To think that the C of E church should not take a step back in time

[2beesornot2beesthatisthehoney]

So the bishops have made a statement that sex belongs only in a heterosexual marriage not in a gay relationship, marriage or otherwise , not in a civil partnership and not outside marriage. WTF
In an age where many have turned their back on religion aibu to think that they will alienate even more people
IMO the c of e used to be a broad welcoming church: it has become more and more conservative and evangelical in the last 10 years I don’t recognise it anymore.

This isn't a new position, they have held it for quite some time. Individual Christians, including vicars, have different views but that has been the official line for some years.

There's lots of divorced vicars, plenty do not agree with this ... they as usual are placating the extremists

“Effectively the church is undermining the new civil partnership legislation which at the very least assists people in “common law marriages “ to have security and rights.
This is on top of just the sex bit.”

How are they undermining the legislation? Civil partnerships are secular; they haven’t got anything to do with the church.

As far as I am aware you can have a blessing after a civil marriage at least Prince Charles did , so I assume it’s ok for us minions
But you can’t after a civil partnership apparently. A register office marriage is a secular institution too.

They have literally changed nothing in this statement. All they have done - and they are pretty clear about this - is restate the current position and clarify some things about how it applies to the new opposite sex civil partnerships. You may disagree with it (though if you aren't even in the church, I'm not sure why you'd care that much) but it is not accurate to describe it as a step backwards. It's not a step in any direction. It's a standing still.

They are just being consistent and teh Catholic church is the same. However they are not imposing those views on people who aren't of those churches.

Having babies when you aren't married is often a bad idea anyway. Having lots of sex outside marriage is not necessarily a recipe for happiness either.

This is why the Episcopal Church in the US is going to get thrown out of the Anglican Communion. We support same sex marriage and consider premarital sex to be a matter of individual conscience and choice. The only reason they haven't given us the boot yet is because we contribute most of the money.

Jesus himself didn't think it necessary to pass judgement on it

There’s no way a Jewish person living in Roman times would have ever approved of this 😂🤣 not that the real person is the one they worship though. It seems to me that Christians just make Jesus in whatever image they like.

I'm surprised anyone is surprised by this tbh. Religions tell people how to live their lives (largely based on outdated moral codes from ancient societies). That's literally what religion is for.

Or rather it's what organised religions are for.

However they are not imposing those views on people who aren't of those churches.

But not great for gay Christians.

But not great for gay Christians.

They are welcome with us:

episcopalchurch.org/lgbtq-church

The rector of my church is a lesbian. I usually sit with her wife during services.

I'm guessing this is to prevent schism of the world wide union of Anglican Churches.

It's actually a way of pushing the American Episcopal church out the door.

I don't think it is a step back in time. I don't think they ever formally took a step forward in the first place. What they did was bury their heads in the sand about the disconnect between the socially acceptable norms in the different parts of the Anglican Communion.

I don't know what has caused today's publication, but it is not something I welcome. Essentially it is based on Natural Law and a few biblical verses of dubious relevance considering they do not deal with anything comparable to a modern homosexual couple in a committed relationship. Like many people in this country, I am of the view that a loving monogamous relationship is something to be applauded, regardless of whether it is heterosexual or homosexual. Celibacy is a vocation and should not be forced on people just because they are gay.

The hypocrisy of the Church making pronouncement on the private sexual activity of consenting adults, while continuing to obfuscate responsibility for their failure to protect vulnerable boys from sexual predators like Peter Ball, is so incomprehensible that it makes anything they have to say on any moral issue completely vacuous.

The Church of England was founded by a man whose lack of respect for the sanctity of marriage led him to have six wives, some of who had killed or claimed not really to have married after all.

We need have no fear of the CofE returning to its roots.

I don't think they ever formally took a step forward in the first place.

The ordination of women as priest in 1994 was a step forward and quite controversial. Of course the US church did so in 1970 and the sky did not fall, so that probably emboldened them.

The Church of England was founded by a man whose lack of respect for the sanctity of marriage led him to have six wives

The ability to throw Catherine out of the boat was certainly one factor, but so was the desire to stop the drain on the treasury of sending a ship full of gold to Rome every year.

@xenia

I seem to remember several senior figures in the c of e including the archbishop of York publicly opposing the legalisation of same sex marriage. Sounds like imposing their views to me.

The only reason they haven't given us the boot yet is because we contribute most of the money.

This is actually nonsense. There is no shared financial commitment between any of the provinces of the Anglican Communion. They are all independent legally and financially.

Sounds like imposing their views to me.

No, it sounds like participating in the democratic process. They're entitled to have and express their views on proposed changes to legislation, like everyone else.

@MissConductUS I remember that well because I remember a lot of people in my village genuinely wondering why women were so bothered when they could already be deacons - surely that was enough! Ordination is a different issue from marriage and sex though. The Church of England has never dared to unpick that issue and come up with a coherent and theologically sound view that is not stuck in the Middle Ages.

As a Christian this makes me really sad. I had been moving towards baptism in a CofE church, however partly due to this and partly due to the homophobic views held by the vicar and much of the congregation at my old (conservative evangelical) church I've now moved to a United Reformed Church which is part of the inclusive church network and who actively support same sex marriage - there's still hope for non-bigoted religion, but sadly the congregation at the urc is a lot smaller

No, it sounds like participating in the democratic process. They're entitled to have and express their views on proposed changes to legislation, like everyone else.

Xenia said they weren't imposing their views on anyone "not of the church". But the second highest bishop in the c of e wants nobody in the country, regardless of religion, to be able to have a same sex marriage.

Yes, and he is allowed to think that. But he did not, in fact, make the law and so he does not get to impose that view on anyone. That's the point - people can think and say what they want in a democratic country, but other people can think and say what they want, and only the law determines what they can actually do.

I really can’t summon up the energy to be ‘angered’ by this.

I’m far more angered by religions that preach that gays and adulterous women should be executed.

This is primarily about catering to the outrageously bigoted and backward views of Pentecostal Christianity, correct.

What’s astonishing is that the C of E is very disproportionately attended by gay people, many of whom justifiably feel this is the final insult.

It’s a perhaps fatal act of self sabotage for an institution which has turned self sabotage into an art form.