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.
I think where someone talks of
"a developing understanding of God's Word", rather than an attempt to shape it.
and is met with the response
Developing an understanding can mean fitting God's word to what we want it to fit.
that is very easily read as implying bad faith, even if that is not what was intended.
"Can mean" - relates to my experience of this debate and others. "Can" does not equate to uniquely "does."
I could certainly have phrased it better and for that I am sorry but equally I read both your responses as looking like attempts to close down the debate.
Hmm. Certainly not my intention. Indeed, IMO, the chapter I referred to in Living in Love and Faith does precisely the opposite, offering as it does a range of possibilities as to how (and even whether) God speaks to us through the Scriptures.
I could certainly have phrased it better and for that I am sorry but equally I read both your responses as looking like attempts to close down the debate.
Which debate? There can be a debate about the theology of same-sex relationships between honest people of good faith who come to different conclusions. I'd call that a useful debate, in that it would explore where the points of agreement and difference were, and so add clarity to everyone's thought.
But it seems like you're trying to have a debate about whether the proponents of same-sex Christian marriage are acting in good faith, and that's not a helpful debate. And it also contains the hidden assumption that all opponents of same-sex Christian marriage are acting in good faith.
Hello,
Please could posters who are not LGBT+ remember to focus on LGBT+ people's voices and opinions on this?
For straight folk, that means looking for what LGBT+ people have to say and featuring that in your posts and reflecting on it so LGBT+ folk stay at the heart of this.
Could people also avoid getting personal with each other and getting drawn into discussions of bad faith? I can see why LGBT+ people might want to consider whether some arguments are in bad faith but if that's not you, then it doesn't help to keep LGBT+ people and their responses at the centre of this.
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 should first say that I think civil marriage, like the same-sex marriage between me and my husband, should be available to any two unrelated consenting adults, and that I am only talking about Christian marriage here - and I acknowledge that different denominations of Christians might come to different answers to the questions I raise below given their different understandings of marriage itself, regardless of their beliefs on the morality of sex or the validity of nontraditional understandings of gender. I'll also admit that my and my husband's marriage was celebrated in a church with the same ceremony that is used for opposite sex couples, although partly due to the questions that I ask here and that I was asking myself at the time, I tried to pick scripture readings for the ceremony that were not typical for marriages. If there had been other options for a religious union open to us that were viewed by the church and society as equally legitimate and holy, I'm not sure what my husband and I would have chosen.)
I'll also say that my gut response is to say that if two people want to enter a lifelong romantic relationship where sex is at least occasionally part of it, if they are capable of conceiving a child using their own bodies or at least their own gametes, and if both partners are open to the possibility of having children, then I have a hard time understanding why the the church should not consider such a union a type of marriage (see below to see how I wonder what should be done concerning opposite-sex cisgender couples who might not meet these criteria). The wording of the prayers and the scripture readings chosen in the marriage liturgy, perhaps the name given to the type marriage and the ceremony itself, might vary depending on the gender identities of the couple, but I don't know if they should. I'm not saying that the current practice of progressively-minded Christians to just open religious marriage (and only one kind of religious marriage) up to all couples that can legally marry is wrong. I just am curious what other possibilities maybe should have been explored or could still be explored, whether or not they might be better, how these possibilities might allow for the inclusion of more couples and groups who are not able to legally marry, and, importantly, how to have there be a diversity of unions within the church to match the diversity of human relationships while at the same time not relegating any type of human individual, especially individuals within historically-marginalized groups, to a second-class status in terms of what types of union would be open to them and the equality in rights and holiness of those unions.
I guess the broader answer to your question would depend on, if there even is an ontological difference between a same sex marriage of two cisgender, non-intersex people and an opposite sex marriage of two cisgender, non-intersex people, whether that difference depends on:
a. Gender or sexual complementarity as a general notion or on the literal ability to, or if the ability is present, willingness to conceive a child (neither of which may be present in many opposite-sex couples).
b. And if it depends on complementarity, then an additional question is whether that complementarity is a matter of gender identity (regardless of anatomy or sex assigned at birth), sex assigned at birth (regardless of gender identity or the effects of any later gender-affirming medical treatment on anatomy), or anatomy itself, at least of the reproductive organs (regardless of gender identity, but whether or not it should be regardless of sex assigned at birth is yet another question).
c. If the ontological status of a union depends on sexual or gender complementarity, but the theology of it acknowledges the existence and validity of those intersex people who from birth are not anatomically strictly male or female and/or people with a nonbinary gender identity, then there is the question of how such individuals would fit into the theology of sexual or gender complementarity. Can different types of people who do not fit a gender or sexual binary still "complement" each other with their genders, bodies, or both? Is there more than one way (other than male-female) that genders and/or bodies can be complementary (in order for such a complementarity to be meaningful enough to confer a distinct ontological status onto it, it would require difference between the partners. What kind of difference should this be?).
I don't have the answers to these questions. These are questions that I think the church needs to ask itself, and I think that both the unwillingness on one side to acknowledge that queer, trans, nonbinary, and intersex people exist (other than as aberrations or sufferers of some kind of mental illness, disability, or birth defect) and on the other side to rush to make religious marriage a one-size-fits-all for all couples before more deeply considering the alternatives are unfortunate.
You may think that it is unfair that these questions only need to be asked for nontraditional couples who wish to have their unions recognized by the church. That is not what I am saying. I think even traditional opposite-sex couples where both partners are cisgender and not-intersex (I think the term for not being intersex is endosex?) need to have the status of their unions reevaluated as well. Should opposite-sex couples who don't think it's a bad thing that their legal marriage might end in divorce have a different type of religious union? Should opposite-sex couples who want there to be a time limit to their union, or who want some of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, but not all (like in a French PACS) have a different type of religious union open to them? Should opposite-sex couples who are physically incapable of conceiving children at the time of marriage and know it, or who do not want children under any circumstances, even by adoption, have the same type of religious union as those couples who, as far as they know, are able to conceive children and are open to the possibility of having children? Should platonic but deeply committed couples, or couples who occasionally have or have had sex, but do not see sex or perhaps even romance as foundational to their relationship, have the same type of religious union as couples who see their relationship as sexual, even if sex is rarely ever part of it? (Here is where the church can explore how to acknowledge and celebrate unions where one or both partners are asexual or demisexual).
The theology of the marriage of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph, at least in the RC understanding of it, is very interesting. It was a "sexual union" in that it was open to the creation and upbringing of new life within it, but it was a union that (at least for RCs) involved no sex between the partners. If the theology of marriage can be flexible enough to accommodate this type of union, should other unions where either the couple views the possibility of sex or children within the relationship in a nontraditional way be subsumed into the traditional understanding of marriage (as was the case for Mary and Joseph) or should their unions be regarded as something different, but also (perhaps equally) holy?
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!
I think this is downplaying the importance and sacredness of friendship. What if two opposite-sex friends who do not want to see themselves as husband and wife, who do not wish to marry each other or anyone else, still want to both legally and religiously enter a lifelong union, with duties and privileges that come along with it? If the state creates a separate legal union that they can enter, why shouldn't the church also come up with a way to solemnize it while keeping it distinct from marriage?
Marriage isn't for everyone. Some people prefer to live their lives alone, others want to live in something like a monastic setting, but many others want to live with people they love in a lifelong commitment that isn't marriage. This includes some blood relatives. Two brothers or sisters, for example, or a single parent and child or an aunt/uncle and niece/nephew, who do not want to marry anyone else and aren't involved in any incestuous relationship but still want the state and the church to recognize their lifelong pledge to take care of each other (and perhaps to share the responsibility of raising children within their family) - why can't there be some kind of holy union in the church for them?
@Enoch apologies if I misconstrued your comment. I was responding to this comment by you where you say that you disagree with both "sides in the debate", ie those in favour of allowing clergy to be in same-gender marriages and those who are against it. Unless you meant a different debate? But that's what has been discussed in the thread and in various letters and articles about the subject.
FWIW, the C of E General Synod meets next week, and I give below an extract from FatherInCharge's regular newsletter to Our Place's congregation:
GENERAL SYNOD- the decision making body of the Church of England meets next week in London. Please PRAY for this meeting - matters of sexuality are being discussed. There is huge pressure on all Churches to change traditional Christian teaching about this issue. PRAY that the guidance of the Holy Spirit will be listened to - rather than the voice of the World. And remember, St Paul faced this issue in his day when writing to the churches like those of Corinth.
My italics. No prizes for guessing FatherInCharge's stance...and I wonder what his reaction would be if the Holy Spirit made it abundantly clear that (for example) same-sex marriage in church is perfectly OK by God...
Well, I shall be interested to see what comments our traditionalist FatherInCharge puts in his next parish newsletter...
Given the virtual disappearance of the C of E in Our Town, and the ever-increasing indifference towards churchy and Christian things, I doubt if there will be much impact locally. That said, Our Place's neighbouring parish is a trifle more inclusive, so there may be some same-sex blessings there. We shall see.
Well, I shall be interested to see what comments our traditionalist FatherInCharge puts in his next parish newsletter...
Given the virtual disappearance of the C of E in Our Town, and the ever-increasing indifference towards churchy and Christian things, I doubt if there will be much impact locally. That said, Our Place's neighbouring parish is a trifle more inclusive, so there may be some same-sex blessings there. We shall see.
FiC is the improved replacement for the former Fr Fuckwit isn't he?
Well, I shall be interested to see what comments our traditionalist FatherInCharge puts in his next parish newsletter...
Given the virtual disappearance of the C of E in Our Town, and the ever-increasing indifference towards churchy and Christian things, I doubt if there will be much impact locally. That said, Our Place's neighbouring parish is a trifle more inclusive, so there may be some same-sex blessings there. We shall see.
FiC is the improved replacement for the former Fr Fuckwit isn't he?
Where do they find them?
Given that BF's local is under the jurisdiction of a flying bishop it's not exactly a surprise that they get these types.
You are both correct. FInC is an exemplary pastor and encourager as far as much of parish life goes (which Fr F definitely was not), but yes, he is one of those traditionalist types...
OTOH, and to be quite fair, he may make no comment at all on the Synod's decision, at least in his newsletter, whatever his private thoughts might be.
Hello,
Please could posters who are not LGBT+ remember to focus on LGBT+ people's voices and opinions on this?
For straight folk, that means looking for what LGBT+ people have to say and featuring that in your posts and reflecting on it so LGBT+ folk stay at the heart of this.
Could people also avoid getting personal with each other and getting drawn into discussions of bad faith? I can see why LGBT+ people might want to consider whether some arguments are in bad faith but if that's not you, then it doesn't help to keep LGBT+ people and their responses at the centre of this.
Thanks very much!
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Louise on refle
I’ve hidden what I think is an accidental posting of an earlier draft post. Please PM me if I’m mistaken. BroJames, wandering Purgatory Host.
You are both correct. FInC is an exemplary pastor and encourager as far as much of parish life goes (which Fr F definitely was not), but yes, he is one of those traditionalist types...
OTOH, and to be quite fair, he may make no comment at all on the Synod's decision, at least in his newsletter, whatever his private thoughts might be.
Well he is allowed an opinion, however unpopular that may be with others. Tbh he sounds like the sort of person to have thought it through before making a comment.
Hello,
Please could posters who are not LGBT+ remember to focus on LGBT+ people's voices and opinions on this?
For straight folk, that means looking for what LGBT+ people have to say and featuring that in your posts and reflecting on it so LGBT+ folk stay at the heart of this.
Could people also avoid getting personal with each other and getting drawn into discussions of bad faith? I can see why LGBT+ people might want to consider whether some arguments are in bad faith but if that's not you, then it doesn't help to keep LGBT+ people and their responses at the centre of this.
Thanks very much!
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Louise on refle
I’ve hidden what I think is an accidental posting of an earlier draft post. Please PM me if I’m mistaken. BroJames, wandering Purgatory Host.
You are both correct. FInC is an exemplary pastor and encourager as far as much of parish life goes (which Fr F definitely was not), but yes, he is one of those traditionalist types...
OTOH, and to be quite fair, he may make no comment at all on the Synod's decision, at least in his newsletter, whatever his private thoughts might be.
Well he is allowed an opinion, however unpopular that may be with others. Tbh he sounds like the sort of person to have thought it through before making a comment.
Indeed, although his remark in the previous newsletter sounded very much like the party line - *Obey God's laws, and don't follow what the World does*...but I shall be interested to see what, if anything, he has to say about the Synod's decision.
Comments
"Can mean" - relates to my experience of this debate and others. "Can" does not equate to uniquely "does."
I could certainly have phrased it better and for that I am sorry but equally I read both your responses as looking like attempts to close down the debate.
Which debate? There can be a debate about the theology of same-sex relationships between honest people of good faith who come to different conclusions. I'd call that a useful debate, in that it would explore where the points of agreement and difference were, and so add clarity to everyone's thought.
But it seems like you're trying to have a debate about whether the proponents of same-sex Christian marriage are acting in good faith, and that's not a helpful debate. And it also contains the hidden assumption that all opponents of same-sex Christian marriage are acting in good faith.
Please could posters who are not LGBT+ remember to focus on LGBT+ people's voices and opinions on this?
For straight folk, that means looking for what LGBT+ people have to say and featuring that in your posts and reflecting on it so LGBT+ folk stay at the heart of this.
Could people also avoid getting personal with each other and getting drawn into discussions of bad faith? I can see why LGBT+ people might want to consider whether some arguments are in bad faith but if that's not you, then it doesn't help to keep LGBT+ people and their responses at the centre of this.
Thanks very much!
Louise
Epiphanies Host
(I should first say that I think civil marriage, like the same-sex marriage between me and my husband, should be available to any two unrelated consenting adults, and that I am only talking about Christian marriage here - and I acknowledge that different denominations of Christians might come to different answers to the questions I raise below given their different understandings of marriage itself, regardless of their beliefs on the morality of sex or the validity of nontraditional understandings of gender. I'll also admit that my and my husband's marriage was celebrated in a church with the same ceremony that is used for opposite sex couples, although partly due to the questions that I ask here and that I was asking myself at the time, I tried to pick scripture readings for the ceremony that were not typical for marriages. If there had been other options for a religious union open to us that were viewed by the church and society as equally legitimate and holy, I'm not sure what my husband and I would have chosen.)
I'll also say that my gut response is to say that if two people want to enter a lifelong romantic relationship where sex is at least occasionally part of it, if they are capable of conceiving a child using their own bodies or at least their own gametes, and if both partners are open to the possibility of having children, then I have a hard time understanding why the the church should not consider such a union a type of marriage (see below to see how I wonder what should be done concerning opposite-sex cisgender couples who might not meet these criteria). The wording of the prayers and the scripture readings chosen in the marriage liturgy, perhaps the name given to the type marriage and the ceremony itself, might vary depending on the gender identities of the couple, but I don't know if they should. I'm not saying that the current practice of progressively-minded Christians to just open religious marriage (and only one kind of religious marriage) up to all couples that can legally marry is wrong. I just am curious what other possibilities maybe should have been explored or could still be explored, whether or not they might be better, how these possibilities might allow for the inclusion of more couples and groups who are not able to legally marry, and, importantly, how to have there be a diversity of unions within the church to match the diversity of human relationships while at the same time not relegating any type of human individual, especially individuals within historically-marginalized groups, to a second-class status in terms of what types of union would be open to them and the equality in rights and holiness of those unions.
I guess the broader answer to your question would depend on, if there even is an ontological difference between a same sex marriage of two cisgender, non-intersex people and an opposite sex marriage of two cisgender, non-intersex people, whether that difference depends on:
a. Gender or sexual complementarity as a general notion or on the literal ability to, or if the ability is present, willingness to conceive a child (neither of which may be present in many opposite-sex couples).
b. And if it depends on complementarity, then an additional question is whether that complementarity is a matter of gender identity (regardless of anatomy or sex assigned at birth), sex assigned at birth (regardless of gender identity or the effects of any later gender-affirming medical treatment on anatomy), or anatomy itself, at least of the reproductive organs (regardless of gender identity, but whether or not it should be regardless of sex assigned at birth is yet another question).
c. If the ontological status of a union depends on sexual or gender complementarity, but the theology of it acknowledges the existence and validity of those intersex people who from birth are not anatomically strictly male or female and/or people with a nonbinary gender identity, then there is the question of how such individuals would fit into the theology of sexual or gender complementarity. Can different types of people who do not fit a gender or sexual binary still "complement" each other with their genders, bodies, or both? Is there more than one way (other than male-female) that genders and/or bodies can be complementary (in order for such a complementarity to be meaningful enough to confer a distinct ontological status onto it, it would require difference between the partners. What kind of difference should this be?).
I don't have the answers to these questions. These are questions that I think the church needs to ask itself, and I think that both the unwillingness on one side to acknowledge that queer, trans, nonbinary, and intersex people exist (other than as aberrations or sufferers of some kind of mental illness, disability, or birth defect) and on the other side to rush to make religious marriage a one-size-fits-all for all couples before more deeply considering the alternatives are unfortunate.
You may think that it is unfair that these questions only need to be asked for nontraditional couples who wish to have their unions recognized by the church. That is not what I am saying. I think even traditional opposite-sex couples where both partners are cisgender and not-intersex (I think the term for not being intersex is endosex?) need to have the status of their unions reevaluated as well. Should opposite-sex couples who don't think it's a bad thing that their legal marriage might end in divorce have a different type of religious union? Should opposite-sex couples who want there to be a time limit to their union, or who want some of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, but not all (like in a French PACS) have a different type of religious union open to them? Should opposite-sex couples who are physically incapable of conceiving children at the time of marriage and know it, or who do not want children under any circumstances, even by adoption, have the same type of religious union as those couples who, as far as they know, are able to conceive children and are open to the possibility of having children? Should platonic but deeply committed couples, or couples who occasionally have or have had sex, but do not see sex or perhaps even romance as foundational to their relationship, have the same type of religious union as couples who see their relationship as sexual, even if sex is rarely ever part of it? (Here is where the church can explore how to acknowledge and celebrate unions where one or both partners are asexual or demisexual).
The theology of the marriage of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph, at least in the RC understanding of it, is very interesting. It was a "sexual union" in that it was open to the creation and upbringing of new life within it, but it was a union that (at least for RCs) involved no sex between the partners. If the theology of marriage can be flexible enough to accommodate this type of union, should other unions where either the couple views the possibility of sex or children within the relationship in a nontraditional way be subsumed into the traditional understanding of marriage (as was the case for Mary and Joseph) or should their unions be regarded as something different, but also (perhaps equally) holy?
I think this is downplaying the importance and sacredness of friendship. What if two opposite-sex friends who do not want to see themselves as husband and wife, who do not wish to marry each other or anyone else, still want to both legally and religiously enter a lifelong union, with duties and privileges that come along with it? If the state creates a separate legal union that they can enter, why shouldn't the church also come up with a way to solemnize it while keeping it distinct from marriage?
Marriage isn't for everyone. Some people prefer to live their lives alone, others want to live in something like a monastic setting, but many others want to live with people they love in a lifelong commitment that isn't marriage. This includes some blood relatives. Two brothers or sisters, for example, or a single parent and child or an aunt/uncle and niece/nephew, who do not want to marry anyone else and aren't involved in any incestuous relationship but still want the state and the church to recognize their lifelong pledge to take care of each other (and perhaps to share the responsibility of raising children within their family) - why can't there be some kind of holy union in the church for them?
GENERAL SYNOD- the decision making body of the Church of England meets next week in London. Please PRAY for this meeting - matters of sexuality are being discussed. There is huge pressure on all Churches to change traditional Christian teaching about this issue. PRAY that the guidance of the Holy Spirit will be listened to - rather than the voice of the World. And remember, St Paul faced this issue in his day when writing to the churches like those of Corinth.
My italics. No prizes for guessing FatherInCharge's stance...and I wonder what his reaction would be if the Holy Spirit made it abundantly clear that (for example) same-sex marriage in church is perfectly OK by God...
Well, quite. Who is to say what the will of the Spirit truly is? That really is an unanswerable question...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/09/church-of-england-votes-in-favour-of-blessings-for-same-sex-unions
Not an overwhelming majority in favour, but welcome, nevertheless.
YMMV, of course.
Given the virtual disappearance of the C of E in Our Town, and the ever-increasing indifference towards churchy and Christian things, I doubt if there will be much impact locally. That said, Our Place's neighbouring parish is a trifle more inclusive, so there may be some same-sex blessings there. We shall see.
FiC is the improved replacement for the former Fr Fuckwit isn't he?
Where do they find them?
Given that BF's local is under the jurisdiction of a flying bishop it's not exactly a surprise that they get these types.
OTOH, and to be quite fair, he may make no comment at all on the Synod's decision, at least in his newsletter, whatever his private thoughts might be.
Louise on refle
Indeed, although his remark in the previous newsletter sounded very much like the party line - *Obey God's laws, and don't follow what the World does*...but I shall be interested to see what, if anything, he has to say about the Synod's decision.