An Anglican church just performed its first homosexual wedding. This shouldn't be such a shock to those who have watched the Anglican church bury itself in irrelevence with each passing year since the late 16th Century but the details of this wedding were even surprising to me.
So who got married? Lifelong partners finally lifting the veil of obscurity and exchanging vows of their lifetime love? Well, no. The first homosexual wedding was a marriage between two male priests. This had people on both sides of the "liberal and traditional" fence feeling a bit squeamish.
The participants, Rev Peter Cowell and Rev Dr David Lord were joined together in a service that used the traditional Anglican rite including full liturgy and eucharist. While sanctioned (at least temporarily) by the Church of England they are still not joined in full lawful matrimony.
Many are surprised by this but I can't help but think that it is fully appropriate. Perhaps this is the rock bottom of a 400 year old slippery slope beginning with a King starting his very own church inspired by his customized definition of marriage.
I must say this wedding was probably strategically a poor choice for forwarding the cause of same-sex marriage. Marrying two male priests may be the final straw for many in the Anglican Union.
I understand that most of you don't really understand the fuss since America's Episcopal Church has already long since retreated from the position of being socially relevant. Gay marriage or not.
I'm not against gay marriage from the standpoint of it being lawful and I think in many ways this is a decent example of how it should be managed...by a church between people who enter into it voluntarily. I do see this though as trouble for a church that simply hasn't found its identity since the beginning of the Reformation...and 400 years later still has people scratching their heads.
4 comments:
if God had wanted men to marry, he would have given one of them a vagina.
the idea of same sex marriage is anethema to anybody who really understands the deep theological reasoning for marriage as a preferred state of procreation.
its not about love.
its about sex.
and classical theologically, its about mirroring the image of God the creator with His bride,the church.
but the anglicans have long ago abandoned classical judeo-christian theology, so this should only be the natural order of things for them.
millions fled to rome when the anglicans ordained women. (there is also a similarly deep theological reasoning for male clergy)
millions more will flee to rome again.
I agree with you 100%. I like veering from politics a bit to discuss these things. Civil marriage and Christian marriage are not to be confused and it is important point that out. Marriage is a mirror image of Christ's relationship to the church and an example that would remind us to love...not a proof of love...and you're right again...it's about sex.
There is still a heart among Anglicans to preserve a non-papal English neo-orthodoxy (whew, that's a mouthful) but for them it will require a brand new reformation.
How does that make any sense? How do you criticize the church for marrying a homosexual couple and then say you think it should be legal?
He covered this in one of his podcasts if I'm not mistaken. You can hear his own voice give you the answer.
Post a Comment