Loving you now, but breaking all the rules

What is there not to like in the service of blessing billed as the Church of England's first gay 'marriage' between two clergy? See Fulcrum for the latest, although some links are here also. A commentator says there that he has been to many similar services over the past 30 years, and I also have understood it to be happening regularly. But Episcopal Cafe has the order of service. And it is the Prayer Book language used here that is particularly appealing and also, perhaps, provocative. If the liberal movement had from the start couched its reforms in the language of tradition rather than modernity, the ecclesiological landscape facing us now might indeed be very different. Everything, as they should have known from the start, is in the Word.

Comments

[Dominic Brant]

Working on the Lambeth Conference 98 changed my life. Truly the 'rainbow people' - Archbishop Desmond Tutu's words. A low person in a high place I learned things that would make Ruth Gledhill's career. The Conservatives loved me. Clean cut, enthusiastic, and (mostly) professional. The liberals thought I was a jolly fella too. And I hope I was. It was great.

Forget the attempted 'hate campaign', attempted bribes, cheeky requests for 'off the record' chats, calls for confession, inside/fast track information. Offers of dinner, a drink or three. Oh, and even My Opinion and a By Line. So flattering. I kept my mouth shut, didn't respond to the invites or threats - as did all of those whose job is was to make the conference happen. Why? Like everyone I was doing my job - by choice - for the benefit of all.

Recently, I was civilly partnered to my lovley other half. We had an out of church blessing, private with our family and friends (by a priest who works for, but is not employed by, the church). My church mediates my relationship with god, and, I hope, God oversees my relationship with my partner.

I stood by my church back then. I stand by it now. No compromise in my commitment. Just a change in the way I do things.

My point - there is dirt that would make the hair stand up on the back of your neck - on all sides. So, before you consider taking the moral high ground remember the rainbow has many colours, and each colour comes in many shades - some much, much darker than others.

[Rick Beekman]

Bruno (Rome)
Why are you so gleeful about the anglican Church "Going down"?

Here's a news flash Bruno about your Church the Roman Catholic Church (aka "Mystery Babylon the great......"
God hates your church so much he had Apostle John write two entire chapters in the Bible to tell us in parable form what he is going to do to the RCC. Please read Revelation 17 (The Church and it's political connections.)Then read Revelation 18 which tells of the Buisness side of your church Bruno.

So before you gleefully announce the Fall of another Church Please remember something we here in America say; "People who live in Glass houses should not throw stones". Have A great Day Bruno...Remember Jesus Loves You..And The RCC is deceiving you...

[George Parr]

Interesting mindset Rick; a curious mix of childlike awe and authoritarian judgment. So sexual 'wickedness' features strongly in your selective interpretation of these old texts.

Since you are stentorian in your condemnation of others who are perceived as transgressors of God's word, what are you doing about the moneylenders; the usurers who ply their trade on a global scale; the western multi-nationals who pay third-world tiny children pence to work in sweat shops, denying them education so that cosseted obese Americans and Europeans can make huge profits out of their misery? What about this week's news over American oil companies expressing an interest in capitalising on Iraq's massive oil reserves, against a backdrop of three quarters of a million civilian dead as a result of Bush's 'war on terror'? This said, without batting an eyelid, despite continual claims that throughout, they were disinterested in oil? I presume that you are preaching to your government, your armed forces and all supporters of American aggression, the biblical consequences of killing people?

Your need to preach loud and long is very evident. So, is your unhealthy, if not obsessive interest in male sexuality. The 'sinning' applied to human relationships is of such great importance, it overshadows all other issues, clearly defined as wicked in your book of rules? When are you going to question the sanity of that?

Your format, which I acknowledge is your business, appears to rely on red-hot biblical moralising and not much else. This is likely to have little effect isn't it? It's rather like joining a discussion over the red paint that no-one wants, with painting the room red again, the only thing you have to offer?

[Rick Beekman]

To those who support Gay Lifestyles and Marriage;
I read several remarks making light of God And His Word And how you think this and that in defence of The Homosexual lifestyle.

I'm Not angry with anyone who believes this nor do I hate Anyone most Certainly The Folks who participate In This Lifestyle...Your Choice.
I Would like to take everyone Down Bible memory lane to see who is correct; God and his word? Or your assertions. Remember also I am Not The Author of The Bible...Only A Messenger Of The Holy Word. That Said Let Us Begin;
Genesis 6 v 5 to 7; "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he gad made man on the Earth and it Greived him at his heart. And the Lord said I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth..both man and beast and the creeping thing and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them"

This Spoken before the Great flood.
Notice God took no pleasure in really doing this as he stated.
Flash forward now to Genesis 18 v 20 & 21; "And The Lord said because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great and because THEIR SIN is very grevious. I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it which is come unto me and if not I will know."
Homosexuality Was One Of the Great sins of These two cities which were located near the Southern end of The Dead Sea in Israel. God Destroyed it Lock..Stock..Barrel. You can read all of Genesis Chapter 19 for yourself to see what God was upset about.

Flash Forward To Romans 1 v 24 26 27 28; "Wherfore God also gave them up to uncleaness through the lusts of their own hearts to DISHONOR THEIR OWN BODIES between themselves. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections for even their woman did change the natural use THAT WHICH is AGAINST NATURE.........." Did everyone see that.."That which is against Nature"...in other words Gentlemen; not only does God Hate this sin...He never made anyone "Gay".

So the Next time you decide to ridicule what is right before God..Remember What he did to the entire World...What he Did at Sodom & Gomorrah; And What he will do Again.

If You Don't Fear God Then you simply can Repent of this and God Will Forgive You Clean Up Your Minds And Hearts and Remove these Wicked Desires. (II Peter 2 v 6; "And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow making them an example unto those that after should live un-Godly"

'Nuff said...

[Stuart Hartill]

Did anybody follow the debate in the Irish Times a few years ago on studies by the late Yale historian John Boswell?
Boswell's field of study was earlier Christian attitudes to homosexuality, in order to show that, while not exactly welcomed, it was not seen as quite the problem contemporary Christians think.
In particular he looked at the adelphobiia liturgy, which I understand traditional theologians had seen as a type of blood brother relationship. Boswell explored early Vatican and Orthodox church records to find many examples of something he would see as a formal blessing of same sex partnerships -one example is of a mass ceremony which took place in the Vatican itself in the 1600's - and also Orthodox accounts of the lives of two early saints whose relationship one to the other is referred to as 'sweet companion'. Such ceremonies and attitudes - further East at least - seem not to have died out until a couple of centuries ago.
Obviously this was controversial stuff, but coming from an otherwise reputable Yale academic (who was, as it happens, a devout Catholic) seems to demand serious consideration.

[George Parr]

Yes, American Observer reports today in the British media highlight the findings of a study which suggest that sexuality is defined in the womb, with brain sizes between women and gay men corresponding. Below link for anyone who who still regards it as a sin.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7456588.st

[An American Observer]

Yes, Joan Estell, every church I've known has depended on the devotion and generosity of its gay and lesbian members.

Even if homosexuality is a sin--and I believe that it is not, given that science is finding increasing hints that it is due to the inborn structure of a person's brain, like hand preference-- it is only one of many, and "we have all sinned and fall short of the grace of God." Why have a conniption fit about homosexuality and not about anger, sloth, or covetousness?

In practical terms, would you rather have two persons of the same sex living together in fidelity and creating a stable home or each entering into a marriage of convenience with a hapless person of the opposite sex and then continuing to see each other on the sly? Or are you one of the absolutists who say that homosexually-inclined persons must practice life-long celibacy, whether they have that gift or not?

[George Parr]

Nail on head Mike Homfray. This entire religionist preoccupation with gender, sexuality, masturbation, menstruation etc.etc. is merely a disgraceful instrument of control in an institutional tool box of guilt. The attitudes of those who subscribe to its continuing use represent the dire remains of an unscrupulous past; one that is being dragged kicking and screaming towards a more rational present. Schism? Good. At least a percentage of Anglicans who consider themselves above the rest of society will be identified and all in one place. All that then remains is to counter the covert prejudice that will undoubtedly colour the remainder. The sadness is that with the exception of the pious insane, those carelessly attacking other perfectly worthy human beings, by denouncing their sexuality as either evil possession or an unholy life choice, know exactly what they are doing.

[clint]

I'm sure God just LOVES it when people use their own discomforts and prejudices to turn him into a sadist. The idea that God makes someone with "desires" contrary to God's will is utterly blasphemous, I stand before such blasphemers and pronounce them as such. People may have destructive desires that bring evil into the world or harm upon themselves or others, but it is only distaste that would lead someone to say that sexual relations between two people of the same sex who have found intimate companionship with each other brings harm or evil into the world. There is much in the Bible that brings far more harm, death and suffering into the world than the love of two men or women for one another.

[saint]

Ah Stephen Clark, if you're the Stephen who's an Anglican priest in my home town, I know another parish to avoid. Can't tell right from wrong or up from down: on ya mate!

[Michael Stevens]

Of course it's not that long ago, (and some still believe it) that the verses in Genesis 9:20-27 (the curse of the sons of Ham) was used to support the idea that Black people were subordinate to Whites, and could be enslaved by Divine decree.
Does Bishop Akinola carry his Biblical literalism this far i wonder?

[Dr. Mike Homfray]

Then the Church of England should take that logical path and leave the nonsense of endless procreation to the Romans - in theory. Just remind me again - the European nation with the lowest birthrate. ITALY!!

Being serious, Vatican plc has nothing to teach anyone except how utterly immoral their religionism is from top to bottom. Just about everything they think, I believe the opposite. Reactionary on every issue where I am progressive, they still throw endless money at tinpot premodern states whilst forcing them to overpopulate the world as a condition. They really are a blueprint for what not to believe.

[Robert Ian Williams]

Wnen the Church of England accepted contraception in 1930 the door was opened to this. If you divorce sexual intercourse from the openess to God's gift of life, you eventually endorse the ultimate sterility.

[Robert Ian Williams]

Wnen the Church of England accepted contraception in 1930 the door was opened to this. If you divorce sexual intercourse from the openess to God's gift of life, you eventually endorse the ultimate sterility.

[Joan Estell]

I have just returned to the good old C of E from a denomination which does not discriminate between gay people and heterosexuals. Just like the Anglican church, that denomination would fall apart if it was not for the love, devotion and service of its gay members. I am absolutely sick of the double standards practiced by the established church. There are countless gay clergy who quietly get on with ministering to all in need; many of them have a deep spirituality born from suffering and an ability to understand what it is to be rejected. For God's sake - this is the twenty first century and we have so much greater an understanding of what it is to be human. The Bible was written around two thousand or more years ago; should we cling to the mores of that time, or accept that God reveals himself to us constantly, and that the test of those revelations is Love. Or should we stick to what the Bible says – and if so, what do we do about all the contradictions? Who decided it was the final word of God? Has He stopped speaking to us?

[Jamie MacNab]

The Church unavoidably picks up something of the 'spirit of the age' that it finds itself passing through, and can thereby be led into error. What matters when we are in error is what we do about it. The Archbishop of Canterbury cannot in all conscience wash his hands of this matter.

[Horace]

"Help me out here!
Christians say that man (and woman) was created by a god.
That means, obviously, that this god also made gay men and women."

Glad to, Chris Palmer.

First of all, be careful of the logic here:

Just as strongly as one could assert that God created "gays" one could equally say He also created people with a strong aversion to the "gay" ideology.

So if being "gay" is OK merely because God created that condition, isn't being "anti-gay" equally OK?

Of course, the true Christian position, which champions free will and virtue, avoids the bizarre conclusion that merely being born with certain tendencies gives one carte blanche to indulge them.

As certainly as God created men and women with homosexual desires, God also created people that have cravings for: smoking, excessive quantities of alcohol, sex with kiddies or animals or dead people,rape, stealing from shops,torturing humans or animals ... etc etc.

Indeed, doubtless every one of us has some fetish or yearning that is viewed by most people (even ourselves in cooler moments) as better not to be gratified. Are you implying that it's OK to indulge all these, because God created us with these desires?

Christians tend to think that not all our desires are ordered as they were before the Fall. That's the key. The Fall. Genesis.

No true, non-hypocritical Christian blames homosexuals for having the desires they do. Neither do we ascribe fault to the mere temptations to paedophilia, theft, adultery, murder, etc.

It's the giving in to such temptation that is the problem. Homosexual, heterosexual, ... whatever.

[maceanruig]

To the saints in the Anglican church:

“Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues;” (Re 18:4 NIV)

[Rich]

We are all sinners but when you become a preist it's expected that you above eveyone else will put forth the extra effort to follow the word of God and lead by example. When as a preist you purposfully give into your own selfish desires, you make it OK for your followers to follow suit. The question of homosexuality and women preist have been answered for thousands of years. God told you his will so if your going to be a preist then follow it. How do you look an adulter in the face and say you are wrong. How do you council any of your followers to obey the will of God when you will not. How can you possibly help someone come closer to God when you ignore his will when it's convient for you.

So if it's OK to ignore the sin of engaging in a homosexual relationship and OK to ingore Gods will on the ordination of Women why can't your followers just ingnore all of Gods will when it behooves them?

I'm not the greatest Christian in the world but I do know the will of God on these issues and I try as hard as I can to follow Gods will. These preists however have just given up and given into sin to serve themselves. I caution those that belong to these churchs. You may love the leaders of your church and you should never hate any of them, but following them or allowing them to lead you, when they are clearly ignoring Gods will is an entirely separate issue.

[George Parr]

What a difference in attitude between Bill Riggs and Stephen Clark - the one preaching antique 'holy' judgment, death and destruction, the other demonstrating a caring approach to human reality.

This 'religious' obsession with masturbation, menstruation, homosexuality and every other nuance of human sexual behaviour is a risible example of narrow, rigid human programming, if not personal behavioural projection. Its purpose is to confer power over others through a hierarchy of piety, based on claiming a greater understanding of the supernatural.

These hellfire Christians, who ally themselves with radical biblical interpretations of wrath, imagine themselves nearer to gods and able to dominate or impress those with weaker minds. In doing so they paint themselves as ludicrous remnants of a long and pointless timeline of barbarism.

[Andrew]

Ruth, after reading your blog for a long time, this is the first time I have been moved to post, but you have put your finger on an essential point that will, once more, be eclipsed in the mud-slinging.

You said "If the liberal movement had from the start couched its reforms in the language of tradition rather than modernity, the ecclesiological landscape facing us now might indeed be very different."

Spot-on. The liberals as a whole have still failed to realise this problem, I think; and as a result many who want to support the inclusive agenda are finding it difficult to do so because of the liberal baggage that goes with it.

This problem affects just about every agenda on which "liberals" are trying to grow the church in the love of Christ. And we have such a paucity of capability and/or willingness in the House of Bishops to disentangle this for us.

I can think only of Tom Wright who is actively engaged in working hard in this area, can anyone suggest any others?

[bruno (ROME)]

We are witnessing the fall of the Anglican Church in front of our eyes. What Henry the 8th started will soon die.

[Douglas Kedge]

The schismatic position of the CofE stems from two widely divergent beliefs about the nature and authority of scripture. Why is it that God, whom both sides worship and pray to, does not make the matter clear, bearing in mind the harm such division is doing to the Christian message? One answer could be that there is nothing there to make a response.

[Simon]

The Bible is fairly clear on its teaching. The idea that it needs 'reforming' - the idea that humans might tell God what is or isnt wrong is frankly ludicrous ignorance of what the Word is. All I can say about this current farce within Anglicanism is that Im glad Im pentecostal!

[David Swarbrick]

For a religion claiming a basis in love, Christianity is demonstrating again the unique capacity in its adherents for viciousness and hatred.

[Michael Stevens]

Even thought the press keep reporting as a "Wedding" it is obviously not one - it was a blessing of two men who love each other, in a church.

[Stephen Clark]

The question of the status of the service is a curious one. We are long passed the days when services were limited to only what is to be found in the authorised prayer books.
I have in my time blessed couples on their 60th Wedding anniversaries, I have officiated at Franciscan pet blessings. I have laid hands on pastoral visitors, and I have marked the beginning of a process of catechumenal training with a service of commitment. None of this is 'authorised' liturgy.
All of it is well within the normal pastoral expectations of an average parish.
Pastoral responses to real situations.
I have no problem with two people, (any people not just homosexual people) wanting God's blessing on the love in their lives.
As we would say in Australia, Good on them!

[Bill Riggs]

Umm, there cannot help but have been a flaw in this unholy service of matrimony aka "partnership" and so we read the following vows exchanged:

"With this ring, I thee bind, with my body, I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods endow: in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

Now, this really is blasphemous, to invoke the name of the Holy Trinity as one vows to "worship" another human being with one's body. Pretty serious stuff, and the Church ought to deal with it as such.

But we ought not lose heart, simply because of the presence of evil in the midst of holiness. It has always been this way, as the Church struggles its way forth, in Christ's service.

The mockers of Christ used a quote from Revelation "Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church". Well, let us read what the Spirit DID say to the Church of Thyatira, in that same book (Revelations 2:18-29):

And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. and I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. And I will give him the morning star.

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Bill Riggs
Fredericksburg, VA

[An American Observer]

It's interesting that mostly men seem to be incensed by the thought of two men entering into a life-long partnership.

As a woman who has had many dear gay and lesbian friends over the years, I have come to understand that their sexual orientation is not some willful flouting of conventional morality but an integral aspect of their personalities. That's why "gaydar" works.

Some people insist that homosexuality is a conscious choice. I wonder how they know that. I've come to believe that men (mostly men) who are so vehement about this are actually closeted bisexuals who really did make a choice to suppress one side of their nature and who assume, in their silent shame, that it's the same for everyone.

I offer a challenge to all the posters here who are frothing at the mouth over the Church's more liberal attitude toward homosexuality: Find a Christian gay man or lesbian (and there are more than you could imagine) and ask about his or her early life, the early awareness of being different, the struggles with self-hatred, the torments perpetrated by local bullies, and the attempts to become straight, including marriage to someone of the opposite sex.

The Biblical literalists pounce upon two or three passages from an pre-scientific era when the Jewish people were concerned about increasing their numbers, so they discouraged any form of sexual activity that couldn't result in pregnancy, including masturbation and marital relations during the woman's menstrual period.

I wonder if they accept any other examples from the science of that period, such as the sun standing still at Joshua's command.

Whatever the case may be, their vehemence against people who aren't hurting anyone suggests that they are afraid of tendencies inside themselves. Psychologists call it "projection."

[clint]

"OMG, a gay wedding, what an abomination!" Okay...."OMG Jesus, your people are harvesting wheat on the SABBATH! You're profaning the sabbath!" Jesus: "The sabbath is for man, not man for the sabbath." Now if OUR LORD reads scripture like this, contravening the absolute prohibition against working on the Sabbath because it puts people at a disadvantage in certain situations, then how much weight do you think he would give to the purity law about anal sex between men when it consummates a stable homosexual relationship?
No one seems to care about how Jesus reads scripture or interprets Mosaic law. And actually, there is nothing said about anal sex, it just tells a man not to lie with a man as he would with a woman. Well, I don't know any gay man who lies with another man as he would with a woman!

[Mike Homfray]

Whatever way you look at it, the Church is going to split - and as it is going to happen, a shame it cannot be done in a calm and sensible way

There is never going to be agreement and if those who disagree cannot co-exist, then best they do so apart. Its the same with any organisation - it has to have a certain level of coherence to survive

[Jon Valur Jensson]

It was an affrontery and insult to Christianity to perform this illicit, anti-Biblical ceremony, travesting even the Book of Common Prayer; moreover, vilifying king David and Jonathan (whose friendship was pure, far from anything sodomistic, as obvious from the context of II Sam.1.17-27), and overriding Jesus' words about marital unions as well as His appointment of Paul as his Apostle, who spoke clearly (witness 1st Cor.6.9), and as a part of the good news (see 1st Tim.1.11), of the sinfulness of homosexual intercourse (+1st Tim. 1.10, Rom.1.26f). If this act of Rev Dudley will not be revoked and condemned by the Bishop of London and the Anglican Synod, you are in for not just trouble but schism as well.

[J Pearce]

I heard on various news reports that this has been labelled "blaspheming".

This is my understanding of "blaspheming":

A senile old dotard - Malcolm Muggeridge - trying and failing miserably to score points against various Python's in a debate about banning the film "The Life Of Brian".

This is where I first heard the term and right up until this day, whenever I hear the word "blaspheme", I think of a sad, old, useless bloke railing against something he cannot hope to understand and desperately trying to censor the output of the media according to his pathetic prejudices.

Which pretty much sums up the entire Church. Possibly. One lives in hope that it might change.

But it needs to evict the Muggeridges. Pronto.

[Jonathan]

"Church" is the wrong word for the anglican institution. It is fit only for the dunghill.

[George Parr]

Here we go again, more dire warnings from Preacher Beekman! Happily, not all members of faith groups share his notions of hellfire and damnation obtained from a literal reading of the scriptures. Indeed, even PB has been seen to be selective in which passages he chooses to believe in.

Surely the Christian god is capable of assessing those who profess to follow him, in ways other than simply their sexual genetics? Is this really the ONLY agenda.

What about selfless devotion to others, love, tolerance, caring, humanitarianism, following the ways of peace, positivity, forgiveness, encouragement, constancy, sympathy, empathy and charity? Surely, when assessing human worth, possessing an ample measure of these things cannot just be erased or outweighed on the St Michael scales of virtue simply by sexual preference? That's nonsense isn't it?

[peterNW1]

Speaking as a Catholic, I can only say that this sort of news story only highlights the vast distance between Catholicism and Anglicanism.

It is extremely unlikely that gay marriages between priests will ever happen in the Church (well not in the third millenium anyway.)

[Mike Renzulli]

I think its time for total truth about the nature of religion itself. I am a former Christian-now-turned atheist.

It was actually exloring and thinking about what I believed God should be and what the Bible says are 2 different things.

If one considers the true tenets of religion (any religion) it is geared towards the resentment of and death of mankind.

Religion, including the God of all of the books deemed holy, believes that man should be sacrificed for the greater glory of God, resents sexual pleasure, the accumulation of wealth, the ability of people to think for themselves and believes people are a means to an end rather than an end in itself.

The controversy surrounding homosexuality is indicative of people not only wanting to have their cake and eat it too but also to reject parts of the Bible that describe the violent and hate-filled nature of God. Especially toward gays men.

In other words, Christians (like those in the Anglican communion) don't take their faith seriously.

[Chris Palmer]

Help me out here!

Christians say that man (and woman) was created by a god.

That means, obviously, that this god also made gay men and women.

So, is this visceral hatred for gay folk a product of this god, or of simple old-fashioned bigotry of some of those who seem to claim some sort of deep insight into the workings of this god?

Frankly, I have better things to worry about. If two people, of whatever sex, love each other and seem to think that some sort of religious ceremony make sit more 'real' then we should applaud it.

There is far too little love in this world.

And far too much bigotry and hatred.

And the most hate-filled people are the blinkered adherents to some sorts of all-encompassing religions, even Nazism and Communism.

[Noote]

I thought it was 1 April when I first read the story. But it seems that it has taken place as described, in complete defiance of the Bishop, and bound to cause maximum disarray in the diocese and in the wider church.

If disciplinary action does not follow swiftly, then the Church of England might as well abandon any pretence at ecumenical dialogue with any of the catholic churches, since it will be demonstrated beyond all doubt that there is no such thing any longer as doctrine in the Church of England - just the whims of individuals.

[saint]

Ooo never mind the emendations in the best tradition of queer theology (and don't expect any luvvies to wake up one day and realise just how inherently sexist it all is, and how outrageously insulting to those Christians who struggle with SSA yet try to walk faithfully with Christ) they missed this bit.

I REQUIRE and charge you both, as ye will answer at the dreadful day of judgement when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, that if either of you know any impediment, why ye may not be lawfully joined together in Matrimony, ye do now confess it. For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God’s Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful.

I can't ever imagine why.

[Clifford Williams]

The Rev Martin Dudley who conducted the quasi marriage ceremony of two homosexual priests in London is correct - the ceremony had no legal basis whatsoever. No more than an initiation ceremony of a Masonic Lodge.
Whether he disobeyed the Bishop of London is another matter. Such ecclesiaistical offence are often viewed upon as treason of the highest order. At times it
could mean 'off with his head'.

The Archbishop of Canterbury however might adopt a more relaxed approach, as he normally does with such 'sensitive matters'. He could suggest that next time Rev Dudley decides to officiate a quasi 'Gay Marriage' service that he does so in the Church in Wales.Depending on the colour of his eyes, there he will be almost guaranteed of a warm welocome in the hillside.

[Rick Beekman]

Ruth;
I read about this "Marriage" in our local paper here in Florida.

Tomorrow The State Of California will start allowing Homosexuals to be married.

I Don't care how "Politically Correct" all this is; it's still a total abomination in the eyes of The Lord.

All This really is showing how The Gay Agenda despises God and The Holy Word of God.

The Bible teaches that God is not the author of confusion. God ordained The state of Matrimony between a Male And Female Only. Those who participate in this Will reap what they sow...

[George Parr]

Peter Cowell, David Lord and the clergyman that officiated are very brave in light of the unholy furor that surrounds them.

If you love someone, you love them and that is all. It is impossible to unlove someone upon request.

[Rev Dr Martin A. Phillips]

As a now retired Anglican Priest and a well know Educator I feel that this is going to do immense harm to the Church. Here in Cyprus this sort of debate would never be held and I feel the Church of England has lost its way with the issue of Gay clergy in a general sense.