A senior Church of England clergyman yesterday became the first to enter into a gay marriage – in direct defiance of the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby – plunging the Church into a fresh crisis.
Canon Jeremy Pemberton tied the knot with Laurence Cunnington under new laws allowing same-sex marriages pushed through by David Cameron in the face of bitter opposition from backbench MPs and the Church.
But Canon Pemberton, 58, now faces disciplinary action from the Church and could be expelled from his work as a priest because the House of Bishops has barred clergy from entering such unions, saying they undermine its traditional teaching that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Canon Jeremy Pemberton tied the knot with Laurence Cunnington, a move that may well cause his removal from the church
Archbishop Welby defended the policy in a radio interview last week, saying that if the Church accepted gay marriage it could be ‘catastrophic’ for Christians in Africa, hundreds of whom had been killed by people who associated Christianity with homosexuality. But the Oxford-educated Canon Pemberton, a hospital chaplain from Southwell, Nottinghamshire, said: ‘I love this man and I want to be married to him.
Speaking exclusively to The Mail on Sunday, he described the private ceremony in front of family and friends in a local hotel as ‘very joyous, very happy’. He said he had told the Bishop of Lincoln, Christopher Lowson – in whose area he works as deputy senior chaplain of the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust – of his intention to marry Mr Cunnington, 51. But he refused to comment on the conversation, saying he was fully aware of the Church’s position. Asked how he expected to feel after the ceremony, he said: ‘We will feel married.’
Bishop Lowson confirmed he had told Canon Pemberton of the House of Bishops’ statement but would not say if he was planning disciplinary action.
Canon Pemberton, a former parish priest and a divorced father of five, held his wedding under new laws that came into force last month giving gay couples the same rights to marriages as heterosexuals. Gay clergy can already enter into civil partnerships if they promise to remain celibate, but these are primarily legal arrangements while marriages include public vows. Under guideline from bishops published in February, clergy are not only barred from gay marriages but they cannot conduct them for others or bless such unions in church. The House of Bishops’ Pastoral Guidance on Same-Sex Marriage admitted there were disagreements even among the bishops, but said: ‘We are all in agreement that the Christian understanding and doctrine of marriage as a lifelong union between one man and one woman remains unchanged.’
COE vanishes up its own fundament again.
COE vanishes up its own fundament again.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: COE vanishes up its own fundament again.
Gay clergy can already enter into civil partnerships if they promise to remain celibate
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
Re: COE vanishes up its own fundament again.
How could anyone want to hurt such a nice couple? God made them homosexual and now 'gods church' cannot accept what god has made?
If I believed in the concept before, I would doubt it now.
yrs,
rubato
If I believed in the concept before, I would doubt it now.
yrs,
rubato
-
MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 21238
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: COE vanishes up its own fundament again.
Well, not that it will make any difference to a closed mind but....
God doesn't "make" a particular person homosexual any more than he "makes" a particular person heterosexual or a kleptomaniac or arsonist (perhaps that last is a bit untimely). People (all of us) are defective in one way or another or in many ways. We are defective because man chose to disobey God in the first place. These two men choose to act on their impulses. Their impulses are contrary to God's word, the Bible. If they don't believe the Bible, let 'em step away from the church and go find something else to do. They want to both belong to a particular group and disobey the "rules" of the group they chose to belong to. There are many groups they can join. God bless 'em - I hope they are happy in whatever non-Christian group that is that they find.
God doesn't "make" a particular person homosexual any more than he "makes" a particular person heterosexual or a kleptomaniac or arsonist (perhaps that last is a bit untimely). People (all of us) are defective in one way or another or in many ways. We are defective because man chose to disobey God in the first place. These two men choose to act on their impulses. Their impulses are contrary to God's word, the Bible. If they don't believe the Bible, let 'em step away from the church and go find something else to do. They want to both belong to a particular group and disobey the "rules" of the group they chose to belong to. There are many groups they can join. God bless 'em - I hope they are happy in whatever non-Christian group that is that they find.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: COE vanishes up its own fundament again.
What did Jesus say about gay priests?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: COE vanishes up its own fundament again.
He probably said he is glad they are happy.
-
MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 21238
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: COE vanishes up its own fundament again.
The subject of homosexuality amongst the Temple priesthood never arose. Read Mark 10 re marriage and the meaning of "husband" and "wife". Besides which, the scriptures of Jesus - the ones that he referred to as the word of God - are found in what we call the Old Testament. "It is written: Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Jesus in Matt 4:4 quoting Deuteronomy 8:3).Gob wrote:What did Jesus say about gay priests?
Jesus never mentioned abandoning babies on doorsteps either.
ETA: Besides, almost a neat (yet facile) attempt to evade the real issue - if they don't like the "rules" of the organization they belong to, they should just leave and go somewhere more compatible with their choices. I suggest somewhere that thinks the Bible is codswallop - so some atheist organization or the "liberal" churches that for some reason base their faith on a book they deny has true meaning.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: COE vanishes up its own fundament again.
Nothing about poofs there.10 Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.
2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”
3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.
4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”
5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.
6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’
7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
8 and the two will become one flesh.’So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
-
MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 21238
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: COE vanishes up its own fundament again.
Asked and answered. Facile avoidance yet again but this time two issues.
(1) the incoherence of belonging to a group and defying its conditions of membership (regardless of whether the CoE is right or wrong, it's their game and the players can either play to the rules or get sent off)
(2) Jesus endorsed the Scriptures. If you wish to seek out information about homosexuals in the Scriptures you know where to look. (This point is not to argue whether or not homosexuality should be proscribed but that it actually is).
QED
(1) the incoherence of belonging to a group and defying its conditions of membership (regardless of whether the CoE is right or wrong, it's their game and the players can either play to the rules or get sent off)
(2) Jesus endorsed the Scriptures. If you wish to seek out information about homosexuals in the Scriptures you know where to look. (This point is not to argue whether or not homosexuality should be proscribed but that it actually is).
QED
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: COE vanishes up its own fundament again.
That would appear to be the operative point...(regardless of whether the CoE is right or wrong, it's their game and the players can either play to the rules or get sent off)
If you belong to an organization, and you don't like the rules of that organization, you may have a right to "work from within" to change the rules, speak out against them, call for them to be changed, express disagreement, etc. and remain a part of the organization in good standing. (assuming those things are permissible under the organizations rules; that again is the organization's call)
But no one has a right to openly break the rules of the organization and expect not to be tossed out. That is also the organization's prerogative.
Re: COE vanishes up its own fundament again.
That depends, Jim, on whether persons in the organization have the ability/authority to enact rules and eject people for breaking them. I don't know about the COE, but let's not forget it arose because of differences with the RC church, and while it had its differences with papal authority, it still maintained it was an apostolic church that held the "keys to the kingdom". Those breaking away did not concede that the RC church had the authority to deny them entrance into heaven (which was the real punishment of excommunication), but they maintained they were true to the vision of jesus and the church he established. They didn't leave the RC church, they maintain it left them, and so they kept all the properties of the bishops, etc. Against this backdrop, I would question whether the rules enacted by a group of persons can be used to exclude persons acting in good conscience, especially since there is a split in the church as to the issue.
To illustrate this better, one need only look to the example of jesus; he maintained he was a jew (observing the festivals, teaching in the temple, etc.), yet he was often at odds with the clergy which maintained it controlled the law and temple, openly challenging their authority and flouting their rules (Healing on the Sabbath, for example). He called the hypocrites what they were, and refused to submit to their authority, yet he remained a jew. Now I don't know if jewish clergy can excommunicate (or otherwise sanction) a jew for teaching his understanding of the law and grace of god, but I see nothing in the bible that indicates he was so sanctioned.
Even the RC church recognizes decisions made on matters of conscience, so I would bet the COE does as well. TO what extent they recognize it, however, I don't know. Here is the point where politics mixes in with doctrine.
To illustrate this better, one need only look to the example of jesus; he maintained he was a jew (observing the festivals, teaching in the temple, etc.), yet he was often at odds with the clergy which maintained it controlled the law and temple, openly challenging their authority and flouting their rules (Healing on the Sabbath, for example). He called the hypocrites what they were, and refused to submit to their authority, yet he remained a jew. Now I don't know if jewish clergy can excommunicate (or otherwise sanction) a jew for teaching his understanding of the law and grace of god, but I see nothing in the bible that indicates he was so sanctioned.
Even the RC church recognizes decisions made on matters of conscience, so I would bet the COE does as well. TO what extent they recognize it, however, I don't know. Here is the point where politics mixes in with doctrine.
-
MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 21238
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: COE vanishes up its own fundament again.
That whole Easter thing just went right by, huh?I see nothing in the bible that indicates he was so sanctioned.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: COE vanishes up its own fundament again.
Scriptures written by men in less enlightened times, shouldn't we have had an update by now?MajGenl.Meade wrote: (2) Jesus endorsed the Scriptures.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: COE vanishes up its own fundament again.
Meade--So are you saying the Romans executed jesus because he railed against the hypocrisy of jewish clergy? A rather interesting view of the political situation of the time. The Romans executed jesus because they feared he would be a leader of the resistance--something which smelled of treason and sedition--the roman authorities could care less what he thought of the priests and their interpretation of jewish law--indeed, they might well have been happy to see the officious Sanhedrin members embarrassed in fromt of their own people. But sedition and open rebellion was something they feared. And even though Pilate could find no guilt in jesus, his concern for what might happen and how it would appear to his political superiors led him to crucify jesus. At least that's how I understand that whole "Easter thing".
Now if you want to believe pilate crucified jesus as a favor to the jewish clergy because their feelings were hurt by his railing against their hypocritical positions, go ahead; but I don't buy it. It does play into the "Christ killers" revisionists, though.
Now if you want to believe pilate crucified jesus as a favor to the jewish clergy because their feelings were hurt by his railing against their hypocritical positions, go ahead; but I don't buy it. It does play into the "Christ killers" revisionists, though.
-
MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 21238
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: COE vanishes up its own fundament again.
No I'm saying you should spend time reading the Bible instead of revising it 
Mar 15:1 And as soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole Council. And they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him over to Pilate.
Mar 15:2 And Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" And he answered him, "You have said so."
Mar 15:3 And the chief priests accused him of many things.
Mat 26:3 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas,
Mat 26:4 and plotted together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him.
Joh 18:3 So Judas, having procured a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons.
Mat 26:47 While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people.
Mat 26:57 Then those who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered.
Mat 26:58 And Peter was following him at a distance, as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and going inside he sat with the guards to see the end.
Mat 26:59 Now the chief priests and the whole Council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death
Luk 23:1 Then the whole company of them arose and brought him before Pilate.
Luk 23:2 And they began to accuse him, saying, "We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king."
Joh 18:29 So Pilate went outside to them and said, "What accusation do you bring against this man?"
Joh 18:30 They answered him, "If this man were not doing evil, we would not have delivered him over to you."
Joh 18:31 Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law."
No, I've never thought Pilate was doing anyone a favour, Big RR. But speaking of revisionism, if I was filiming the events of that week, I'd start with an organized procession into Jerusalem which began with Jesus sending disciples to fetch a donkey that Judas (his chief cook and bottle washer) and SImon Zealot had pre-arranged with the owners to pick up - Jesus desiring to fulfil Zechariah 9:9 - a symbol that the crowds (and the authorities) would understand immediately.
Then I'd have all the arresting kerfuffle and the authorities (Jewish by the way, not Roman) doing their first trial. And then Pilate, a very annoyed Pilate full of spite and hatred towards the despised people he was relegated to govern, being dragged away from a nice evening with the wife and being forced (you understand politics?) to go back and forth from inside the house to outside by this huge mob of annoying citizens of Jerusalem who refused to come in because HE and HIS HOUSE were both unclean. (!) No, he didn't want to do any favours. He just wanted to get them the F off his lawn. Read Pilate's words in the Gospels and imagine them said with contempt and malice. Instead of the usual understanding of "he wanted to save Jesus but the Jews wouldn't let him", think of Luke 23:20 as telling us that Pilate was playing with the crowd - his desire to release Jesus was because he'd failed to get rid of them with the Herod ploy and now he wants to just avoid all the trouble of organizing a crucifixion (which he'd have to report to Rome) AND he wants to annoy the stupid religious people who'd disturbed his night. But the threat to tell Rome anyway that he'd allowed a "revolutionary" (real or imagined) to live made him take the third option - the one desired by and driven by and brought about by the chief priests and the elders of the people
I think there's more validity in reading Pilate in that kind of way than the "dupe" part so many seem to foist onto an unpleasant man who enjoyed inflicting harm, whether physicall or verbally. But you know... that's not the point.
As to "Christ Killers".... I'll leave that to Westboro-types. I think genuine Christians know that
It was my sin that held Him there
Until it was accomplished
His dying breath has brought me life
I know that it is finished
No doubt that is correct (John 19:12) but you seem to dismiss the entire motivation for Pilate meeting Jesus in the first placeAnd even though Pilate could find no guilt in jesus, his concern for what might happen and how it would appear to his political superiors led him to crucify jesus
Mar 15:1 And as soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole Council. And they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him over to Pilate.
Mar 15:2 And Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" And he answered him, "You have said so."
Mar 15:3 And the chief priests accused him of many things.
Mat 26:3 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas,
Mat 26:4 and plotted together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him.
Joh 18:3 So Judas, having procured a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons.
Mat 26:47 While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people.
Mat 26:57 Then those who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered.
Mat 26:58 And Peter was following him at a distance, as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and going inside he sat with the guards to see the end.
Mat 26:59 Now the chief priests and the whole Council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death
Luk 23:1 Then the whole company of them arose and brought him before Pilate.
Luk 23:2 And they began to accuse him, saying, "We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king."
Joh 18:29 So Pilate went outside to them and said, "What accusation do you bring against this man?"
Joh 18:30 They answered him, "If this man were not doing evil, we would not have delivered him over to you."
Joh 18:31 Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law."
No, I've never thought Pilate was doing anyone a favour, Big RR. But speaking of revisionism, if I was filiming the events of that week, I'd start with an organized procession into Jerusalem which began with Jesus sending disciples to fetch a donkey that Judas (his chief cook and bottle washer) and SImon Zealot had pre-arranged with the owners to pick up - Jesus desiring to fulfil Zechariah 9:9 - a symbol that the crowds (and the authorities) would understand immediately.
Then I'd have all the arresting kerfuffle and the authorities (Jewish by the way, not Roman) doing their first trial. And then Pilate, a very annoyed Pilate full of spite and hatred towards the despised people he was relegated to govern, being dragged away from a nice evening with the wife and being forced (you understand politics?) to go back and forth from inside the house to outside by this huge mob of annoying citizens of Jerusalem who refused to come in because HE and HIS HOUSE were both unclean. (!) No, he didn't want to do any favours. He just wanted to get them the F off his lawn. Read Pilate's words in the Gospels and imagine them said with contempt and malice. Instead of the usual understanding of "he wanted to save Jesus but the Jews wouldn't let him", think of Luke 23:20 as telling us that Pilate was playing with the crowd - his desire to release Jesus was because he'd failed to get rid of them with the Herod ploy and now he wants to just avoid all the trouble of organizing a crucifixion (which he'd have to report to Rome) AND he wants to annoy the stupid religious people who'd disturbed his night. But the threat to tell Rome anyway that he'd allowed a "revolutionary" (real or imagined) to live made him take the third option - the one desired by and driven by and brought about by the chief priests and the elders of the people
I think there's more validity in reading Pilate in that kind of way than the "dupe" part so many seem to foist onto an unpleasant man who enjoyed inflicting harm, whether physicall or verbally. But you know... that's not the point.
As to "Christ Killers".... I'll leave that to Westboro-types. I think genuine Christians know that
It was my sin that held Him there
Until it was accomplished
His dying breath has brought me life
I know that it is finished
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
-
MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 21238
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: COE vanishes up its own fundament again.
No.Gob wrote:Scriptures written by men in less enlightened times, shouldn't we have had an update by now?MajGenl.Meade wrote: (2) Jesus endorsed the Scriptures.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: COE vanishes up its own fundament again.
Prefer to live by medieval ethics?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
-
MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 21238
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: COE vanishes up its own fundament again.
Medieval? Tsk tsk! Remedial History 101 for you! No, I'll just live by eternally true ethics instead of whatever today's fad is. (You can tell by my wardrobe and untattooed soft white flesh, not to mention King Crimson, Gentle Giant and Leonard Cohen).
But..... well skipped on the issue there - congrats! Don't want to answer whether people should (as LJ suggested) work to change the "rules" of the organization to which they belong while obeying those rules or instead should just be allowed to break the rules whenever they feel like it?
I wonder that you don't extend the same courtesy to the CofE (and expect the same conformity to regulation) as you would to the police, or lawyers, or doctors, or psychologists, or social workers, or teachers, or pilots (etc ad nauseum)?
Oh wait - no I don't wonder. I know. Mind you, I suppose you could classify these chaps as whistle blowers in order to pretend they've done something commendable
But..... well skipped on the issue there - congrats! Don't want to answer whether people should (as LJ suggested) work to change the "rules" of the organization to which they belong while obeying those rules or instead should just be allowed to break the rules whenever they feel like it?
I wonder that you don't extend the same courtesy to the CofE (and expect the same conformity to regulation) as you would to the police, or lawyers, or doctors, or psychologists, or social workers, or teachers, or pilots (etc ad nauseum)?
Oh wait - no I don't wonder. I know. Mind you, I suppose you could classify these chaps as whistle blowers in order to pretend they've done something commendable
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: COE vanishes up its own fundament again.
Well no, I've no problem with the church kicking them out, I'm sure they took that into consideration before tying then knot. If your club/cult/church denies you the right to be wed to the person you love, is that club/cult/church worth being in in the first place? He obviously believes in the Christian faith, he did rise to the level of "canon", and probably will still do so.But the church's big hangups about sex and sexuality will only hasten its demise.
Oh and this;
Oh and this;
Is just too mind boggling for words.Archbishop Welby defended the policy in a radio interview last week, saying that if the Church accepted gay marriage it could be ‘catastrophic’ for Christians in Africa, hundreds of whom had been killed by people who associated Christianity with homosexuality.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”