Gay Marriage

I am a practicing Christian, but really without denomination.
On the news today it spoke of the swing in percentage of Anglican members accepting Gay marriage in the Church.

Now I do not and would not tell any homosexuals they cannot be lawfully married, but surely there must be a line drawn when this topic steps into Gods house!

Who are we as people to think that we can allow political correctness topics to breach and control the church. Understanding the pressures and wellbeing of our churches, we should and must never crumble under political duress to ensure money and numbers maintained.

Has the church become a club? Is it not a sanctuary, a place of healing?

We are to love each other, to help one another. But that does not mean that we give in and sacrifice Christ's teachings. Do we not pray for those who have not seen the truth?

Since when do we compromise the Holy Spirit, & the word of God... the highest of moral values for a set of ever changing land laws and rules that has left a tragic mark on current day society.

The first step is to admit there is a problem!!!

 

I hope you join us, Ferny, for I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments.

 

Ferny,

It is not just Anglicans. 60% of the Roman Church that goes to MASS on Sundays, which is at best 25% of the membership, support gay hookups.
Sorry, it is not marriage. Regardless what the civil authorities try to tell us. God gave us the sacrament of Marriage. He defined it. Only He can change it, not even the Church has the authority to change a sacrament.

But it is not just so called gay marriage. Fornication, birth control, abortion, divorce .....name your sin. The Church turns a blind eye. Like the Supreme Court in the States, the Church finds so called rights or exceptions for all sins. Most sermons are what I call the Barney sermon. I have five kids and lived through Barney......barely. A Barney sermon goes like this.....I'm ok, your ok, God loves us and is made in our image, we are one big happy family.

Now I am not a fire and brimstone banging on the pulpit yelling with spit coming out of my mouth type of priest. A priest does not have to be like that. If some one does not come up to me afterwards angry about what I have said....usually prefaced by "thus saith the Lord", or if I hear...good sermon I really enjoyed MASS today....I go into the sacristy and pray for forgiveness for I have not feed the sheep.

Let a priest preach on divorce as taught by Christ and God. Watch the reactions. Heck, just tell the parish Joel Osteen is a false prophet and watch the fireworks. It is difficult to preach on such things as our culture, our church, had so embraced the culture of death and rebellion to God. My oldest sister, and the rest of my family, refused to speak with me for months. Why? My oldest sister came to me for advice. She wanted to divorce my brother in law. Yes he was a drug and alcohol addict. Yes he verbally abused her and the kids. Yes he pulled a gun on her and threatened to kill her. In our culture, our Church culture, everyone would say divorce now. But scripture says otherwise. I told her she could not divorce as Christ would not allow such a thing. She made covenant with God in the sacrament of Holy Matrimony....for better or worse. She did not have to stay in the same house, she should get a restraining order and he should remain far away. She should pray for him, her marriage and her kids as scripture commands. This was my little sister, I am the oldest. As her big brother, I wanted to kill the s.o.b. But that is not what Christ taught. As a priest and follower of Christ, I have to take the narrow and hard road.

Until the Church returns to it first love, Christ. Regardless of where you are, the culture will continue to slid into hell.

So is there a problem. Yes, as pogo says.....we have found the enemy and he is us. Want to change the Church and the Culture. Look in the mirror and resolve to change yourself. Ask God to save our countries, our churches our families and to begin with us.

Blessings.

Fr. Mark

 

I don't have an issue with gay marriage. I think most want the same equality in law. I don't think any nation (I don't really know this I'm guessing) would require a church to marry someone. But if that church chose to, then I don't think that will destroy our society or ourselves. The earth will still turn and people will continue to love each other.

 

Interesting.

How do you reconcile that with Our Lord's definition of marriage: "from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." -St. Mark 10

Don't christians have a duty to uphold the Christian understanding of marriage?

 

We already see religious freedom being undermined in order to protect the rights of those who identify as homosexuals. Embracing church teaching on the issue already puts most of us into the "homophobe" box (despite hating or fearing no one). Just like you, I am not concerned about what the government does, but rather what the church does. At any moment I come across as anti gay marriage, I am just questioning why the church is being innovative. I simply cannot reconcile how the majority of the human population can be unanimous about what marriage is, only to be sidetracked by governments and lobby groups with deep pockets.

 

Yes, absolutely. I believe within the context of the church this should and must be the case. However, outside of the church is different especially in America where the law of the state and church are different. I think the shock some Christians feel in America over these issues is the loss of cultural and political influence. Especially when it comes to gay and lesbian issues because change happened so rapidly and the political right/evangelical Christians fought so hard against it. So Christians have to face the fact that we are not the standard bearer for morality, ethics or virtue any longer. In fact, the opposite. In some circles I know being a Christian is almost laughable or or even a little embarrassing. The church no longer leads with young people and it looks like that isn't going to change any time soon.

I believe that the church should not change to the whims of the outside world, but stay true to tradition, scripture, and teachings. There have been many periods of decline and renewal in history; decline gives the church a chance to separate the wheat from the chaff. Though I attend an Episcopal church, this rush to change is what has gotten them in so many damn trouble and what makes me worry for them. They seem to want to be liked by the world, but the world is rejecting them despite the fawning over the leftist agenda. The world is in tumult but Christ's teachings and the Holy Eucharist are eternal. Why would we want to trade the two?

Be that as it may, do we turn people away? What about divorced people, gamblers or people who have other struggles. I think there is a tremendous focus on gay and lesbian issues which is overblown by the media to the proportion of people actually experiencing in everyday life. I believe the church should minister to people with love and compassion, but not change central messages for fear of "offending" people.

 

Scripture clearly defines marriage as the joining of one man to one woman, and the liturgy has reinforced this for many centuries. If someone wants to join with another of the same sex many countries have protected the partnership legally for some time now. Let civil authorities act as they wish but Christians can't rewrite scripture nor abrogate centuries old liturgical mores. It's as simple and unequivocal as that.

 

This idea of "separation of church and state" does not find its source in the US Constitution but in a letter by then-President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. He wrote, ""I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." In writing this he was not trying to codify any formal interpretation, he was trying to find a polite way of putting the group off when they asked why he had not proclaimed any official days of national thanksgiving and fasting as hes predecessors had during their administrations. While his idea may have held sway in some circles as a good interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. It was not used in any real official capacity until quoted by Justice Hugo Black in his opinion of the Supreme Court case Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 declaring state actions showing churches certain privileges to be unconstitutional. This was a massive break from the 150 understanding of the Establishment Clause which directly led to churches being relegated to an irrelevant and second class status and the effects can be seen, not only in the decline of the church, but in American culture as well. What is odd about Black's reliance Jefferson's letter is that Jefferson was not a part of drafting the Constitution. Jefferson was in Paris at the time and although he tried to gt info from Madison about the secret proceedings, he was not successful and so had no idea what was occurring let alone being made someone who had any direct influence on its writing. Clearly, he is not the expert to tell us what the framers were thinking when they agreed to the wording of the first amendment. Especially when we have clear evidence that for 150 years, no one interpreted the consitution in the manner Black did. The same type of power grab by the Court was committed the the Obergefeld case which replaced the clear will of the states and the people and the rule of law with the capricious whims of 5 justices masquerading it as the framers' intent.

 

It then begs the question- which church? There was several to choose from during the initial founding of the U.S., now there are thousands more. That's just Christian churches- what of all the other religions? Regardless of what Jefferson wanted the constitution is the law of the land and there is no way the U.S. could have a state sponsored church. Besides, who wants that? Europe has state sponsored churches and they are in the same or worse shape as we are.

The separation of church and state is also addressed by the first amendment, plainly. The government can not protect religious freedom for all citizens while having a state sponsored church.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

 

Ide, up until 1948 the Establishment Clause only applied to the Federal--not state--government. Massachusetts, for example, had a state church until 1833. If the framers intended the establishment clause to apply to state churches then the state church in Massachusetts and a number of other states would have been disestablished in 1791. Yet, the framers allowed them to continue. Why? Clearly it is because encouraging religion and morals is a valid use of a state's police powers. That changed due to liberalism's war on Christianity. In the last 50-60 years, liberals and secularists have waged an all out assault on the traditional Christian character of the US, rewriting its history and redefining its most sacred institutions.

Why have a state church? There are a number of reasons but that distracts from the point I was trying to make. Christians should not divest themselves of their faith in order to participate in the public sphere. Atheists don't. Agnostics don't. Secularists don't. "Separation of church and state" may well be the current law of the land, but it was not always so. We should never compromise because our opponents never will. We have just as much say as Christians in how our society is to be run as any body else.

Here is an interesting article from the Washington Post: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa.../AF2SlBQE_story.html?client=ms-android-att-us

 

I dunno - it just doesnt bother me I guess and I want everyone to have the same rights and have love

 

It seems to me that,in America, if homosexuals wanted to co-habitate they were more or less protected by the law. "Life, liberty & pursuit of happiness, etc..."The problem is when the law of the land declares something lawful that God says is a mortal sin. There are consequences for actions. Scripture declares"righteousness builds up a country but sin is a downfall for any people" (Proverbs 14:34) To legalize "gay"marriage is to bring a lot of negative consequences on this country...I want my country to receive blessings not curses that occur with sin.

 

With all due respect this sounds like me me me. Where is God in all this? Shouldn't you be asking what God feels and wants instead?

 

Sexual devience is not love as I understand. Love has a spiritual element which is not found in devience or sex for its own sake. You can love people of the same sex, I very much love my brother, my father and my very dear male friends, I wouldn't / couldn't want a sexual relationship with the men I love and I know it to be totally abhorrent to God. I am heterosexua as God intended

 

I know you dont want a relationship w ur bro - i wasnt saying that - I was saying gay people like their own sex n they want to marry n love like everyone. It just doesnt bother me but Im not saying you should do it - thats up to you.

 

well its just that the person who started this thread asked what our opinions were - so this was mine

 

I understand what you mean. Yet I nevertheless maintain that our opinions ought to be informed and determined by God, as has been the rule for Christians in all ages.

 

Maybe this is just one of those things people say its from God but it isnt. This has happened a lot. In the bible you could have many wives. In the bible Men married very young girls. In the bible men, esp women were stoned. In the bible a raped woman was forced to marry her rapist. Later in the middle ages lots of women were called heretics and burned as witches because they did things that men said was against god, and scientitsts of that time didnt do much better. Then in my country up to 1970 young aboriginal babies and children were taken from their parents because it was thought it was better they were raised in a christian family and would please god.

I am really honestly not trying to be disrespectful, but generations of christians have persecuted and even killed people coz they believed God thought it was the right thing to do....... I dont wanna be someone who hurts someone n later in 100 years people think - how stupid what I did and thought. I just want to be nice to people and if love is all people want to do then I think that cant be too bad.

 

It's a good start, Zoii, but if you go on your own feelings you too are a leaf blown in the wind of the feel-good sensibilities or prejudices of your time. I could just as easily say, using your logic, that we could be living 200 years or more earlier, and thinking that slavery is the natural, apparent order of things, because it feels right to us, in our context.

We cleave to our Anglican faith because it's an anchor in the ocean of changing opinions. This sometimes puts us at odds with the common way of doing things or looking at certain issues, but we stick by Christ and our tradition of reasoned faith and traditions. And it goes deep. Take a deep dive into church history and writings of the Church father, and the BCP, think on it, and let me know what you come up with.