Is what the CofE offering to queer couples essentially what they offered to His Majesty when he married Her Majesty, the Queen Consort. I seem to recall that our gracious Lord Charles was not married in Church, but at city hall, and their union blessed at Church.
No, because the CofE accepts that their majesties are married.
At least the CoE lets them sit side-by-side during services.
Is what the CofE offering to queer couples essentially what they offered to His Majesty when he married Her Majesty, the Queen Consort. I seem to recall that our gracious Lord Charles was not married in Church, but at city hall, and their union blessed at Church.
No, because the CofE accepts that their majesties are married.
As an arm of the State, does the CofE not recognise same=sex marriages conducted by that same state?
Paul Roberts blog suggests that there is a subtle difference in the liturgy for blessing a mixed-sex civil marriage and the proposed liturgy for blessing a same-sex civil marriage.
In the former, the priest blesses the mixed-sex couple.
In the latter, God is petitioned to bless the same-sex couple.
Paul Roberts comments: So, indeed, the bishops have hedged their bets in a way which says “God, we’re not sure you approve of homosexual acts, so if you do, could you bless this couple? But we’re not going to be doing it ourselves, just to be on the safe side.”
If the case is indeed as Darda suggests it might be, isn't it an extra blessing for the same sex couple if it is God rather than the priest who is doing the blessing ?
If the case is indeed as Darda suggests it might be, isn't it an extra blessing for the same sex couple if it is God rather than the priest who is doing the blessing ?
I'm not sure that's going to give much comfort to people.
If the case is indeed as Darda suggests it might be, isn't it an extra blessing for the same sex couple if it is God rather than the priest who is doing the blessing ?
That seems like a rather strange theological position to take. You seem to be arguing that one should not ask a priest for a blessing which they are empowered to give, but should instead pray for a blessing direct from God.
I'm suggesting that Darda seems to understand from someone else that the CofE is suggesting that God, not the priest acting in His name, should give the blessing to a same sex couple. It would seem to me that God himself is more important than any priest and that therefore that is an extra blessing for the same sex couple if they have come to ask directly for God's blessing upon their relationship.
In most priestly blessings it is indeed God who is petitioned to give the blessing rather than the priest.,so in fact there would seem to be little difference from what usually happens in Christian religious blessings. Not all Christian denominations offer blessings given by a clergyperson, but for those which do, a typical blessing would be 'May God almighty bless you, Father Son and Holy Spirit.'
The priest imparts the blessing,not in his (or her) own ,but in the name of God.
In most priestly blessings it is indeed God who is petitioned to give the blessing rather than the priest.,so in fact there would seem to be little difference from what usually happens in Christian religious blessings. Not all Christian denominations offer blessings given by a clergyperson, but for those which do, a typical blessing would be 'May God almighty bless you, Father Son and Holy Spirit.'
The priest imparts the blessing,not in his (or her) own ,but in the name of God.
The words of the blessing in Common Worship (used by the Church of England are in fact "the blessing of God almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, be among you and remain with you always." (It's the same in the Scottish Episcopal Liturgy).
So whilst I would agree that is it God who is actually doing the blessing, the words are important.
In one, the blessing of God is given - "the blessing... be with you" - in the other, it is conditional - "may the blesssing..be with you." Which allows the fudge to which Darda refers.
The blog I linked to goes into a lot of detail about the exact wording of blessings, including liturgies for the blessing of rings. I think that most people who are not "liturgy nerds" (including me!) would not appreciate the subtleties or differentiate if present at an actual ceremony.
In most priestly blessings it is indeed God who is petitioned to give the blessing rather than the priest.,so in fact there would seem to be little difference from what usually happens in Christian religious blessings. Not all Christian denominations offer blessings given by a clergyperson, but for those which do, a typical blessing would be 'May God almighty bless you, Father Son and Holy Spirit.'
The priest imparts the blessing,not in his (or her) own ,but in the name of God.
The words of the blessing in Common Worship (used by the Church of England are in fact "the blessing of God almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, be among you and remain with you always." (It's the same in the Scottish Episcopal Liturgy).
So whilst I would agree that is it God who is actually doing the blessing, the words are important.
In one, the blessing of God is given - "the blessing... be with you" - in the other, it is conditional - "may the blesssing..be with you." Which allows the fudge to which Darda refers.
I'm not sure the "may" in that form of the blessing is a conditional, I think it is mot akin to "Let the blessing ....."
'may' in that sense is a 'helping' verb. Almost every blessing is some sort of fudge or a pious wish . '(May)God bless you' is a wish, not a statement of fact, as is also 'God bless you' with the verb in the subjunctive. 'God blesses you' would be a statement of fact but few clergy would dare to say that with absolute certainty unless they have a direct hotline to Heaven.
It is the same difference between 'The Lord be with you' (subjunctive mood for a pious wish) and 'The Lord is with you' (indicative active mood)
'may' in that sense is a 'helping' verb. Almost every blessing is some sort of fudge or a pious wish . '(May)God bless you' is a wish, not a statement of fact, as is also 'God bless you' with the verb in the subjunctive. 'God blesses you' would be a statement of fact but few clergy would dare to say that with absolute certainty unless they have a direct hotline to Heaven.
It is the same difference between 'The Lord be with you' (subjunctive mood for a pious wish) and 'The Lord is with you' (indicative active mood)
What about "The Lord is here" and "His Spirit is with us"?
Language matters. If you use the same language for two things, then you're implying that these things are similar. If, on the other hand, you choose to use different language for two things, then you're choosing to call attention to the differences. You're saying "these two things are not the same, and we think that's important".
So by choosing to use different language for blessing a civil same-sex marriage and blessing a civil opposite-sex marriage, the C of E is making it very clear that it doesn't see these two things as at all the same.
This is why what the C of E is offering to same-sex couples is fundamentally different from what was offered to the King and Queen.
Language matters. If you use the same language for two things, then you're implying that these things are similar. If, on the other hand, you choose to use different language for two things, then you're choosing to call attention to the differences. You're saying "these two things are not the same, and we think that's important".
So by choosing to use different language for blessing a civil same-sex marriage and blessing a civil opposite-sex marriage, the C of E is making it very clear that it doesn't see these two things as at all the same.
This is why what the C of E is offering to same-sex couples is fundamentally different from what was offered to the King and Queen.
This is what I was trying to get at...(explained much better!) And because
the C of E is making it very clear that it doesn't see these two things as at all the same,
it doesn't in any way change the perception that the CofE regards LGBT relationships as second class. And in no way changes the hurt experienced by those affected.
Language matters. If you use the same language for two things, then you're implying that these things are similar. If, on the other hand, you choose to use different language for two things, then you're choosing to call attention to the differences. You're saying "these two things are not the same, and we think that's important".
So by choosing to use different language for blessing a civil same-sex marriage and blessing a civil opposite-sex marriage, the C of E is making it very clear that it doesn't see these two things as at all the same.
This is why what the C of E is offering to same-sex couples is fundamentally different from what was offered to the King and Queen.
Thank you; that's well-expressed.
Thank you also to @Darda for the link to the blog.
'may' in that sense is a 'helping' verb. Almost every blessing is some sort of fudge or a pious wish . '(May)God bless you' is a wish, not a statement of fact, as is also 'God bless you' with the verb in the subjunctive. 'God blesses you' would be a statement of fact but few clergy would dare to say that with absolute certainty unless they have a direct hotline to Heaven.
It is the same difference between 'The Lord be with you' (subjunctive mood for a pious wish) and 'The Lord is with you' (indicative active mood)
What about "The Lord is here" and "His Spirit is with us"?
'may' in that sense is a 'helping' verb. Almost every blessing is some sort of fudge or a pious wish . '(May)God bless you' is a wish, not a statement of fact, as is also 'God bless you' with the verb in the subjunctive. 'God blesses you' would be a statement of fact but few clergy would dare to say that with absolute certainty unless they have a direct hotline to Heaven.
It is the same difference between 'The Lord be with you' (subjunctive mood for a pious wish) and 'The Lord is with you' (indicative active mood)
What about "The Lord is here" and "His Spirit is with us"?
Wishful thinking?
Or "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".
Prolonging this slight tangent, *The Lord is here - His Spirit is with us* is still an option in Common Worship, but I don't think I've heard it used since the days of Series 3 in the 1970s...
O! those easy-to-use little booklets, with rubrics (*bluebrics*) in blue...
Ahem.
As to naming the Bishops who voted against, it would be interesting to know who they were...if that information is available.
Speaking as a queer RC who wishes that such blessings could be an officially sanctioned option in my communion, I find it hard to not see this as at least some form of progress, but I know Anglicanism, despite its similarities, has many differences in how it works and what challenges it faces, and England is also very different in terms of religion and secularism compared to the US (although we are secularizing rapidly).
Also, I think those denominations that have permitted same sex marriage by using the existing marriage rites for opposite sex couples have stopped having what I think is a useful discussion especially for supporters of LGBT rights and equality of whether the union of a same sex couple, even if it is a very good and holy thing, is or is not ontologically different (while being no inferior to) the traditional understanding of matrimony between a husband and wife. Another discussion that should be had is whether or not opposite sex couples who do not want children or see their relationship as a lifelong commitment but different than a marriage, platonic couples, polyamorous lovers, close friends, and blood relatives like siblings who wish to commit their lives to supporting each other rather than any romantic partner, should not also have a way to have their relationship blessed in a way that is different to but equal in holiness and dignity to marriage in the same way that vows of celibacy are just as holy and important as marriage vows, but different.
I know that these discussions are not seriously being had by bishops in the C of E either and what is being offered is just a band-aid over a rupture in the church that might tear it apart, but maybe progressives in the C of E should try having these discussions anyway?
Also, I think those denominations that have permitted same sex marriage by using the existing marriage rites for opposite sex couples have stopped having what I think is a useful discussion especially for supporters of LGBT rights and equality of whether the union of a same sex couple, even if it is a very good and holy thing, is or is not ontologically different (while being no inferior to) the traditional understanding of matrimony between a husband and wife.
Suppose we consider the union of a person with another person. Suppose that the reproductive systems of those people are such that they are able to conceive a child together, that one of them carries that child to term, and gives birth.
Do you think the ontological status of their union is affected by their gender?
I think that stonespring is trying to indicate that there are many types of close relationship which one person can have with another . Modern marriage ideas have little to do with the traditional christian understanding of marriage. That is not to say that modern secular ideas of marriage are not good ,that they are not even 'holy, but they are not based upon the idea of one man and one woman committing for life, accepting also the responsibility for children of they come along
There are lots of close relationships,between men and women,men and men,women and women (non binary and non binary etc) where these partners do not wish to use the word 'marriage' to describe their special relationship. It remains a special relationship with or without the 'marriage' being used.
Those who wish,for whatever reason, to enter the state of Christian marriage have to be aware of the traditional teachings of the Church about marriage and at least to understand that for some Christians it is difficult to cast these teachings aside. Certainly for those christians who see marriage as a sacrament it is more difficult to cast aside earlier ideas.
It is much easier for those who see a Christian service as celebrating a civil legal marriage being given a blessing
There are lots of close relationships,between men and women,men and men,women and women (non binary and non binary etc) where these partners do not wish to use the word 'marriage' to describe their special relationship. It remains a special relationship with or without the 'marriage' being used.
To what extent would we wish to offer a public blessing to those who did not wish to form a legally-recognised personal partnership of some kind? Would we want to bless those who simply wished to express "lifelong friendship"; or, for that matter, people who were setting up a business partnership - which, of course, does have legal substance but implies a very different kind of relationship? One might get overwhelmed with requests for blessings ... but OTOH some of us may well be blessing houses, lifeboats and pets etc already!
There are lots of close relationships,between men and women,men and men,women and women (non binary and non binary etc) where these partners do not wish to use the word 'marriage' to describe their special relationship. It remains a special relationship with or without the 'marriage' being used.
To what extent would we wish to offer a public blessing to those who did not wish to form a legally-recognised personal partnership of some kind? Would we want to bless those who simply wished to express "lifelong friendship"; or, for that matter, people who were setting up a business partnership - which, of course, does have legal substance but implies a very different kind of relationship? One might get overwhelmed with requests for blessings ... but OTOH some of us may well be blessing houses, lifeboats and pets etc already!
It's relatively common here for people to invite the priest around for coffee and to bless their new home. It is completely normal to pray for all kinds of friendships, joint ventures, and so on. But none of these things has the lifelong sacramental nature of marriage.
@Forthview wants to sidestep the question by claiming that there are lots of relationships that may be good and special and intimate, but that the participants don't regard as a marriage. Sure - I won't disagree with that, but it's not really the question at stake.
Viewing marriage as sacramental is not an idea that is restricted to straight cisgender Christians.
That's why I posed the question involving two people who had the reproductive biology necessary to conceive and bear children - these are two Christians who are making a lifelong commitment, and accepting responsibility for the children that they might have, and are capable of having.
This ticks all the traditional boxes about what marriage is, except the one about gender, because I haven't mentioned what gender these people are.
This, I think, is the sharpest point of the challenge. Does the ontological or sacramental nature of their marriage depend on their gender? I'd say not. Given that the Episcopal Church has a marriage liturgy that it will use for couples of any gender, my church would say not as well.
There are lots of close relationships,between men and women,men and men,women and women (non binary and non binary etc) where these partners do not wish to use the word 'marriage' to describe their special relationship. It remains a special relationship with or without the 'marriage' being used.
To what extent would we wish to offer a public blessing to those who did not wish to form a legally-recognised personal partnership of some kind? Would we want to bless those who simply wished to express "lifelong friendship"; or, for that matter, people who were setting up a business partnership - which, of course, does have legal substance but implies a very different kind of relationship? One might get overwhelmed with requests for blessings ... but OTOH some of us may well be blessing houses, lifeboats and pets etc already!
Viewing marriage as sacramental is not an idea that is restricted to straight cisgender Christians.
Viewing marriage as sacramental is not an idea shared by all Christian traditions. The tradition of which I’m part doesn’t view marriage as sacramental; only baptism and the Eucharist get that view. (We’d speak of marriage in terms of “covenant,” fwiw.)
I entirely agree with Learning Cniht that the idea of sacramental marriage is not an idea restricted to straight cisgender Christians.
However I do say that it is easier for those Christians who do not see marriage as a sacrament to change the understanding of what 'marriage' means,
Secular authorities no longer see marriage as 'lifelong' It can in most cases be relatively easily ended.
It is often a difficult task for Christians to adjust their beliefs to those of the prevailing societies around them and it is a particularly difficult task for those Christian communities who see themselves has having the one faith and communion no matter in which society these particular Christians live. These difficulties are shared to some extent by the RC community and also by the world wide Anglican community which is larger than that of the CofE.
While any two people can indeed share and bear responsibility for the birth and the raising of children I still think that it is necessary to have one male and one female coming together in order to conceive a child.
I entirely agree with Learning Cniht that the idea of sacramental marriage is not an idea restricted to straight cisgender Christians.
However I do say that it is easier for those Christians who do not see marriage as a sacrament to change the understanding of what 'marriage' means,
Secular authorities no longer see marriage as 'lifelong' It can in most cases be relatively easily ended.
It is often a difficult task for Christians to adjust their beliefs to those of the prevailing societies around them and it is a particularly difficult task for those Christian communities who see themselves has having the one faith and communion no matter in which society these particular Christians live. These difficulties are shared to some extent by the RC community and also by the world wide Anglican community which is larger than that of the CofE.
While any two people can indeed share and bear responsibility for the birth and the raising of children I still think that it is necessary to have one male and one female coming together in order to conceive a child.
It isn't though. A woman can be impregnated with sperm from a man hundreds of miles away whom she never meets.
However I do say that it is easier for those Christians who do not see marriage as a sacrament to change the understanding of what 'marriage' means,
I don’t think that necessarily follows at all. Just because a tradition doesn’t view marriage as sacramental doesn’t mean that tradition doesn’t believe, say, that marriage is a divinely ordained institution. In the States, for example, American Evangelicals would be among those most opposed to what they’d call “redefining marriage.” Yet for many if not most American Evangelicals, the idea of anything being “sacramental” is a foreign concept, quite possibly thought of as being “unbiblical” altogether.
However I do say that it is easier for those Christians who do not see marriage as a sacrament to change the understanding of what 'marriage' means,
I don’t think that necessarily follows at all. Just because a tradition doesn’t view marriage as sacramental doesn’t mean that tradition doesn’t believe, say, that marriage is a divinely ordained institution. In the States, for example, American Evangelicals would be among those most opposed to what they’d call “redefining marriage.” Yet for many if not most American Evangelicals, the idea of anything being “sacramental” is a foreign concept, quite possibly thought of as being “unbiblical” altogether.
Meanwhile Episcopalians on both sides of the pond are delighted to welcome same sex couples to perform the sacrament in church. And Anglican opposition mostly comes from the more Protestant wing of the church.
I am happy for you to define a 'sacrament' in any way you wish and I am also happy for you to consider marriage as a lifelong commitment or not as the case may be. The word 'sacrament' is not a Biblical word. It is a word used by certain Christians to refer to something which we ourselves may not understand in all its fullness but where these Christians believe that God is in a special way present - 'sacrament' itself meaning 'promise'
The gaps between those Christians who believe that we can shape God's Word for today's world and those who say that we have to keep with earlier interpretations of that Word does not always mirror the Catholic-Protestant divide ,in fact I would say that it rarely does.
Of course a woman can be impregnated with the sperm of a man she has never met but the man who provides the sperm really has to be a 'man' It is in that way that you need both a 'man' and a 'woman' to conceive a child.
Two people of same,different or indeterminate sex can rear and love a child and yes really love that child and be fully loved in return,but you need a man and a woman to conceive a child. Okay you may only have the sperm of the man,but that sperm contains his essential characteristics which is very own input to the new conception.
While any two people can indeed share and bear responsibility for the birth and the raising of children I still think that it is necessary to have one male and one female coming together in order to conceive a child.
A cis man and a trans man can have a child together "naturally". So can a cis woman and a trans woman. So can lots of combinations including non-binary people, if the biology matches.
I am happy for you to define a 'sacrament' in any way you wish and I am also happy for you to consider marriage as a lifelong commitment or not as the case may be.
My definition is, I think, irrelevant. I was disagreeing with your statement:
However, I do say that it is easier for those Christians who do not see marriage as a sacrament to change the understanding of what 'marriage' means.
I think that statement shows a possible misunderstanding of how marriage is understood by many who don’t view marriage as sacramental.
The gaps between those Christians who believe that we can shape God's Word for today's world and those who say that we have to keep with earlier interpretations of that Word does not always mirror the Catholic-Protestant divide ,in fact I would say that it rarely does.
Some might find “shape God’s Word for today” to be an unfair characterization of their position. They might say they are being faithful to God’s Word, and that earlier interpretations were perhaps not faithful interpretations.
Those who wish,for whatever reason, to enter the state of Christian marriage have to be aware of the traditional teachings of the Church about marriage and at least to understand that for some Christians it is difficult to cast these teachings aside. Certainly for those christians who see marriage as a sacrament it is more difficult to cast aside earlier ideas.
But nobody is asking them to cast aside their interpretation of the teachings, rather they are being asked to let some of us expand the interpretation to include good people who are in a faithful, exclusive relationship.
It is much easier for those who see a Christian service as celebrating a civil legal marriage being given a blessing.
Which is saying that those who deny the possibility of blessing a SSM don't approve of anything other than church weddings.
The gaps between those Christians who believe that we can shape God's Word for today's world and those who say that we have to keep with earlier interpretations of that Word does not always mirror the Catholic-Protestant divide ,in fact I would say that it rarely does.
I think I would describe this as "a developing understanding of God's Word", rather than an attempt to shape it.
There are lots of close relationships,between men and women,men and men,women and women (non binary and non binary etc) where these partners do not wish to use the word 'marriage' to describe their special relationship. It remains a special relationship with or without the 'marriage' being used.
To what extent would we wish to offer a public blessing to those who did not wish to form a legally-recognised personal partnership of some kind? Would we want to bless those who simply wished to express "lifelong friendship"; or, for that matter, people who were setting up a business partnership - which, of course, does have legal substance but implies a very different kind of relationship? One might get overwhelmed with requests for blessings ... but OTOH some of us may well be blessing houses, lifeboats and pets etc already!
Be careful what you bless and how. See Genesis 49 for some examples which include blessings (statements of God's intentionality) which are a long way from the lovey dovey so often associated with the action.
The gaps between those Christians who believe that we can shape God's Word for today's world and those who say that we have to keep with earlier interpretations of that Word does not always mirror the Catholic-Protestant divide ,in fact I would say that it rarely does.
I think I would describe this as "a developing understanding of God's Word", rather than an attempt to shape it.
Developing an understanding can mean fitting God's word to what we want it to fit.
In terms of the whole debate, is there any attempt to redefine "marriage"?
Those who wish,for whatever reason, to enter the state of Christian marriage have to be aware of the traditional teachings of the Church about marriage and at least to understand that for some Christians it is difficult to cast these teachings aside. Certainly for those christians who see marriage as a sacrament it is more difficult to cast aside earlier ideas.
But nobody is asking them to cast aside their interpretation of the teachings, rather they are being asked to let some of us expand the interpretation to include good people who are in a faithful, exclusive relationship.
It is much easier for those who see a Christian service as celebrating a civil legal marriage being given a blessing.
Which is saying that those who deny the possibility of blessing a SSM don't approve of anything other than church weddings.
For some, expanding the teaching is casting aside interpretation and honest understanding.
The gaps between those Christians who believe that we can shape God's Word for today's world and those who say that we have to keep with earlier interpretations of that Word does not always mirror the Catholic-Protestant divide ,in fact I would say that it rarely does.
I think I would describe this as "a developing understanding of God's Word", rather than an attempt to shape it.
Developing an understanding can mean fitting God's word to what we want it to fit.
In terms of the whole debate, is there any attempt to redefine "marriage"?
I think any redefinition happened when most of us accepted that spouses are equal partners in a marriage. In a definition that insists on distinct gender roles with a male "head" it's easy to see why a marriage of two men or two women challenges that, but that's far from the definition even most cis-het Christians (in the west at least) would expect to live by.
Developing an understanding can mean fitting God's word to what we want it to fit.
It shouldn't, and I will firmly claim that in this particular instance, it doesn't.
And frankly, I find your accusations of bad faith here pretty offensive.
How is what I've written an accusation of bad faith? What I've said reflects lived experience.
Bad faith seems to suggest that there's an underlying agenda which I don't see. Everything is out in the open now thank goodness.
I may not agree with the outcome but something has happened which clarifies something of the position even if I feel it's not yet a complete representation of what the end goal is. Synod now has the opportunity to put down a motion to move it forward. The CofE can then decide how it will respond as will those of us in other churches seeking to address the same issues.
For those who are interested the underlying discussion can be found in Living in Love and Faith. Click through to p.273 (p.287 in the PDF file) to see the discussion about how we receive God's word through the Scriptures.
Comments
At least the CoE lets them sit side-by-side during services.
As an arm of the State, does the CofE not recognise same=sex marriages conducted by that same state?
In the former, the priest blesses the mixed-sex couple.
In the latter, God is petitioned to bless the same-sex couple.
Paul Roberts comments: So, indeed, the bishops have hedged their bets in a way which says “God, we’re not sure you approve of homosexual acts, so if you do, could you bless this couple? But we’re not going to be doing it ourselves, just to be on the safe side.”
I'm not sure that's going to give much comfort to people.
That seems like a rather strange theological position to take. You seem to be arguing that one should not ask a priest for a blessing which they are empowered to give, but should instead pray for a blessing direct from God.
In most priestly blessings it is indeed God who is petitioned to give the blessing rather than the priest.,so in fact there would seem to be little difference from what usually happens in Christian religious blessings. Not all Christian denominations offer blessings given by a clergyperson, but for those which do, a typical blessing would be 'May God almighty bless you, Father Son and Holy Spirit.'
The priest imparts the blessing,not in his (or her) own ,but in the name of God.
The words of the blessing in Common Worship (used by the Church of England are in fact "the blessing of God almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, be among you and remain with you always." (It's the same in the Scottish Episcopal Liturgy).
So whilst I would agree that is it God who is actually doing the blessing, the words are important.
In one, the blessing of God is given - "the blessing... be with you" - in the other, it is conditional - "may the blesssing..be with you." Which allows the fudge to which Darda refers.
I'm not sure the "may" in that form of the blessing is a conditional, I think it is mot akin to "Let the blessing ....."
It is the same difference between 'The Lord be with you' (subjunctive mood for a pious wish) and 'The Lord is with you' (indicative active mood)
What about "The Lord is here" and "His Spirit is with us"?
I see it more in the lines of "O Lord, I believe! Help my unbelief."
So by choosing to use different language for blessing a civil same-sex marriage and blessing a civil opposite-sex marriage, the C of E is making it very clear that it doesn't see these two things as at all the same.
This is why what the C of E is offering to same-sex couples is fundamentally different from what was offered to the King and Queen.
This is what I was trying to get at...(explained much better!) And because it doesn't in any way change the perception that the CofE regards LGBT relationships as second class. And in no way changes the hurt experienced by those affected.
Thank you; that's well-expressed.
Thank you also to @Darda for the link to the blog.
The vote wasn't unanimous. Four voted against, and all the Trad Catholics abstained (according to my well-informed informant)
It would be helpful to know who the 4 are.
What's the point of an abstention ... sitting on the fence of sitting on the fence.
The answer to the OP is "no". The fudge continues
Wishful thinking?
Or "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".
O! those easy-to-use little booklets, with rubrics (*bluebrics*) in blue...
Ahem.
As to naming the Bishops who voted against, it would be interesting to know who they were...if that information is available.
Also, I think those denominations that have permitted same sex marriage by using the existing marriage rites for opposite sex couples have stopped having what I think is a useful discussion especially for supporters of LGBT rights and equality of whether the union of a same sex couple, even if it is a very good and holy thing, is or is not ontologically different (while being no inferior to) the traditional understanding of matrimony between a husband and wife. Another discussion that should be had is whether or not opposite sex couples who do not want children or see their relationship as a lifelong commitment but different than a marriage, platonic couples, polyamorous lovers, close friends, and blood relatives like siblings who wish to commit their lives to supporting each other rather than any romantic partner, should not also have a way to have their relationship blessed in a way that is different to but equal in holiness and dignity to marriage in the same way that vows of celibacy are just as holy and important as marriage vows, but different.
I know that these discussions are not seriously being had by bishops in the C of E either and what is being offered is just a band-aid over a rupture in the church that might tear it apart, but maybe progressives in the C of E should try having these discussions anyway?
Suppose we consider the union of a person with another person. Suppose that the reproductive systems of those people are such that they are able to conceive a child together, that one of them carries that child to term, and gives birth.
Do you think the ontological status of their union is affected by their gender?
There are lots of close relationships,between men and women,men and men,women and women (non binary and non binary etc) where these partners do not wish to use the word 'marriage' to describe their special relationship. It remains a special relationship with or without the 'marriage' being used.
Those who wish,for whatever reason, to enter the state of Christian marriage have to be aware of the traditional teachings of the Church about marriage and at least to understand that for some Christians it is difficult to cast these teachings aside. Certainly for those christians who see marriage as a sacrament it is more difficult to cast aside earlier ideas.
It is much easier for those who see a Christian service as celebrating a civil legal marriage being given a blessing
https://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2023/01/24/assessing-the-bishops-prayers-for-blessing/
It's relatively common here for people to invite the priest around for coffee and to bless their new home. It is completely normal to pray for all kinds of friendships, joint ventures, and so on. But none of these things has the lifelong sacramental nature of marriage.
@Forthview wants to sidestep the question by claiming that there are lots of relationships that may be good and special and intimate, but that the participants don't regard as a marriage. Sure - I won't disagree with that, but it's not really the question at stake.
Viewing marriage as sacramental is not an idea that is restricted to straight cisgender Christians.
That's why I posed the question involving two people who had the reproductive biology necessary to conceive and bear children - these are two Christians who are making a lifelong commitment, and accepting responsibility for the children that they might have, and are capable of having.
This ticks all the traditional boxes about what marriage is, except the one about gender, because I haven't mentioned what gender these people are.
This, I think, is the sharpest point of the challenge. Does the ontological or sacramental nature of their marriage depend on their gender? I'd say not. Given that the Episcopal Church has a marriage liturgy that it will use for couples of any gender, my church would say not as well.
But your point is well taken, I think.
However I do say that it is easier for those Christians who do not see marriage as a sacrament to change the understanding of what 'marriage' means,
Secular authorities no longer see marriage as 'lifelong' It can in most cases be relatively easily ended.
It is often a difficult task for Christians to adjust their beliefs to those of the prevailing societies around them and it is a particularly difficult task for those Christian communities who see themselves has having the one faith and communion no matter in which society these particular Christians live. These difficulties are shared to some extent by the RC community and also by the world wide Anglican community which is larger than that of the CofE.
While any two people can indeed share and bear responsibility for the birth and the raising of children I still think that it is necessary to have one male and one female coming together in order to conceive a child.
It isn't though. A woman can be impregnated with sperm from a man hundreds of miles away whom she never meets.
Meanwhile Episcopalians on both sides of the pond are delighted to welcome same sex couples to perform the sacrament in church. And Anglican opposition mostly comes from the more Protestant wing of the church.
The gaps between those Christians who believe that we can shape God's Word for today's world and those who say that we have to keep with earlier interpretations of that Word does not always mirror the Catholic-Protestant divide ,in fact I would say that it rarely does.
Of course a woman can be impregnated with the sperm of a man she has never met but the man who provides the sperm really has to be a 'man' It is in that way that you need both a 'man' and a 'woman' to conceive a child.
Two people of same,different or indeterminate sex can rear and love a child and yes really love that child and be fully loved in return,but you need a man and a woman to conceive a child. Okay you may only have the sperm of the man,but that sperm contains his essential characteristics which is very own input to the new conception.
A cis man and a trans man can have a child together "naturally". So can a cis woman and a trans woman. So can lots of combinations including non-binary people, if the biology matches.
Some might find “shape God’s Word for today” to be an unfair characterization of their position. They might say they are being faithful to God’s Word, and that earlier interpretations were perhaps not faithful interpretations.
I think I would describe this as "a developing understanding of God's Word", rather than an attempt to shape it.
Be careful what you bless and how. See Genesis 49 for some examples which include blessings (statements of God's intentionality) which are a long way from the lovey dovey so often associated with the action.
Developing an understanding can mean fitting God's word to what we want it to fit.
In terms of the whole debate, is there any attempt to redefine "marriage"?
For some, expanding the teaching is casting aside interpretation and honest understanding.
I think any redefinition happened when most of us accepted that spouses are equal partners in a marriage. In a definition that insists on distinct gender roles with a male "head" it's easy to see why a marriage of two men or two women challenges that, but that's far from the definition even most cis-het Christians (in the west at least) would expect to live by.
It shouldn't, and I will firmly claim that in this particular instance, it doesn't.
And frankly, I find your accusations of bad faith here pretty offensive.
How is what I've written an accusation of bad faith? What I've said reflects lived experience.
Bad faith seems to suggest that there's an underlying agenda which I don't see. Everything is out in the open now thank goodness.
I may not agree with the outcome but something has happened which clarifies something of the position even if I feel it's not yet a complete representation of what the end goal is. Synod now has the opportunity to put down a motion to move it forward. The CofE can then decide how it will respond as will those of us in other churches seeking to address the same issues.
I think where someone talks of and is met with the response that is very easily read as implying bad faith, even if that is not what was intended.