tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post8860765520509068357..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: Episcopal Church and its ruminations on Marriage, and the baggage we all carry.Mark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-68896836288816325692015-06-27T10:57:59.334-04:002015-06-27T10:57:59.334-04:00I'll be the odd one out because someone has to...I'll be the odd one out because someone has to be. I think that our Church is going a bridge too far by taking on itself the power to redefine what Jesus clarified about human bonding in Matthew 19. Christian Marriage has been settled in the Church by His words wherein He reiterated Genesis 2 (forgetting the errors that others twisted it into over time). We need to heed Chief Justice Roberts' dissenting opinion yesterday. In it he said that there is now nothing that can legally be done to deny marriage to 3 or more people of any grouping. If the precedent of changing marriage is based on what people want, then the door is now open to continually redefine marriage. The same is true at General Convention. What this Convention changes a future generation will be obliged to move beyond because of cultural demands becoming the basis for change -- an understanding that marriage "has evolved" again. I am very disappointed - but not surprised - that the Marriage Study never once quoted , nor dealt with, Jesus' clarification of the "who" of marriage in Matthew 19. That Study began with the premise....."our understandings of Marriage have evolved.". After this Convention the "evolving" will have only begun. Then what? Blessings for 3 or more?Doug Despernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-48734657669575963872015-06-17T13:40:17.268-04:002015-06-17T13:40:17.268-04:00Agape Ed here....
Not that anyone will do it, but...Agape Ed here....<br /><br />Not that anyone will do it, but if you look at the OT, you'll discover that marriage was "traditionally" a covenantal state between parties, a greater covenanting party (the male) and a lesser acceding party (the female), brought into being by intercourse, written contract between groom and bride's nearest male relative, and/or exchange of goods of a minimum value. The reason for marriage is not as clear cut and simple (or simplistic) as some folks might read into the texts. This would have been the Torah of marriage as Jesus understood it. <br /><br />It did not require a "Church/communal blessing" only some form of communal acknowledgement: as religion and citizenship were intertwined marriages would have been recorded by the local scribes and priesthood on behalf of the community to prevent property disputes and establish womens' status. Same gender marriage was not possible inasmuch as the only same gender covenantal relationship which would have been possible was master-slave, mistress-maid. <br /><br />We do not accord men/women greater or lesser status; we do not acknowledge slavery as a legitimate covenant, nor do we seem to recognize hetero intercourse as "automatically" instituting a marriage, and the marriage contract is only enforceable as far as your attorney can get a court to enforce it. <br /><br />Let the Church AND Clergy get out of the marriage business...let parishes assist in discernment (after the fashion of the Quakers)and consensually bless resident individuals who are covenanting together for life and for God's sake stop using bad eisegesis and scholastic theology to make cultural adiaphora into the new Donatist litmus test.... thoughts? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-88579886815617010432015-06-15T13:38:19.532-04:002015-06-15T13:38:19.532-04:00Thank you so much for this well-reasoned commentar...Thank you so much for this well-reasoned commentary. I've had a hard time saying the preface to the marriage liturgy - created by God? Really? blessed by our Lord? Really? (Or was he simply doing what his mother told him to do - and saving the hosts from embarrassment?) And if I'm not clear about this, where is my integrity in saying it is so?<br /><br />Thank you again, Mark.<br /><br />The Rev. Wayne NicholsonAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14737644648809281801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-35015224688986101102015-06-13T08:00:29.746-04:002015-06-13T08:00:29.746-04:00Thank you for talking sense about marriage, an ide...Thank you for talking sense about marriage, an idea that was not invented by the church but hijacked by it. I have always thought the analogy to Christ and his Church is nonsense. If that’s what marriage signifies, what does divorce signify? (The analogy helps explain the Christ-Church relationship, not the other way around.) Another question is interesting: what privileges does the church afford a married person that are not afforded single people? In fact, marriage is largely irrelevant to the daily life of the church. Lionel Deimelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-20571959032790287742015-06-12T16:43:55.739-04:002015-06-12T16:43:55.739-04:00Be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath...Be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.<br /><br />To call for social justice in the Christian sense necessitates a degree of<br />theology whether one likes it or not. For in Christ alone the concept of<br />Justice is transformed - it is possible by the cross for both justice and<br />mercy to co-exist.<br /><br />One only needs to look at the life of Martin Luther King Jr. as an example<br />of this - he strove for justice and mercy based on a biblical mandate.<br /><br />Therefore I think while it may be easy to dismiss 'theology' around the <br />issue of changing the precedent for joining of couples, if we do not let the bible inform<br />our decisions, might we not just as well be atheists?<br /><br />Cheers<br />CathyCathynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-73972007521532879842015-06-12T14:59:18.193-04:002015-06-12T14:59:18.193-04:00That is a post worth reading! Thank you.That is a post worth reading! Thank you.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-72431536688618696152015-06-12T12:35:12.881-04:002015-06-12T12:35:12.881-04:00"I believe the best thing we could do at this..."I believe the best thing we could do at this General Convention would be to prohibit clergy from signing the civil documents for marriage, and release them to bless those who are part of the church and who come forward for a blessing of their covenant and union. It would have to be made clear that such blessing has no bearing on their civil status at all."<br /><br />Amen from my heart.<br /><br />As for the miracle at Cana, it seems to me that the miracle could just as well have been done because Jesus, prompted by his mother, felt sympathy for the embarrassment that the hosts of the wedding party experienced when they did not provide enough wine for their guests. Or perhaps he liked to see people enjoy themselves and made more wine for the guests after they had drunk all the wine that was provided. The story seems a shaky basis for a theology of marriage or the conclusion that marriage is a sacrament of the church. <br /><br />Amidst all the verbiage, doing justice is what matters, and justice is to offer the blessing of the church to couples who commit themselves one to the other in marriage.<br /><br /> June Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01723016934182800437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-2866095637590587242015-06-12T08:52:50.269-04:002015-06-12T08:52:50.269-04:00I'm with you! I'm for the wandering life ...I'm with you! I'm for the wandering life - spreading the good news of God's grace. The Rev. J. Carlyle Gillnoreply@blogger.com