Anglican Mainstream is reporting that a same-sex blessing took place on Sunday 23rd (just passed), conducted by the Provost of Glasgow. From the Provost’s own blog, the following:
Today I celebrated a Eucharist in circumstances which were new to me but which felt old and traditional all the same. A new addition to the range of things that human beings have wanted to mark with the sharing of the bread of heaven and the wine of new life. Today it was in celebration of a Civil Partnership between two people whom I have come to know through my work.
…As I helped the two men through their vows and then served communion to them and their friends in thanksgiving, I knew the Eucharist of old. And I knew the Eucharist afresh. I know Christ at that meal every time. Today it was knowing him holding the beloved disciple in his arms as he shared with his friends on his last night and as he has done at every Eucharist since.
I have some questions that I think Rowan Williams should answer:
- Has he been in contact with the House of Bishops in Scotland to inquire as to whether they were aware of this? Have same-sex blessings been authorised in Scotland? In the Provost’s Diocese?
- Given that the Primates of the Global South are already responding to the American House of Bishop’s communiqué with a resounding voice that TEC have not agreed to halt all same-sex blessings and that therefore they have rejected the Dar Es Salaam demands, what does he think this action and the inability of the Bishops of Scotland to discipline the Provost will do for the unity of the Communion?
- Is Lambeth 1998 1:10 dead in the water or only the parts of the resolution that don’t ask for a Listening Process?
Do you think I’ll get a reply?
Update : Kelvin (the Provost has responded in the comments below (thanks Kelvin) and Ruth G has picked up on it as well.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Happy to reply.
Has he been in contact with the House of Bishops in Scotland to inquire as to whether they were aware of this?
– Yes
Have same-sex blessings been authorised in Scotland?
– No. The Bishops expect clergy to make an appropriate pastoral response to couples in this situation. This service was a legitimately authorised Eucharist. There are no authorised services of blessing for same-sex couples in Scotland in any diocese.
Given that the Primates of the Global South are already responding to the American House of Bishop’s communiqué with a resounding voice that TEC have not agreed to halt all same-sex blessings and that therefore they have rejected the Dar Es Salaam demands, what does he think this action and the inability of the Bishops of Scotland to discipline the Provost will do for the unity of the Communion?
– I was following the Bishops own pastoral policy which was much discussed when it was issued in March 2005. It would be odd not to be following it at any time.
Is Lambeth 1998 1:10 dead in the water or only the parts of the resolution that don’t ask for a Listening Process?
– Yes, the whole thing.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Thanks for replying Kelvin. For those who want to know, Kelvin is the Provost in question who conducted the same-sex blessing.
Kelvin, do you not think your reply above that
is exactly the same thing that Bruno++ is currently being criticised for and that it’s essentially a highly disingenuous way of saying that “same-sex blessings haven’t been authorised so what’s the problem”?
September 28th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Actually, I think that some of the criticism that Bruno++ is getting is for saying something that people believe to be simply untrue.
I’ve no way of knowing whether the criticism of Bruno++ is justified or not.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
OK – let me put this another way so you’re absolutely clear what I’m asking. Do you think that Idris not authorising a liturgy for same-sex blessings in the Diocese, but at the same time not in any way disciplining clergy who carry out same-sex blessings is tantamount to allowing same-sex blessings to occur and therefore de facto authorising them?
September 28th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
I can’t say I’ve ever thought about it that way.
+Idris certainly authorises the Eucharist, and it was the Eucharist I was celebrating, according to the 1982 Scottish Liturgy.
Fortunately, there is no need for me to put words into the mouths of the Scottish Bishops. Two years ago they made a very careful statement about the difference between the pastoral care of gay people and the formal authorisation of liturgies. It said:
Neither +Idris or myself have acted outwith this policy, which has been public for more than 2 years and seems to work well.
I see all of the College of Bishops fairly regularly in the course of my work, and know them well. (And that is one of the things that makes Scotland very different to England – we all know one another).
One might argue that clergy should be disciplined if they act outside this policy, for example by treating gay folk badly. Although there are a few who disagree with the bishops, there has been fairly wide support for their stance, which has held the church together.
As might be expected, I would be supportive of any move to formalise a liturgy for same-sex blessings, but I know of no-one who is pushing for it to happen through the synodical process in Scotland at this time. For the record, it is not something that I would propose at General Synod right now.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
My apologies for giving a misleading response above.
I had carelessly read it as a question directed to me rather than one directed at Rowan Williams.
I dare say Archbishop Rowan has other things on his mind than me at the moment.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
The above statement by the Scottish Episcopal Church is disingenuous at best. Nowhere does the Windsor Report, Dromantine, Dar, or the ACC statements say that they are limiting the problem to “texts” that bless. It is “rites” that bless. You just conducted a “rite” of blessing. Windsor and co. also fully reassert Lambeth I.10, so you appear to be unilaterally abrogating Lambeth I.10.
A pastoral response to persons with homosexual attractions is not tantamount to approving acting on these desires, and a full reading of those documents cannot lead one to any conclusion but that the orthodox position on sexuality is the Anglican Communion’s position. There is no other reasonable reading of the documents.
Also, if you did it with the fore-knowledge of Primus Jones and he did not instruct you not to do it, you conducted the rite within the Eucharist pursuant to the Scottish Episcopal Church’s authority. Any other definition of “authority” and “authorize” is untenable. This is unambiguously in violation of the Dar Communique. Did Primus Jones mean it when he agreed to the Communique or not?
September 29th, 2007 at 6:22 am
Maybe I am being obtuse here but what vows were these? Why are any sort of vows needed for a blessing? Why is a priest allowing a couple to make vows to each other and performing a Eucharist with regards to a blessing? Is the intent to approximate Christian marriage? If not don’t you think that using vows and a Eucharist for a blessing gives the false impression to the couple, and more importantly the community, that some sort of valid liturgy or rites have been performed?
You speak of “celebration of a civil partnership”? Why is a church celebrating a legal contract? At most you are blessing 2 individuals. What is the point of waxing prophetic about this? From the standpoint of the Church and it’s canons this carries no weight whatsoever, no one has been joined or consecrated. The 2 people leave the church as individual in the sight of the church as when they entered so what exactly is the point?
September 29th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
The point is that blessing is what we do.
The church has been given the gift of pronouncing God’s blessing where we find it and where it is needed. We bless all sorts of things, all sorts of people, at all sorts of times. Blessings for people taking up a new job, blessing of new relationships, blessings of long faithfulness, blessings of those in hope, blessings for those who grieve. We bless rings, roads, houses, books, church ornaments, doors, meals, pets, boats. Why should the love and commitment of two gay people be the only ‘thing’ we can’t bless? …or indeed, the only thing we shouldn’t talk about blessing when we are filled with excitement at all that God has given us.
September 29th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Kimberly,
The point is that blessing holy things is what we do.
For example, I’ve just come from a wedding where I blessed the couple, I blessed all the marriages in the church and I blessed the rings. All of these things (Eph 5) are signs of God’s holiness. Throughout church history however and across the vast majority of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church today, we have not and do not believe that same-sex unions are holy. In fact, those entering into active same-sex relationships are doing that which is clearly unholy.
That is why they cannot be blessed and furthermore that is why the refusal of Bishops to discipline those who conduct them is nothing short than an insult to Christ from whom all holiness comes.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:18 am
Blessing Holy things is not what I do, if God has already made something holy and blessed then it doesn’t need my intervention. Holy things don’t need the words and actions of a priest to be blessed, they are already.
We don’t bless the holy, we bless the ordinary, the every day, the common place to help people see that God’s blessings are in them too, that God’s holiness and love can shine out and through them as much as it can through the ‘holy’ things.
‘The earth is the Lord’s and everything that is in it.’ Not just those things we, from personal choice, would like to be in it.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:24 am
Aaaahh, so on that logic paedophilic relationships should be blessed? After all, you say we should bless everything. And I’ve got a bloke just down the street from me who wants to go out and rape someone tonight. Could you pop over and bless him first? He’d be terribly grateful.
Or are you now saying there are moral judgements to be made?
October 1st, 2007 at 8:34 am
One I never said we bless everything, and two who ever said faith was logical.
What I am saying is that you are incorrect in saying we bless holy things.
Moral judgements are always made, we are but humans, and in that frailty we fall short of the unconditional love that God offers all of creation. We are called to love not to judge, yet we judge more than we should and love less than we should.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:42 am
So how do you decide the moral judgement on the two cases I gave? Where in the Bible is the moral objection to blessing them?
October 1st, 2007 at 9:49 am
Moral judgements can not be made on theoretical cases.
I may have blessed such people, as may you have, we do not know all the secrets of those who come to us for blessing.
So to get away from theoretical cases:
Jesus asked ‘…is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to destroy it?’ This stands true whatever day of the week it may, or may not be. If the actions of a person destroy and harm another person then I could not and would not condone it.
As for the perpetrators, I too am far from perfect, so I would hear their confession (as hard as that might be), urge them to do the right thing (including if there was a case in law to answer to), and pray for them.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:03 am
Kirstin writes: ‘We are called to love not to judge.. ‘
Actually Christians are called by the Bible to do both. Christianity has a moral dimension – it was to define and to deal with sin that Jesus came.
So to say the above, Kirstin, is just either a cop-out or a false weapon with which to beat the Christian who is trying to be true to Christian morality.
Here are some helpful guidelines that someone else has put together:
RIGHT JUDGING
NEW TESTAMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDRESSING
FALSE TEACHING AND DOCTRINE
The Holy Scriptures of the New Testament address the matter of false teaching, a different gospel and false prophets. We provide the following Biblical passages (from the New American Standard Version unless noted otherwise) to assist in your personal prayers and decision as to how to respond to false teaching.
I. Our Responsibility
“Judge with Righteous Judgment” (John 7:24)
It is appropriate to observe the Biblical distinction between judging as condemning a person’s soul—which is clearly God’s role—from the Biblical mandate for Christians to judge as in distinguishing between right and wrong, between good and evil. “The Lord will judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10: 30). The matter of eternal judgment of a person to his or her eternal fate is rightfully reserved to God alone. Nevertheless, He desires of His people to know the difference between that which is right and that which is wrong and to live that which is moral and good by forsaking that which is immoral and evil.
So often one encounters someone citing the Biblical passage: “Judge not, lest you be judged” as if the Christian is to have nothing to do with any kind of judging or judgment process. This is unfortunate since Holy Scripture is quite clear that it is the responsibility of every Christian to “discern between good and evil” as Solomon prayed to the Lord (I Kings 3:9).
From the New Testament, we are admonished by our Lord to “[t]ake heed that no one leads you astray” (Matthew 24:4). In order to do so, Jesus implored his followers: “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24). In fact at Luke 12:57, Jesus asks: “Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right ?” He approves of one of Simon Peter’s judgments by affirming him and saying: “You have judged rightly” (Luke 7:43). See also, Luke 13:57; I Cor. 5:9-13.
“The spiritual man is to judge all things” declares the Apostle Paul at I Corinthians 2:15. Otherwise we would all be “children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles” (Ephesians 4:1).
Clearly when Paul spoke of judging those “inside” the church he qualified that judgment in many ways. Judgment should be implemented (1) in a spirit of gentleness and an awareness that one’s own self is vulnerable to temptation (Galatians 6:1); (2) in a mournful manner (1 Corinthians 5:2) and with regard for the offender as a brother and not an enemy (2 Thessalonians 3:15); (3) out of a desire to reclaim the offender for God’s kingdom rather than punitively condemn the offender to hell; (4) with a zeal to restore him quickly and enthusiastically to the community following repentance (1 Corinthians 5:5; 2 Corinthians 2:5-11; 7:8-13); and (5) in proportion to the recalcitrance of the offender and the severity of the offense (1 Thessalonians 5:14; 1 Corinthians 5:1-2). Yet, equally as clearly, Paul insisted that the church do its job of judging those within the community of faith who have deviated from Biblical norms. Anything less would be unloving.
II. As to proclamation of another or different Gospel
Galatians 1:6-10: “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached, let him be accursed [fn: Gk:anathema] … For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men ? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.”
I John 1:1-7, especially verses 5-7: “ And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth, but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
II Corinthians 11:3-4: “But I am afraid that … your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we have preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.” [NIV]
II John 7-11, especially verse 10-11: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching [of Christ], do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting, for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.”
See I Timothy 4:1-3 and Romans 1: 21-32, especially verse 32: “though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them, but approve those who practice them.” [RSV]
III. As to false doctrine, teachers and prophets
Christians are warned by Jesus in Matthew 7:15-16 to “beware of the false prophets.”
I John 4:1-3: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God: and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist of which you have heard that is coming, and now it is already in the world.”
II Peter 2:1-4, 9-10: “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment … then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority.”
In Galatians 2:4, Paul issues a warning concerning those who would go beyond the word of God in placing rules upon the faithful that “it was because of the false brethren who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even one hour, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.”
I Timothy 1:1-5 finds Paul urging Timothy to remain in Ephesus “in order that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.” See also, I Timothy 6:3-6.
See also II Corinthians 4:1-2, I Corinthians 15:33-34 and Titus 1:12-16.
I Corinthians 6:18: “Flee immorality.” In this regard, I Thessalonians 4:2-8 reads: “For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; and that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the Lord is the avenue in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification. Consequently, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you.”
IV. The Christian’s Calling
II Corinthians 6:17-7:1: “‘Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,’ says the Lord. ‘And do not touch what is unclean; and I will welcome you. I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to Me,’ says the Lord Almighty. Therefore, having these promises separating ourselves from darkness, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”
October 1st, 2007 at 2:07 pm
David what I actually said was –
That is neither a cop out nor a false weapon, unless you wish to claim that Jesus was misquoted when he said, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
We are called to love above all else and we are not called to judge. We are called to feed the hungry, to free the captive, to proclaim the Good News, to welcome the stranger, to look at the plank in our own eye, but nowhere in the Bible are we called to go and judge others. Making right judgements and judging others are indeed two very different things, but none of the quotes given are telling us to judge others.
The verse partly quoted from John 7, is Jesus’ response to the people’s anger that He wasn’t acting as they perceived proper, but acting out of love. They were making judgements over him and he was warning them about judging, not telling them to go and judge, but rather reminding them that if they judged others, they better be sure of what and why they were judging as they would have to answer for it one day. The references from 1 Kings and 1 Corinthains 2:15 are clearly about discernment which is different from judging others. In Luke 12 Jesus again isn’t telling us to judge others, rather we are being urged not to jump to the assumptions of others, but test things for ourselves, as is the case in Luke 7 while Luke 13 doesn’t have a verse 57! And as for the 1 Corinthians quote I would re-direct you to Luke chapter 15. The long list of quotes on church discipline is not about casting judgements on others either as Paul makes very clear.
It is indeed part of our Christian responsibility to do good and turn from evil, but it is not part of our responsibility to judge, and me for my part will not cast aside Jesus’ words, ‘Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.’ Luke 6:37. For if they and what Jesus called the first two commandments are cast aside what else will follow? Beware false prophets and those who preach a different Gospel indeed!
October 1st, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Kirstin,
I think you know that when you reply to my question about paedophilia you are deliberately not answering the issue. You said:
“I may have blessed such people, as may you have, we do not know all the secrets of those who come to us for blessing.”
but surely it was very clear from the context of my question that I was asking you to bless them knowing what they were doing.
I’m not concerned whether you’re far from perfect (I’ve done my Augustine like the rest of us). I’m asking you that when presented with someone who wants you to bless his paedophilic relationship, would you do it and if so (or not), on what Scriptural basis?
October 1st, 2007 at 2:31 pm
I think I made it clear from my answer that I was not prepared to deal with the hypothetical, and if you are not concerned with whether I am far from perfect or not why are you so concerned about whether I might or might not do something hypothetically? So that you can judge me on my response? I will not put that temptation in your path.
This thread started with me pointing out that there is no need to bless things that are already holy, interesting how it has been twisted around to be something totally different.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:39 pm
I think Kirstin has a very valid point in referring to Jesus’s words about not judging. Clearly there is a non-negotiable obligation not to look down on other people or condemn them in our hearts, nor to think we are better than them etc.
But I don’t think that excludes a different NT command: to test and approve what is God’s good, perfect and pleasing will. So moral deliberation and, after a sense, judgement is also an obligation. But it must take place without judging *people*.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:43 pm
P.S. I totally fail to see why blessing paedophilia is a theoretical case. Paedophilic activity takes place. It is not hypothetical. So there is a real and not hypothetical question as to whether the church should affirm such behaviour or not – and therefore the question of the basis on which it can discern what is right in this real case.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Kirstin,
The problem is these questions are not totally hypothetical. I know of people who have been in such relationships. My question to you is, if they claim to exhibit the same fruit that you claim an adult gay relationship does, are they then moral?
These are crucial ethical questions which need to be handled. Saying that you don’t want to handle “hypotheticals” is ducking the problem.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Blair – I do not think that to love and not to judge excludes
However I do believe that the testing and approving must be done without judging others and in love. Those should be the imperatives that guide any Christian decision making process.
On your other point paedophilia is indeed not theoretical, however the case presented is. I make a point of not being drawn on any (not just this one) hypothetical case presented on the net.
The question should the church affirm someone’s criminal behaviour is a very different one, but not the one I was being asked.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Peter, can you please indicate to me exactly were I made a statement on gay relationships? I have been talking about the fact Holy things do not require our blessing, that love above all else should guide our Christian journey, and that judging others is not something Christians should be engaged in. In fact in this thread you haven’t either, you have been talking about a hypothetical paedophilia case.
Paedophilia and homosexuality are two different things.
You last response perfectly demonstrates why I will not be drawn into hypothetical situations as you were thinking of something other than you were asking.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Sorry Kirstin – I mixed you up Kimberly who has also been contributing – K & K – confusing…
The point about paedophilia and homosexuality still stands – yes they are different things but we can’t make moral judgements and create ethical frameworks to handle them using different methodologies. The question still stands:
If someone in a paedophilic relationship exhibits fruit of the spirit and claims not be abused, is that relationship moral?
This is not a hypothetical question.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Kirstin writes:
‘ ..nowhere in the Bible are we called to go and judge others.. ‘
So 1 Cor 5 11-13, for example, is not in the Bible?
It says there: ‘ ..I write to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of Christian brother if he is known to be guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater…No you must not so much as eat with such a person…Is it not those inside the church upon whom you are to pass disciplinary judgment?…Drive out that wicked one from among you – expel him from your church.’
However you wriggle and squirm, this and the scriptures I have already quoted show clearly that there are situations where we are definately called as Christians you make a judgment on certain bahaviour and, far from blessing it, to stand against that behaviour and those guilty of it for so long as they persist.
Jesus ‘judged’ the woman caught in adultery and those using the temple for pure commerce and told them (forcefully in the latter case) to stop it.
How else is it possible to make a stand against the spread of immorality and evil within the church? To love without judging between right and wrong, and never to oppose those guilty of habitual, open, and flagrant sinning is to deprive Christianity of its moral dimension.. a dimension that clearly matters a great deal to God.
Paul insisted that the church do its job of judging those within the community of faith who have deviated from Biblical norms. Anything less would be unloving. You, in contrast seem to think it loving to let them just carry on – even if, as in the case of homosex, this could lead to their eternal separation from God. That’s a funny idea of what loving is!
I am sorry, but a position like yours is just what is making the C of E a laughing stock in the eyes of so many who are looking to it to give a clear moral lead in society.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Peter it happens to the best of us, no worries -
The Church is not above the law of the land, and paedophilia regardless of whether it is male/male, female/female or male/female is against the law.
With regard to an ethical framework, any sexual relationship should be within a loving environment between consenting partners of a legal age. I would refer you back to a previous comment I made
That framework, in my view stands for all relationships, regardless of age and of whether or not a sexual dimension exists.
However I still do not think that is what you are actually asking as you say
A statement which, for me, needs some clarification before I could answer it. I suspect you are not thinking of a 5 year old child and a 47 year old adult, but I do not want to presume what you are actually trying to ask. To put it simply are you asking is under aged sex immoral, or paedophilia? I suspect you are not raising this question in relationship to a 15 year old girl and a 16 year old boy, although why would the same ethical framework not be used. Does the person claim not to be abused because they don’t know any differently, or because they are an older teenager who is still under age legally but has made a personal choice? Also I am slightly confused as to what point you are trying to make with introducing the fruit of the Spirit, why would the fruits of the Spirit not exist in someone just because they were not aware that they were being abused?
I am not trying to duck the question I just want to know what question actually is.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:34 pm
The specific case I’m thinking of is ebophilic. The younger male is (was) 13 and the older in his 20s.
As to your first point, can you direct me to a Biblical passage that agrees with your statement that a sexual relationship should be:
You quote Jesus, but what if someone comes back to you based on that (eg. the 13 yo above) and says “Yes – I am not being harmed. Bless this relationship”?
October 1st, 2007 at 6:07 pm
David – I am not wriggling and squirming, I am sitting quite comfortably with God. We are not called to judge others, Jesus did, can and will judge others. To assume that because I refuse to judge others means that I condone behaviour that is un-Christian is laughable as those who know me will attest to. Love sometimes has to be tough, but that does not mean we judge others, as Jesus said when dealing with the woman caught in adultery, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” and he neither threw a stone himself nor condemned her.
I stand by what I said we are called to love not to judge, to do otherwise would be putting ourselves above our Lord.
You ask how else it is possible? Galatians 5:19-26
Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, competing against one another, envying one another.
And by the way who said I had anything to do with, or would want to have anything to do with the Church of England?
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:25 am
Peter – An ethical framework is just that a framework, and like it or not is not made up of a series of Biblical texts. So I am not going to point you to a text but simply remind you of the facts, Biblical and otherwise. We are called to love, we live in a society were there is a legal age and our relationships, all our relationships, should be Christ’s like.
The gender of the people concerned doesn’t matter, at 13 a crime is being committed, end of story. Or are you suggesting that if it was a 13 year old girl, there is no ethical or moral dilemia?
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:07 am
Kirstin,
So if Parliament ruled that the age of consent would change to 10 yo that would be OK? Sex between a 12 yo and a 25 yo would then be moral?
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:34 am
You are now talking hypothetically again and you know I wont answer such questions. I notice that you answer none!
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:49 am
Kirstin, that’s a cop-out (oh, and “good morning” by the way). Your response to the ethical framework I asked for was to give three key factors:
i) We are called to love
ii) we live in a society were there is a legal age
iii) our relationships, all our relationships, should be Christ’s like
Now, all I’m doing is inquiring whether all three of those criteria are robust reasons to make a judgement. It seems to me that if you use (ii) as a reason to object to paedophilic relationships (that they are below the societal age of consent) then surely if the societal age of consent changes to 12 the relationship becomes moral?
Let me put this very clearly. Let’s say, using your criteria you analyse a relationship between a 14yo and an 18yo to be loving and Christ like (your 1st and 3rd criteria) but to fail on criteria 2. If society were of a different mind (that the age of consent should be 12) would you then say the relationship was moral?
What about the same question but the ages concerned are now 13 and 30?
You see, I think the reason why you refuse to answer this question is because you realise your second criteria doesn’t work. You only hold to it (ii – legal age on consent) as long as in your conscience it still fits criteria i and iii. And that’s OK, because that’s exactly the stance I also take, but this does mean that we shouldn’t use the age of consent as an argument in our construction of an ethical framework on this issue.
Do you see my point?
As for whether hypothetical questions shouldn’t be answered, well, any ethics exam for a university degree in Biblical Theology is going to do exactly that – ask hypothetical questions. It’s how we test people’s understanding and reasononing – hypotheticals are the way we thrash out whether our ethical frameworks are any good. If you don’t want to argue hypotheticals then you’re actually saying you simply don’t want to discuss ethics.
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:52 am
Oh – off-topic, but if contributors to this thread (and others) would like their picture (or any picture) next to their name (like i have), then click the link just above the comment box. The advantage with this system is that you get an icon not just on this website but also any other that uses the gravatar system that is active here and elsewhere.
Or just keep your automatic comment icon….
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:16 am
It is not a cop out it is a fact, a fact you may not like but one never the less. I will not answer hypothetical questions on the web. This is not a theological exam when the subject matter would be clearly spelt out and the set question would not change. Different questions need different answers, no question, or situation even one that may seem the same from the outside can be answered with the same answer; our answers, yours and mine are always given from our ethical framework, not as some rubber stamp prepared before hand and brought out of the drawer when a particualr set of circumstances present themselves. For example in the past I have declined to conduct a marriage rite; although both individuals fell inside that framework I previously eluded to. The thing with ethics and morals is there is no one answer, maybe life would be simpler if there was but there isn’t.
If you are asking would I vote in favour of the lowering of the age of consent I would say no, but that isn’t what you are asking.
So let me see if I have this right, you take the same veiw as me with regard to age of consent, yet say that it shouldn’t be used in an ethical and moral framework. That would seem to imply that age should not be considered in morals and ethics. Now up to a point I might be able to agree, but not when it comes to a sexual relationship. Surely you aren’t suggesting that then with regard to age and sex their is no moral or ethical framework?
To suggest, as you seem to be, that an ethical framework is set in stone is a nonsense, you yourself are an example of how such frameworks change during our lifetimes, mine certainly has; and I for one am open to God revealing more to me and maybe changing them again, are you, or do you think you have all the answers and now see clearly and that Paul was wrong when he wrote about in this life that we only see in a mirror dimly?