and pervert God's word. Society should be organised and operated within a framework designed for the stone age and contained within written texts that wholly ignore the likelihood of any type of temporal progression (even if circumstances have change beyond recognition). So Everyone Has Got It Wrong.

Which particular aspects of biblical teaching shall we re-inforce today - and which ones shall we roundly reject, or choose to ignore? In order to have our cake and eat it, we must agree for example, that stoning women is inappropriate but also select infallible 'truths' to be strictly upheld and carried forward into the modernity that doesn't exist. So who gets to decide - Preacher Beekman of course!

But then, if modernity has gone 'down the tubes' in the moral free-for-all where, naturally, he presides as an omniscient Super Christian, he remains free to pick out the bits in The Book of Words that suit his partial view. In order for him to do this successfully however, we must all close our eyes and pretend, in a hurricane of revisionism, that the last 2000 years has not occurred.

It's easy, just set reality back to an earlier date and time. An appropriate restore point has already been created. Don't bother to save any work completed - it can never apply!

[George Parr]

Alan, interesting take on the Pharisee post from Fr Mark... I should like to read other scholarly writing from you. Can you point us in the direction of any original contribution you may have made to your subject, possibly leading to the doctorate or any published articles - learned journals bearing your name; that sort of thing?

[J Pearce]

Rick,

I hate to point this out old chap, but if it weren't for "modern thinking", we wouldn't be reading your touching homilies on our computer screens.

Irony, eh? Gotta love it.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Dear J Pearce

In order to regard something as holy requires first of all a religious faith, which you have many times disclaimed.

It comes as no surprise that you do not share the system of moral values enshrined in the Christian scriptures and shared by the community of faith which springs from it.

I am surprised to find you apparently approving of polygamy, although in a sexist sort of way - it's good enough for women, apparently, in your reckoning.

Civil partnerships, if you would do a little research, are not a form of marriage, but a form of contract which confers a limited basket of legal rights, denied by New Labour to many people such as siblings and carers who share a life with someone else.

There are no vows and no commitment to faithfulness, or indeed to any kind of relationship. Indeed, anecdotal evidence suggests that few such partnerships are in any way monogamous.

Marriage as understood by the Church is something very different, but obscuring the difference appears to be one of the government's aims - and yours.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Dear George

I would be delighted to oblige, but my dissertation of many years ago was not in theology and I made no attempt to publish it. I retired a long time ago.

I find it helps to read published bible commentaries by leading experts in that field, and would gladly recommend anything in the Hermeneia series, published by Fortress Press, or the New International Commentary series published by Eerdmans.

It also helps to know something of the cultural and archaeological context of the bible, and a good introduction is to be found in The Cambridge Companion to the Bible.

[Malcolm+]

If boundary crossing does not apply in the North American case - as per David Cohen's incoherent argument - then it is because those either the bishops in situ or the bishops intruding do not belong to the Anglican Communion.

Rowan has been clear that the Episcopal Church in the US and the Anglican Church of Canada are the existing and constituent members of the Anglican Communion.

Thank you, David, for proving that Akinola, Venables et al are no longer part of the Anglican Communion.

[George Parr]

Alan,

Thank you. I am familiar with the series of commentaries published by William Eerdmans and also The Cambridge Companion. The massive Hermeneia I have not yet attempted -but thanks anyway!

[David Cohen]

Malcolm, I have not seen anything so strained since I last watched a bungee jump!

People and congregations who have left (or been unlawfully ejected from) their denomination can hardly be claimed in the same breath to remain somehow under the jurisdiction of an heretical prelate.

The first need of a faithful Christian where the local diocese has ceased to be orthodox is to find oversight from another bishop who is. That is what people are doing right now in the USA and Canada.

[Malcolm+]

Falshoods don't bolster your "argument," David.

No parish in the Diocese of New Westminster was expelled, and no priest was disciplined until they undertook the illicit action of purporting to transfer their parishes to another, competing, ecclesiastical authority.

You might want to review the interim order in the Ontario cases where the Judge ruthlessly deconstructs the schismatics' case. She then awards costs to the plaintiffs, which usually (though admittedly not always) is a judicial sanction against the other side. She also notes that the law is clear regarding the ownership of the properties - the Diocese is clearly the owner on the titles of two of the three, and the governing provincial legislation (ie, the civil Province of Ontario) clearly establishes that the title to the third likewise rests with the diocese.

[Mike Homfray]

Oh dear, Alan -0 you really have read the propaganda hook, line and sinker.

Lets take out head out of the sand and recognise that there is virtually no legal difference between civil marriage and civil partnership. And that's exactly how it was designed - a new category, but using marriage as a template with some very minor differences. the name, the signing rather than the speaking - but all the other points you make are suppositions from the headbanger religionists.

I know it must be upsetting and frustrating for you, but I'm sure if you hate the idea so much, there are plenty of nice countries you can go to where they would never consider such a thing.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will get on with life! In my case, happily within my civil partnership.

[Rick Beekman]

J.Pearce;

Your Comparison Of Obeying What The Word Of God says With the Invention Of Computers Is Like Comparing Apples And Oranges!

The Bible Teaches From Genesis To Revelations How People Just Like You Refused To Listen Or Obey God's Word And The Trouble in This World just keeps on Coming Day After Day. See Mr. Pearce One Day I Decided To See If God Was Right Or I Was Right The Way My Life Used To Be. You Know what? I Found Out How Stupid And Ignorant I Was. All I Do Now Is Stick To What The Book Says To Do..AND IT WORKS!!

By The Way There is also a verse in The Scriptures That States; "In the latter times Knowledge shall increase" Yes..God Even Told Them 2000 Years ago what was coming. So have a wonderful day!

[George Parr]

Well Rick it is one way of living your life! If you want to avoid thinking for yourself and are content to regard the 'infallible' biblical instructions, that ninety-nine per cent of religious people apply SOME sort of interpretation to, then why not eh?

It goes without saying however, that you will be regarded as unfriendly to homosexuals, narrow minded over the protocols of human relationships and even incapable of thinking on your own. In a book as wide, contradictive and discursive, in the rambling sense, as the bible is, it seems to me wholly optimistic if not insane to regard its total contents as verbatim instructions from a higher authority over life choices. What a life you must lead explaning all this to those around you!

[David Cohen]

Malcolm, the diocese of New Westminster has in fact seized the church buildings of one of its congregations, changing the locks and excluding the Vestry, and it is even now planning litigation in order to seize the assets of several more congregations, which it claims to "own" but to which it has never contributed a cent - in fact it received substantial amounts of financial support from them up to the time it decided unilaterally to permit some of its clergy to "bless" gay unions.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

I am well aware that the term "marriage" has been wrongly used to describe civil partnerships, but the fundamental differences between even civil marriage and civil partnership make it inappropriate.

First of all a civil marriage can only be contracted between a man and a woman; and secondly the grounds for ending a civil marriage are very different to those on which a civil partnership can be terminated, because the latter is treated as a very different kind of legal relationship.

And I was in any event commenting on what marriage means in the Church's understanding of the term, something very different again. The preface to the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer sets it out very clearly, if anyone would care to read it.

Evidently Mike has not read the Civil Partnership Act's own introductory literature. I wonder what he has committed himself to without checking the fine print in advance?

[Rick Beekman]

George;

Contrary to what you may think..I don't need to justify the way I function in everyday life. People know who I am what I do and know I live like I teach. Also Living For God is not as restrictive as one might think. I'm a very rational individual I just do what is morally correct. I have stated to you on other occassions; I do not hate homosexuals. I don't like their lifestyle. I welcome any individual No matter who they are...

[George Parr]

Rick, a Super-Christian living in America, knows absolutely what is morally correct and this makes him rational. For him there are no grey areas. He does not approve of the lifestyle of homosexuals and often criticizes and de-humanizes them, by treating them as possessed religious pariahs. However, this does not mean that Rick is unfriendly to homosexuals although he often feels the need to deny that actually he hates them. Outside of the 'possessed pariah' thing, Rick definitely welcomes them just like other normal sinners.

To those who say he is fully entitled to his beliefs, Rick says that he does not need to justify the way he functions in everyday life. Homosexuals on the other hand cannot possibly justify how they function in everyday life, because they are possessed with evil spirits, physically inserted by Satan. People with Rick's mindset will go to heaven. All others, especially Roman Catholics and those, like homosexuals, who do not REPENT will go to hell. It's that simple.

Rick rarely counters any arguments, and prefers to avoid awkward questions which challenge the sanity of his beliefs, or the veracity, relevance and interpretation of The Book.

Rick is a teacher.

[Malcolm+]

David, you really should consider using facts.

First off, the church building you refer to is not in the Diocese of New Westminster at all, but rather in the Diocese of British Columbia.

Second, the dioceses do not "claim to 'own'" the buildings. They do own the buildings. That is clear both from the titles and from the civil legislation establishing the respective dioceses. Again, you may consider dealing in reality for a change and consult the recent interim order from Ontario.

Oh, and David, your pretence that Lambeth resolutions are binding is still pure bunkum.

[Mike Homfray]

Actually, you are wrong as usual, Alan. Can I suggest you consult a legal opinion which isn't that of the Christian Lawyers Association or anything connected to religionism?
The reasons for dissolution are irretrievable breakdown. The same as for civil marriage.

As for the church, it can think what it wants about marriage - which is utterly irrelevant in terms of the civil law. Thats all I care about, not some made up god or its made up glee club. I gave that one up for good. Great newsaw to hear that fewer than ever are being taken in by it - may the number ever inbcrease!

Of course marriage is between a man and a woman and civil partnership between same sex partners. Now, take off your blinkers and make a list ofg all the ways in which the two states are iudentical in legal terms. You will find it is a very long list indeed - no wopnder you have to scrabble around for exemptions!

[An American Observer]

Unlike many (or any other?) of the readers of this column, I have actually heard Bishop Robinson preach. Like any good preacher, he kept his ego out of it and simply talked about the Gospel for the day.

A "media tart"? Not that I could see.

[David Cohen]

Malcolm, if St Martin's Vancouver is not in the diocese of New Westminster, why was it seized by Bihop Ingham in September 2003, and the St Martin's youth leader who discovered the locksmith at work fired by the diocese of New Westminster?

I know Canada is a big country, but I would have expected you to get the geography right.

There was a similar operation at the church of St Mary, Victoria, BC, on 4 April this year when Bishop James Cowan was discovered with a locksmith secretly changing the locks and installing a security system, but the following day the Supreme Court intervened requiring the diocese to allow the parishioners to use their own Church again.

You shout loudly, but others will judge who is purveying pure bunkum.

[Octavian]

Alan: I live in Belgium, where gay couples marry the same as straight ones. There is no difference in law, nor in the lived reality of people's relationships. How can you be so insulting as to suggest otherwise? It's time British people ditched their whole long history of sexual hypocrisy and discomfort, which is all that your "theological" views on this topic add up to.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Mike, I have read the legislation itself - unlike you, I rather suspect. I won't retaliate by accusing you of relying on propaganda from your own lobby.

You say, "the civil law. Thats all I care about" - So why do you persist here?

The government has gone to great lengths to package civil partnership so that it resembles marriage, and even included coercive provisions so that those who disagree about the nature of marriage itself can be prosecuted for refusing to cooperate with the government's version of (un)reality.

But even in a comparison with civil (as opposed to Christian) marriage, there are clear expectations expressed in the ceremony itself that marriage is between a man and a woman (a most fundamental difference), and that it will be faithful.

A civil partnership does not presume a faithful relationship, or a sexual relationship, or that the partners will share even a car, let alone a roof. The advantages it offers are important for those concerned, but not equivalent to the completeness of commitment which is presumed in civil marriage - which is itself modelled on the pattern of Christian marriage.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Octavian, I have been addressing the situation in the UK, which is not yet entirely governed from Brussels - still less the Christian faith, which is international like no other organisation.

The view of the Church, throughout history and in almost all of its branches in the modern world, is that there can be no such thing as marriage between same-sex couples, because marriage is a part of a divinely-created order and is modelled for us in Genesis as a bond between male and female.

This is reiterated definitively for Christian teaching in the words of Jesus in Matthew 19.4-6, where he speaks of marriage as a union between man and woman, intended by God from the very beginning.

Ths state of Belgium evidently considers that it is appropriate to offer a secular alternative to the scriptural and sacramental concept of marriage as the Church understands it. But it does not have any authority to re-write scripture or to change the Church's teaching.

Even if it should be the case that a man can legally marry a man in Belgium, it remains ontologically impossible within Christian teaching since the very relationship which the term "marriage" describes refers to the union of a man and a woman, without which marriage can not exist.

It is open to UK citizens to enter a civil partnership, which seems to me to be a more honest description of what is happening, and in some western states that is even termed "marriage".

But the Church is equally at liberty to hold to its own understanding of the divine will and of human nature as created by God, and to come to a very different conclusion.

If the Church's view on this means nothing to you, why should you find it "insulting" that the Church does not agree with you?

[Mike Homfray]

Alan: of course civil partnership is between same sex partners and civil marriage opposite sex partners. That makes no legal difference in terms of the rights and responsibilities between the partners, though. Also, the service itself is not compulsory for a civil partnership - but that doesn't actually affect the expectations of the relationship. It is for that reason that siblings cannot be considered civil partners, for example - and if you bothered to read the debate in Parliament and the context of the legislation, you would realise that you are as ever, trying to make civil partnership what you would like it to be.

As for civil marriage, it is explicitly not Christian - and I turned down toe three separate offers of 'blessing' for our civil partnership. I still regarded myself as a Christian then, I don;t now, but I certainly don't need lukewarm unofficial 'blessing' from homophobic dying institutions and their premodern gods and 'saviours'. I'm happy for Christianity to continue to ally itself to prejudice - means that still more people will reject it or view it as irrelevant to their lives.

In the meantime, civil partnerships are hear to stay, although the name change to marriage will happen within say, 25 years. Because there will be virtually nothing else to alter!

[Mike Homfray]

Incidentally, Alan, still waiting for you to produce a list of those similarities. As much as you may dislike it, they are considerable - and your view about what constitutes marriage is utterly irrelevant outside the confines of your church.

[Malcolm+]

David, I had no idea you were so short of propaganda and distortions that you had to go all the way back to 2003.

Your subsequent description of events in Metchosin is curious. I've seen nothing to suggest that Jim Cowan was "caught in the act" with a locksmith.

And a curious story about a Supreme Court intervention that never was. None of these have gotten anywhere near the Supreme Court of Canada.

However, it seems you haven't bothered to look at the recent order from the ONtario courts that makes it crystal clear who owns the buildings - and it ain't the bloody schismatics, old bean.

Oh, yes. And your claims about the authority of Lambeth Conferences is still as false as it ever was.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Mike, I have read both Hansard and the legislation itself, and what I see there is a government determined to create an illusion. Although it dresses up civil partnership as much as it can in order to resemble civil marriage, ultimately it boils down to the provision of a modest number of social rights and tax breaks.

This is signified by the absence of a ceremony for a civil partnership, which is effected simply by signing a register.

Civil marriage, however, continues to be modelled on religious marriage, for which it was designed to be an alternative in a state rather than church context. Many of the aspirations of couples seeking a religious marriage are matched by those who choose a civil ceremony for a variety of reasons, not always because they do not regard it as a religious as well as legal commitment. In point of fact, many do regard it as such even though the ceremony is conducted by a registrar in an office.

It would be tiresome and pointless to list the legal similarities and dissimilarities, apart from the obvious and fundamental dissimilarity which I have already outlined. The dishonesty which lies at the heart of the Act is that this can and should be portrayed as "marriage", when it is simply a means to certain legal privileges which have been denied to others, such as siblings, who ought equally to be able to register a partnership for the same purposes.

Again I am puzzled by your inconsistency. You claim that what Christians believe about marriage to be "utterly irrelevant outside the confines of your church" - but here you are, yet again, demonstrating that it is not irrelevant to you.

[David Cohen]

2003 - that's ANCIENT history for you, Malcolm? So it's OK then?

I suppose that the pace at which you change your doctrine means that 4 April this year is also old hat.

And that if you don't know about something, it hasn't happened.

I see...very convincing!

[Rick Beekman]

George Parr;

To God Be All the Glory But I thank you for Your Mostly correct beleifs in me.

Actually I do Not Hate Despise Anyone That Includes Homosexuals..Catholics..Or You An Atheist. I don't Agree With The Homosexual Lifestyle Geoege I However I Do Buisness With A Few Homosexuals They Are Very Likeable People..True They Are In Sin And No Matter what You or I Or Aunt Matilda Thinks They Gotta Repent If They Ever Believe They'll Get To Heaven. No Worse Or Better Then An Atheist A Liar..Thief Whoremonger Etc Etc Etc.

As For The Catholic People They Are Blinded By The False Teachings Un-Biblical in 80 Percent of Teachings..And Deserve To Know The Biblical Truth. If They Don't want to read it..Go to another thread..for the One that does He/she will read for themselves to decide. Point Being George..If someone claims to be a "Christian" then they need to know what Christ (The first Name in christianity) what Jesus said and taught to see if it agrees with Men dressed up in religious clothes with two college degrees teach. They have a Choice like we all have. Anyway see you on a future Discussion..And remember George Jesus Loves The Sinner..But hates the Sin..

[Mike Homfray]

Alan: I think it is you who doesn't realise what the legal status of civil marriage is all about. The ceremony is simply a means to a selection of legal rights and responsibilities - held by both civil marriage and civil partnership.

Now, we, along with most others who have a civil partnership, did have a splendid ceremony, and it was a very special day - but the rights and responsibilities are far more important, legally, than a ceremony! If you are trying to kid yourself that it is really the ceremony that gay and lesbian people have worked so hard to see introduced, then I think you are woefully out of touch.

And this is underlined by your failure to realise that the majority of marriages are now civil, and an increasing number take place in hotels, country houses and other such venues. As do civil partnerships. I think you really ought to see things as they are - not how you would like them to be. I have been to two church weddings in recent years, and neither bride nor groom were in the least religious - it was dome in one case for family reasons, and the other because the building looked lovely on the photos.

The one dissimilarity you have noted is largely a legal irrelevance - and I think the task of listing the legal equivalence would indeed be tiresome since it includes almost everything else

Civil partnership was created to provide an equivalent to marriage for same sex couples. No dishonesty, Alan - just something you are not comfortable with, but then, that's your problem. Siblings cannot have that sort of equivalent
relationship, although there may well be a case for revising inheritance laws.

And my concern is only when Christians try and oppose civil partnership or try their hardest not to face reality - that other than a couple of issues which have no legal significance, the rights and responsibilities are the same as for civil marriage. You can believe what you want - but if you try and impose that view on me in the public sphere, expect to be opposed. An ever dwindling and dying religion simply can't impose itself on the non-churchgoing majority.

[Octavian]

Alan: I'm a UK citizen, actually, and if I marry my same-sex partner here in Belgium and later return to live in the UK, I shall expect my marriage to be recognised by the British government too, indeed I imagine I have the right for it to be. There's no point at all in you trying to hold out for some different lower status for gay people - equality will come, and you'll just make the Church look silly. Incidentally, Belgium is an 80% Catholic society, as is Spain, which also has gay marriage, so there's no need to claim it's not Christian: Christian gay couples marry as much as non-Christian ones here.

[George Parr]

Rick would like to express his thanks for those who believe in him. However, he does rank homosexuals alongside atheists, liars, thieves, whoremongers and an implied long list of other sinners, all of whom exist in a state of utter wickedness. Because of this none of these people will ever get to heaven unless they repent. Rick's Aunt Matilda has a view but it does not matter what she thinks.

Luckily, their terrible sins do not prevent Rick gleefully doing business with these dreadful people, despite his strict religious beliefs, which can be temporarily suspended to accommodate the open market. Rick will still be going to heaven.

Rick has found that all homosexuals are very likeable people and he is at great pains to reiterate that he does not hate or despise them.

Sadly, the worlds 1.1 billion Catholics are all blinded by false teachings, and Rick has discovered that a staggering 80% are not biblical. Catholics do deserve to know the truth and are advised to go to another thread where they can read it in its entirety. However, Rick thinks that only one Catholic will bother, but then, happily, will be able to decide.

Men, with two college degrees, are dressing up in religious clothes and Christians must decide if what Jesus said agrees with them. They do have a choice over this however, as does Rick.

This has been a discussion, and we will be having more of them. Like Rick, Jesus loves homosexuals, atheists whoremongers, thieves and liars, but presumably does not do business with them.

Rick is a teacher.

[J Pearce]

Alan,

You offer up a classic case of parochialism and small mindedness when discussing marriage. The concept of familial bondings as a unit of society predates Christianity by quite some margin, yet you still cling to this tired and historically bankrupt notion that it is only Christianty which offers the only "valid" form of human partnership available.

Many people have absolutely no problem with the idea that civil marriages and indeed civil partnerships are "modelled" on Christian marriage. But then, Christian marriage is merely a copy of what went before it. The only difference you can offer are the ceremonial aspects (and I include the verbiage about God in that), which are ultimately cultural specific. There is no way of validating that Christian marriage is any "better" than any other form of partnership - and the divorce statistics suggest that Christian marriage offers no better a model for life long cohabitation than any other marriage form, in that it is still susceptible to the pressures exerted by society as any other form of civil partnership.

Whilst you might argue that Christian marriages demand "more" from their adherents, look at the flipside - a Christian marriage is, like the religion itself, ultimately based on a regime of fear and submission. To abandon a Christian marriage is to invite calumny and scorn from other Christians, is it not? Regardless of the circumstances that might drive a marriage apart - e.g. adultery, abuse - Christians are culturally victimised and morally blackmailed to maintain the illusiion of a working civil partnership, which itself may be causing unfeasible amounts of distress.

And lets face facts, only Christians are the kind of people who would want to engage in the ideals of a Christian marriage! Like attracts like, yes? I suspect people want Church weddings these days for the kudos and ceremonial aspects as much, if not more, than the ideals promoted by Christian marriage.

Ultimately, your argument boils down to semantics, i.e. what exactly does "marriage" mean? For the Church to claim onwership of the concept and definition of the term, is simply calculated machismo on the part of the Church. In reality, people adapt what marriage means to their own unique circumstances. Your attempts to denigrate other interpretations of marriage is merely another form of the cultural bullying that the Church specialises in.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Octavian, the law in Belgium does not apply in the UK. There was a test case concerning two Canadians quite recently and they lost in court.

You have a curious logic, which means that 80% of crimes in Belgium are committed by Roman Catholics, therefore crime is Christian in Belgium.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Mike, I have strong objections to the discriminatory way in which the rights conferred on civil partners have been denied to others who equally need provision to be made for them.

These rights are perfectly appropriate for siblings: none of the rights which you have now acquired presume any kind of sexual relationship, or indeed that you will even share a house.

The government however wants to present civil partnership as if it were, somehow, marriage. But it fails the first test of what "marriage" is in Christian understanding. You keep saying that this is irrelevant to you, but if so, why do you remain so concerned about what the Church thinks?

For the record, the Church of England acknowledges UK civil marriages whether carried out in an office or at a stately home. The blessing of a priest in a church wedding is not a necessary requirement. This is because marriage is still understood in the UK (yes, legally as well as generally) to be the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, for life.

[David Smith]

J Pierce:
' ..Christian marriage is merely a copy of what went before it etc. etc. ...Christian marriage.'

Still not read a Bible, J Pierce?

Still talking at length about the Christian way - a subject you therefore know nothing directly about?

I wonder what benefit to you or anyone else you think this can possibly be?

[Mike Homfray]

No, Alan, the rights have been dienied to no-one. You are, again, failing to recognise why we have civil partnership. It was to give a legal status to same sex couples on the same lines as marriage, albeit with a different name so not to frighten the horses! Civil partnership was designed for same sex couples in relationships - look at all the consultation material sent out in advance and its clear enough. Same sex civil partners are looked at as essentially having signed the same sort of voluntary contract as opposite sex married partners. People can marry and not have sexual relationships or share a house, but the vast majority will do so. The same is true for civil partners!

Siblings cannot marry - unless you are suggesting a change in the law of incest? They also cannot undertake a civil partnership, since that is designed for same sex couples in relationships which give the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. That includes dissolution - siblings do not choose to enter into those partnerships, neither than they divorce.

There may well be measures which could be introduced to help those who suffer from current inheritance laws, but they should not be confused with either civil partnership nor civil marriage.

Civil marriage is simply not about 'Christian' marriage, and the vast majority of marriage in this country is civil, not religious. You really must realise that things have moved on and that your vision of what marriage is refers only to church understandings of specifically Christian marriage. Civil marriage is not about religion or your god. Your church may choose to 'recognise' civil marriages, as they do have this habit of trying to colonise that which has nothing to do with them! This is the problem with having a state religion, but I doubt whether that will be feasible long-term as less and less people are availing themselves of such collective delusion.

I thought I had explained earlier: I oppose homophobia from wherever it emerges, and it is usually from religion. However, your lobby has been immensely incompetent in opposing civil partnership. It matters not whether the church recognises my relationship or not - what import has the church these days? What matters is the legal rights and responsibilities which exist , and they are the same for civil partners and married partners, as much as you may dislike that fact.

Get used to it - because civil partnership and gay legal equality is here to stay.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Mike, I wonder why you continue to deny the facts about the history of the legislation, and what it signifies in terms of rights conferred?

A number of proposed amendments to the legislation, which would have allowed for partnerships for a variety of circumstances, including siblings, were all eliminated by the government.

There is nothing about the rights created which presume marriage of any kind, and therefore no good reason to exclude siblings - except the pretence for public consumption that the Act somehow equates to civil marriage, as you are trying to maintain.

Again, you vaguely attempt to suggest that "things have moved on" but this is not true either legally (civil marriage remains confined to opposite sex partners) or socially. People do not get married in order to obtain tax exemptions.

And again, you try to suggest that the Church tries to "colonise that which has nothing to do with them" but in fact the government's agenda has precisely been to try to colonise the concept of marriage - which the Church has administered in England for some 1600 years - with the concept of a partnership, which is a commonplace business arrangement.

In deciding what "marriage" means, whether civil or religious, the Church has a very important role to play as there continue to be many who seek a religious wedding, and what marriage does mean needs to be clearly understood by those entering into it.

[George Parr]

David Smith emerges; as usual to select a sentence and feebly de-construct it as a poor attempt at point scoring.

J Pearce, in answering Alan Marsh makes a number of germane points. He speaks of parochialism and the role of Christianity, within a timeline of human union. He comments on partnerships and makes comparisons with the constructed values of Christianity. He offsets religious notions of marital worth, by drawing attention to levels of divorce. He discusses Christians as victims and the pressures that they are under to maintain a thin veneer of respectability in the face of judgmental peers. He gives another example of Christian sexual intolerance - the stigma attracted by adultery - and he draws attention to the lightweight and superficial arguments maintained by faith groups, which rely on wordplay, prejudices and little else in the matter of civil partnerships. It is hardly an uninformed view.

David Smith, however, contributes absolutely nothing. His woefully trite and emaciated five lines are designed to insult and depreciate. He tries to reduce in value JP's post, by insinuating that he is commenting from a position of ignorance, and consequently that his opinions are worthless.

In utilising this desperately tired format, Mr Smith once again appears supercilious, limited and unworthy; but is possibly content with having provoked a reaction.

[David Smith]

Judgemental George (Parr):
'David Smith...insinuating that he (J Pierce) is commenting from a position of ignorance, and consequently that his opinions are worthless.'

I didn't insinuate anything, George. I stated my opinion outright. I also asked J Pierce a question, in case he would like to take issue with me.

'His woefully trite and emaciated five lines are designed to insult and depreciate.'

I suggest you take care not to negatively judge others by yourself - it doesn't help your claim to be Mr Humune and Tolerant on this blog. Where I am concerned, you yourself seem reduced to giving a running negative commentary on my interaction with other bloggers. I'm sure everyone else can read just as well as you.

Wouldn't you do better, if you must get involved here, to address the issue of how a person can meaningfully and informedly contribute on any aspect of a belief system if he doesn't actually know or take the trouble to find out what that belief system teaches on it?

However, if you insist on continuing your 'running commentary', do please try to be more accurate from the outset.

I didn't 'select a sentence'. I selected over 20 lines (the heart) of the post in question.

[J Pearce]

George, I thank you for pointing out the "interesting" points of Dave's arguments. You may note with wry amusement that despite all evidence to the contrary - and the copy/paste facility - Dave still continues to misspell my surname. Draw your own conclusions as to why that might be.

Dave - I do not need to read a Bible to gain a general understanding of what Christian marriage entails. It is kind of embedded into our culture, is it not? The point I am making is that marriage - or, rather, a culturally acknowledged cohabiting partnership - is something that predates Christianity as the basic building block of organised, functional society. What differentiates Christian marriages are the Christian-specific norms of marital behaviour, as codified and reinforced by the general Christian ideological (theological) parameters and validated through Christian-specific ceremonial rites. But the template for marriage has existed a lot longer than Christianity has.

This does not mean that Christian marriages are the only viable form of partnership or, indeed, the "best" form of partnership. Indeed, one might argue that we have evolved civil marriages and partnerships - and the concept of divorce - as a means of adapting to the pressures exerted by modern, technologically advanced industrial societies.

Therefore, when Alan says "..what marriage does mean needs to be clearly understood by those entering into it " he is at least right, in the sense that what marriage means differs between people and cultures. Unfortunately, I think Alan is of the rather parochial opinion that Christian marriage is the only "viable" marriage form - and this is simply not true.

So Dave, do you actually have a point to make yourself?

[Mike Homfray]

Alan; the proposed amendments to the legislation were defeated because they would have altered the entore point of establising civil partnerships in the first place. I repeat, they were introduced for the sole purpose of establishing a status for gay couples, which has all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, but a different name. If you look at what these rights and responsibilities are in the case of civil partnership compared to civil marriage, you will see this for yourself. This is also why the European courts judged as they did - because there is clearly a difference between a freely entered relationship such as civil marriage or civil partnership, and that of brother and sister, or cousins, or whatever. Civil partnership was designed for gay relationships, as all the consultation material explained.

Now, the antis realised that their chances of defeating the legislation was nil. So, they tries to undermine and scupper it by making civil partnership something different. You lost. yet you are still repeating the same defeated arguments. You are going to have to do a little better than this.....because the rights and responsibilities are the same as civil marriage, whether you like it or not. The tactics of the antis is now what you are trying - to pretend that civil partnership is something quite different top what has been voted for and established.

The Church really must try and remember that the days of its dominance are over. Most people do not attend church, and we have no intention of being dictated to by religionists. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the church unless people choose to opt for that interpretation of it - but in itself the church view has no legal standing. Indeed, religious symbolism and content is absent from both civil marriage and civil partnership. They are secular and offer legal rights and responsibilities that have, in law, nothing whatsoever to do with any gods.

[Mike Homfray]

Alan: people enter into both civil marriages and civil partnerships because they love each other and wish to share their lives together. Some may then wish to incorporate God in to that process: but I suggest to you that is a very small number. It is that which has changed - the centrality of Christian understanding of marriage, when most marriages are civil, and many of those which take place in church are for reasons utterly unrelated to religious commitment of belief. Also, now civil partnership exists, gay couples can gain the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage and are recognised in law. As the opponents know only too well, this has and will change the way marriage is thought about - which is why they are so desperate to separate the two despite the overwhelming similarities which you have, as yet, been totally unable to refute.

[David Smith]

J Pearce:
'So Dave, do you actually have a point to make yourself?'

I do wonder which part of my last exteremely short post (Judgemental George was at least right about this) you don't understand.

You express opinions on Christian marriage - in particular that it is 'merely a copy' of what went before. But you haven't read the Bible on this subject and so don't know what it actually is.

Christian marriage is intimately linked with the core concept of the Christian gospel itself. You don't know what this is either.

So how does anyone benefit from your offerings - apart from you perhaps through a form of anger therapy?

If we want a further example of your essentially uninformed and empty waffle on this subject we need look no further than this your next post:
'What differentiates Christian marriages are the Christian-specific norms of marital behaviour, as codified and reinforced by the general Christian ideological (theological) parameters and validated through Christian-specific ceremonial rites.'

My point, made to you and others many times on this blog, is that if you want to criticise (or comment valuably in any way) on any teaching of Christianity you need first to know what that teaching says. If you continue to be allergic to the source of that teaching - the Bible - then don't waste everybody's time expressing opinions on what it says and means in practical terms.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Of course the Church of England view has a legal standing, Mike, it is responsible for conducting many thousands of wedding services each year - and its doctrine can not be changed by the state, which must acknowledge the rights of the Church to define what marriage means within its own understanding.

In the absence of a defined alternative to the Church's understanding of marriage, many if not most of those who marry still view it in Christian terms, since where a civil marriage is between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, for life, it is properly understood as marriage.

It is perfectly obvious that the government set out to subvert the meaning of marriage, both as commonly understood and as believed by the Church, but what it has created can not be marriage; nor can it be right to provide special privileges for just one category within society while denying others - claiming the illusion of "marriage" as a justification for the discrimination enshrined in the Act.

[Mike Homfray]

Alan: please read what I said. The CofE has a legal standing but the religious aspects of its marriages do not - they are for the church alone. The laws referring to marriage are not connected to religion, and there are no 'special laws' relating to religious marriage (except for the Royal Family!)The Church can say exactly what it wants, but its view is not what drives the law - because the majority of marriages are civil and so the law has to apply equally to them all.

Hence, there is a defined 'alternative' in the sense that the civil law is what counts, outside the church. I think you must be living in cloud-cuckoo land if you seriously think that people getting married who aren't churchgoers give a single thought to religion. No-one is denying that marriage is for opposite sex partners, but what I am saying is that civil partnership is essentially the same legal contract for same sex partners, which you cannot deny as it is a fact. Indeed, this was the main argument against civil partnership by the antis at the beginning - until; they realised that by keep saying that the government had created de-facto gay marriage, they were damaging their own case. Now they change tack and try and pretend it is something different. yes, there are two essential differences. One is for same sex, the other for opposite sex partners. One is decided by words one says, the other by the signing of a register. But that really is all. Otherwise, the legal rights and responsibilities are the same.

The Government can do what it likes with marriage, because it is not the property of the church - a dying and struggling organisation which most people never go near and which even opposite sex couples largely shun for marriage (and when they do use it, it is largely dependent on the attractiveness of the church - ask any vicar!)

There are no special privileges for anyone,except couples both same sex and opposite sex who wish to pledge their love and commitment and are willing to take on the rights and responsibilities that entails - and that's the way it is, whether you are your religionist mates like it or not. Naturally, if you wish to extend those rights and responsibilities to siblings, you need to first change the law of incest, and secondly make it possible for siblings to agree a contract with one another, having freely chosen to do so ( a problem when you are blood related) an to divorce if the relationship breaks down.

Never did realise how keen conservative religionists were on legalising incest!

And it is curious how on the one hand, gay people are accused of not wanting commitment and of all sorts of similar things, and yet when we want to take on responsibilities and commit to one another, that too is opposed. Really, I'm sure you'd be happier if we all disappeared or went back into those closets - ain't going to happen, Alan!

[J Pearce]

Deary me Dave! You are in a right old tizzy, aren't you?! Did you get out of the wrong side of the bed this morning?

Let me get this straight - this now perpetual rejoinder from you about my alleged lack of knowledge is fast becoming your weapon of last resort, is it not? Sir, is this the best you can come up with?

Some facts, Dave: you have made no contribution whatsoever to the actual debate regarding marriage. I have not actually criticised Christian marriage as such (your accusation), instead I have offered the opinion - valid, in my understanding - that marriage is culturally and societally specific; and I have stated that those Christians who hold Christian marriage up as the exemplar and original of the form are, in fact, deeply mistaken in those beliefs.

My criticism is of the presumption within Christian circles that their form of marriage is the only historically viable and valid form.

As I recall, you seem to take great umbrage when you perceive that during certain topics of debate, people criticise others personally, rather than criticising the arguments. Yet here you are, doing precisely what you keep whinging about in others.

Given these new rules of debate you seem to want to impose on this public forum, can I suggest the following:

[modified from D. Smith 13/05/08]

"if you want to criticise (or comment valuably in any way) on any aspect of homosexuality you first need to know what being a homosexual is all about. If you continue to be homophobic then don't waste everybody's time expressing opinions on what it involves and means in practical terms".

So, given the next potential thread regarding the discussion of homosexuality and the Church, should you have the inclination, can I kindly request you cease and desist form partaking in it?

[J Pearce]

Alan:

"In the absence of a defined alternative to the Church's understanding of marriage..."

This is just garbage, Alan. I have a perfectly good civil marriage myself, which works for myself and my wife. As do millions of other people. It IS a perfectly viable alternative to marriage as understood by the Church!

Fair do's, it bears similarities to Christian marriage in some respects. But we certainly do not understand our marriage in Christian terms - and would in fact be very offended if someone suggested that we did!

Your arguments are stuck in a rut, Alan. The simple fact is that marriage means different things to different people - and that the Church does not have the copyright on marriage. The state offers a perfectly valid and well understood model for those who choose not to engage in a Christian marriage ceremony - and in case you hadn't noticed, civil ceremonies are far more popular than religious ones.

Its pretty sad when a supposedly intelligent man such as yourself has to stick his head in the sand, ostrich-style, to pretend that this is not the reality of the situation today.

[George Parr]

Since other bloggers can read perfectly well Mr Smith, they might notice that on the 'Protestant or Catholic' thread, you appear, magnificently, to provide a commentary on what Mr Beekman has written and then to pass judgment on someone who robustly challenged him.

I would also remind you that commentators on a religious blog are not restricted to one belief system, or indeed any. Moreover your overblown claim that non-Christians cannnot understand religious doctrines which are peripheral to issues they might comment on is presumptuous nonsense.

'If you must get involved here'. What does this mean? YOU are able to decide who can get involved and who cannot? YOU will allow? Another statement of ownership and control. At least in attempting to write from a perspective which embraces humanity and tolerance - both supposed claims of Christians, if not very evident - I am not making grandiose claims of messianic proportions, purporting to be god's vicar in matters of human worth.

You, rudely, to JP, "so how does anyone benefit from your offerings?". And "Don't waste time in expressing opinions"

More ungracious demeaning comment designed to subdue and detract, wholly signifying ownership and control.

Your 'arguments' rely on the assumptions that those defining themselves as non-believers have little or no knowledge of Christianity. You, of course, have no idea. You are also able, apparently mystically, to decide which parts of the bible others have read and or understood.

It is utterly ridiculous to propose that to have an opinion on social issues, such as civilly-sanctioned forms of partnership, it must somehow be measured against Christian notions of marriage, and that a biblical knowledge is required. The history of Christian marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with the spirit of the legislation concerning civil partnerships, in fact quite the reverse. Christian marriage actually flies in the face of mutuality, problem-solving and love. It proposes that human love for one another cannot exist on its own and should somehow be wrapped up in god-fearing guilt, with divine, stigmatic consequences. It does not recognise human frailty and has no mechanism for dealing with it.

The inescapable truth is that the Christian marital union, which remains an option for those who want it, is now very much reduced in demand. People have discovered they are fully able to express their love and commitment to each other with or without it.

Two people of the same sex do not require the blessings of anyone else, and passing loud comment institutionally on their decision to unite, can be seen as intrusive and grossly offensive. The Christian Church has no manners. Many people certainly cannot relate the reality of human union to the concept of gods.

Pious zealots, who comment adversely over same-sex unions, do so from a hideously prejudiced standpoint; a position of ghastly realisation that their privileged and elitist stance on morality has been popularly challenged, found wanting and changed.

Blathering on endlessly about homosexuality, as if it, and all that surrounds it, is the particular province of Christians, who own a right to comment publicy about it, paints Anglicanism in the biased restricted palette that, increasingly identifies it as culturally meaningless.

[David Smith]

J Pearce:
'As I recall, you seem to take great umbrage when you perceive that during certain topics of debate, people criticise others personally, rather than criticising the arguments. Yet here you are, doing precisely what you keep whinging about in others.'

I am not doing this at all.

It is precisely your arguments - on different aspects of Christian belief and action - that I am criticising. And I am doing this on the basis that you don't know what Christianity actually holds on these.

[David Smith]

George Humane-itas:
'Your 'arguments' rely on the assumptions that those defining themselves as non-believers have little or no knowledge of Christianity. You, of course, have no idea. You are also able, apparently mystically, to decide which parts of the bible others have read and or understood.'

No assumptions, and nothing mystical about it at all, George.

I make no generalisations. But, in those specific areas of Christianity on which unbelievers comment, I have plenty of 'idea'. I can tell both from what they write on specific topics, and from their own direct confessions to the effect that they have not read the Bible on them.

e.g. on Christian marriage: 'Dave - I do not need to read a Bible.. ' (J Pearce)

George Humane-itas:
'The Christian Church has no manners.'

What you are saying here is that Christians should emphatically not offer what they believe personally or believe to be God's perspective on same-sex unions. If my simply asking you or J Pearce questions about the efficacy or purpose of aspects of your contributions on this blog is 'ownership and control', then I wonder what this is - and not just as regards this blog, but the public sphere generally?

Do try to practise what you preach, George.

[J Pearce]

Errr...no, Dave. You are not criticising my arguments, you are criticising my fitness to make the arguments.

In other words, you are attacking me and not the argument.

Which makes you guilty of precisely the trait you seem so keen to stigmatise in others.

Given this level of dissimulation and artifice, I'm beginning to get an inkling on how you carry out your "therapy"...

BTW, I would like to ask - as George has already referenced above - on what basis you make for judging the breadth and depth of my knowledge?

Also, I am not aware that one has to conform to a particular, Dave Smith-approved standard of Biblical literacy, in order to engage in a public forum. Perchance you can direct me to this particular codicil?

Notwithstanding accepted levels of public discourse and taste, I am interested in understanding exactly why you feel uniquely qualified to be able to sit in judgement upon who should be allowed to comment on such forums?

[J Pearce]

BTW Dave, if you would like to enlighten us by bringing your enormous knowledge of the Bible to bear on the particular arguments I, or George, or indeed Mike have put forward, then by all means do so.

(this is a polite way of saying put your money where your mouth is...)

[George Parr]

Hello Dave.

'What you are saying', Dave the Transformer, is that biblical knowledge is necessary to challenge all issues that Christians have a partial view on. In order to try to appear erudite, in your own indefensible elitist way, you are playing 'the bible card' over subjects that non--believers are perfectly entitled to challenge.

And what is all this about you criticising arguments? Time and time again your postings attack not the argument but the rights of others to express what they believe. In fact you say little else. You are commenting from an implied but imaginary position of superiority, with pitifully little substance in your posts.

I can adopt exactly the same tone Dave:

DO try to address the arguments. You REALLY should not be here if you cannot bear the views of others. What knowledge of humanism do you actually have? Have you consulted widely from Thales of Miletus, Plato, Pliny, Petrarch, Erasmus et al, through to Burkhardt, Dewey, Einstein and Thomas Mann? What exact knowledge do YOU have in order to engage from a philsophical perspective? I can tell that you have very little. If you must insist upon posting here with your biased Christian notions concerning the human worth of homosexuals and ludicrous claims of divine conversion, and we all have to put up with you, you really should acquaint yourself with the basis of enlightenment thinking. Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau might be a start. You REALLY cannot engage in social and cultural issues without it...

Gets up your nose doesn't it.

[George Parr]

By the way Dave, I do not accept any rubbish that the forum only exists for those professing certain kinds of faith. The pious do not exist in isolation in the world and too frequently make very large statements affecting everybody.

In short they do not give a hoot how far the holy shrapnel travels and what collateral damage it does. The days are over when it was commonplace to bamboozle the ignorant, with claims of religious moral superiority.