Anglican Church of England Apologizes for Saying Sex is Only for Heterosexual Married Couples

[Josiah]

CANTERBURY, England, January 31, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) ― The leaders of the Church of England have apologized for saying that sex is only for heterosexual married couples.

In a statement released yesterday, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Justin Welby, and the Anglican Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu, stated:

We as Archbishops, alongside the bishops of the Church of England, apologise and take responsibility for releasing a statement last week which we acknowledge has jeopardised trust. We are very sorry and recognise the division and hurt this has caused.

At our meeting of the College of Bishops of the Church of England this week we continued our commitment to the Living in Love and Faith project which is about questions of human identity, sexuality and marriage. This process is intended to help us all to build bridges that will enable the difficult conversations that are necessary as, together, we discern the way forward for the Church of England.


Last week the Mother Church of the Anglican Communion surprised the world by issuing a pastoral statement that professed faith in the traditional, Scripture-based, Christian definition of marriage.

More ambiguity at the link: Church of England apologizes for saying sex only for heterosexual married couples

Perhaps some Anglican/Episcopalian friend can share more about this....

I read this and remembered that the Anglican Communion has become VERY diverse.... I'm sure MANY are very dismayed by this. In many faith communities, there has been a formal, official "split" (in the USA, Lutherans into Evangelical Lutherans in America as the more liberal group, on the more traditional/conservative side, The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Synod and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod). But the Anglican Church (perhaps to its credit) has largely avoided this, BUT Anglicans have a wide range of views on matters of faith and morals and do NOT always agree with everything that comes out.

I strongly suspect most Christians (Anglican and otherwise) would disagree with these Church of England Bishops and Archbishops said. I certainly do.




.




.

 

[hedrick]

They apologized for the timing, not the content. You will note that the guidance hasn’t been retracted. The reason for concern is that there is a committee reviewing sexual issues. To make a new policy while that consultation is happening looks like, and maybe is, snubbing a process that needs trust from all sides. That may be too much to hope for on that topic.

 

[hedrick]

Also, the guidance was about a fairly narrow topic. An EU court forced the UK to extent civil unions -- which had been created for gays -- to everyone. The guidance was about what to do if an opposite-sex couple wanted a blessing. It's not entirely clear to me how many opposite-sex couples would actually want a covenanted relationship more or less equivalent to marriage that isn't marriage. The guidance notes that there's nothing in the law implying that sex is involved. One can imagine situations where a couple might want a legal way to take responsibility for each other but not intend a sexual relationship. We also don't know how it's going to be used, so it's unclear just what the intent of couples who do intend sex is, i.e. why not marriage?

It seems like the question could safely be left for the consultation, or perhaps some principles could be established for judging what was acceptable.

 

[JRT]

Marriage is a covenant between two consenting adults who wish to live together in love in perpetuity. It is witnessed by church and /or state in most cases. To me, the church has no say in how they express that love.

 

[tango]

Marriage is a covenant between two consenting adults who wish to live together in love in perpetuity. It is witnessed by church and /or state in most cases. To me, the church has no say in how they express that love.

I think this sums up a key part of the issue - "marriage" has two meanings that may or may not overlap.

If we think of marriage as a spiritual union then it makes sense that spiritual leaders (of whatever religion is involved) get to decide what counts as a marriage and what criteria must be met for people to be allowed to marry. In this context it is entirely reasonable for a religious group that disapproves of a particular pairing to be permitted to disallow it, whether that disapproval is based on sexual orientation, previous marriages, race, whatever.

At the same time marriage is a secular construct recognised by a secular government with secular benefits on offer. In this context it makes sense that the secular government decides who may and who may not enter into such a construct regardless of what religious leaders may think of the arrangement. It's all well and good expecting society to respect our views of what counts as a marriage but unless we would be willing to allow leaders of another faith to decide how a marriage should be defined we would do well to take a step back.

The fact the two arrangements have some commonalities (i.e. many religions' concept of a marriage is recognized by the state as a marriage) merely muddies the waters.

Just to make things fun, is there any reason that doesn't rely on the holy book of any one specified religion, why a marriage should not consist of three or more consenting adults?

 

[kiwimac]

Time for the Church of England to grow up.

 

[psalms 91]

no, it is time for the fundamental christians to stand up and say no more which is why denoms are splitting. Just another attempt by satan to muddy the waters and destroy what God jas ordained. If two homosexuals want to get married and the state wishs to acknowledge that then get married in a civil ceremony and quit trying to shove it down the churchs throat but no that isnt the real goal here.

 

[hedrick]

Remember, the issue raised in the OP is about opposite sex couples. It has nothing to do with gays.