Salisbury, statements and unity

Yesterday, one of the church members asked if they could bring some of the words from the Bishop of Salisbury, Nicholas Holtam, to the congregation's attention. As is ever the case I answered in the affirmative and this is what was read out:

". . . increasingly, there is an evangelical imperative for the Church to recognise that covenantal same sex relationships can be Godly and good for individuals and society; that they are at least like marriage for heterosexuals, and this is a development that many Christians in good faith warmly welcome. For LGBT people it raises question about whether marriage is what they want, but for us as a Church there are things to affirm in this development. It is a disaster that we have allowed the Church to be seen as the opposition to equal civil marriage."

What followed was a balanced and reasonable rejoinder of the words above and afterwards, another of the congregation pointed out that they held the same view as the bishop, and so the service continued with no grief, tension or conflict. I was so proud of being part of that body because we dialogued after the service and found ourselves still one! Pity the wider Church can't do it as well :-) (of course 'equal civil marriage' is actually a reference to 'gay marriage'. That aside I know no one who opposes civil marriage - the register office is there for those who choose it and I for one have no problems with that (and the same is true for civil partnerships which some have always billed as 'gay marriage' from the start so what's the problem?)

For me the first interesting thing is that like sex and gender, there appears to be a bit of confusion regarding civil partnerships and marriage and as with the former, there is a fair amount of interchangeability being used to blur and confuse. Secondly, one of the points made was that opening the doors to 'gay marriage' would do many things but the idea that it would suddenly see the church buildings full was not one of them.

Holtam speaks of us, "Having to accept the new distinction between civil and religious marriages, as we have had to accept Civil Partnerships." This brought some disagreement from those who might otherwise support his words and from those who surely didn't. Extend this to blessing civil (Same-sex) partnerships (which of course many do in defiance of the rules just as they defy them in the way they choose to live) and the confusion is complete. Civil partnerships happen and do so outside a church setting and I'm happy with that - redefining and 'choosing to ignore' (as per the ordained man on the radio last week who chose to ignore the church's ruling on his sexual relationship with another man) are all (I am told) part of rebellion, not revision and this is where the two worlds collide.

Resonance of the collision can be found in the reality that I have been (informally) told that a few of the church groups with which I am in fellowship would have to review their relationships should we ever fling wide the doors and act, as they see it, contrary to Scripture.

Still - we did well yesterday and I trust and pray we will continue to do so (but well done again) after all, if we fail to love the image of the invisible God made visible in our neighbours, what hope is there for us? :-)

Pax

A man hears?

What he wants to hear and disregards the rest!

Well that's the truth according to the lyrics of the Simon and Garfunkel song 'The Boxer' and those words challenge and guide me everyday in all that I do (and attempt to do) and in the way that I think and handle information.

It seems to me that the struggle to live in a way that regards, considers and dialogues with those things that are contrary to our own beliefs and attitudes (and show respect to) is the place from which we might begin to find the means whereby unity and being Church might be made a reality.

Sadly though, others would rather just climb into the ring and fight such that they deny Christ and diminish the witness of the Church to those in the world. Today the words of the song were used to defend the fact that the person had a closed mind rather than point to the paucity of wit and integrity.

But that's not me (us, you?) is it?

Pax

ps. Pain when you think you've saved something only to find you've posted it instead. Make me glad I don't drink for at least that way the madness is all me and not the alcohol :)