also just the pure, narcissistic desire to have my voice be heard somewhere in the universe.
If you are curious about the issue, I would advise you to browse the following two blogs - all of which have useful links to dozens of others:
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/
~~~~~
As I don't get the idea that the marriage was a hush-hush affair I'd assume the organist was already out.
A great number of people (and their numbers are growing faster than NP can hope or imagine, for for his/her own preferred "None of Your Innovations, Please" denomination) really aren't bothered any more by the fact that some people want to date and then marry members of their own sex.
Besides, there's this: Q: How many straight organists does it take to change a light bulb? A: Both of them.
"Do you really support people taking the church to civil courts - supported by secular campaigning groups?"
Good question. My answer would be, Of course, if the church is violating the civil law. As was decided in this case.
Someone once said words to the effect - if someone is suing you, try to make friends with him before you reach court. Otherwise you will go to prison and stay there until you have paid every cent of your debt. Whoever it was that said that doesn't seem to have regarded his followers as above the law.
True, there are unjust laws. Apparently the objection to this one is that it interferes with freedom of religion. I don't see how what the man in question does or does not do in the privacy of his bedroom has any impact on the proper functioning of the Church.
~~~~
To some extent, yes. But they'd have to employ large teams of researchers and lawyers to make sure of that, and newspapers run on tight deadlines.
One might cynically observe that withdrawing the story has become in itself a story. I'm breathlessly waiting for the next instalment.
~~~~~
"....anybody with 10 minutes of pastoral experience would know that the bishop was being wise and also caring by saying maybe it was too soon for Mr Reaney to be giving assurances that he would not enter into another relationship."
Anybody outside this Big Brother organization called the Church, and many inside it, must be wondering why anyone would be placed in a position of having to inform a bishop about the current or future status of one's love life, period, in order to get a job. In the company I work for, asking people that sort of personal question is specifically NOT allowed in job interviews. It would be considered a form of sexual harassment. Caring my {anatomical reference deleted}.
~~~~~
NP: "The Jesus in the Bible says to ALL of us "go and sin no more" as he accepts us......he would say the same to Reform and LGCM today because he had no tolerance for unrepentant hearts."
Then can we imagine a sequel to the story where Jesus himself picks up the first stone and hurls it at the woman because she sinned again, proving she hadn't sufficiently repented? I rather think not. Then let's stop throwing stones, period.
The words "Neither do I condemn you" precede the words "Go and sin no more". It all depends on where you place the emphasis, doesn't it? Few people would have any doubt that a woman who cheats on her husband is doing something wrong. But I do not think a committed same-sex couple is doing anything wrong. That is not being "unrepentent", it's being unconvinced. NP, do you ever wonder "What if I'm wrong? What if I'm the one who needs to repent?" What are you going to tell your Lord , NP, if it turns out you are? Don't worry, I'm sure he'll still say, "Neither do I condemn you."
This reminds me of something on Louie Crew's website:
"Now if you want any help from me, you've got to take responsibility. You got yourself into this mess, and you need to confess that very loudly and clearly so that no Gospel writer will forget to underscore it. These men have a perfect right to stone you, but if you will make a loud enough confession, I'll see what I can do to help you. But don't you ever, ever commit adultery again! Do you hear me!? -- Jesus did not say this to the woman taken in adultery
~~~~~
Re: Lengthy comments premised on the dubious concept of Biblical inerrancy - A Simple Fable
Joe believes the earth is flat, but Jane believes the earth is round. Their opinions differ. Let them discuss it. Joe will tell Jane why he believes what he does and vice versa.
Joe says he believes the earth is flat because it clearly states that in the Bible, and Joe believes the Bible is inerrant. It is inerrant because it is the Word of God. Joe knows it is the Word of God because he has faith, and presumably Jane doesn't, or Jane too would believe the earth is flat.
But Jane doesn't believe the Bible is inerrant. Jane doesn't believe that any amount of "faith" makes it so. Full stop! There's no point in them discussing this any further, is there.
Incidentally, Jane reads the Bible regularly, attends church weekly, and finds deep meaning in her faith, whatever Joe might think of her. Jane might provide Joe with a reading list to help him understand where she is coming from, but she will probably not want to talk to him again until he gives some indication that he understands her position.
Joe on the other hand doesn't feel the need to do this, and will continue to harangue Jane on a regular basis. He also insists that Jane admit that he's basically a nice guy.
The Anglican Church I was raised in wasn't fundamentalist (which, whatever spin you try to put on it, is intellectually and morally untenable) and I will fight to see that it doesn't become so.
~~~~~
Sickening, wasn't I?
Those were just a few of my comments on Thinking Anglicans (in particular, reactions to a gadfly who signs himself NP who has yet to discover how much happier he'd be in a Bible Baptist church). I have learned there is no point in arguing with fundamentalist/evangelicals because the law of their being is that their position if Always Right. They have developed an arsenal of rationalizations and evasions to avoid actually engaging in a fair debate with their opponents. My fable about Joe and Jane was meant to make essentially that point - yet I received two responses that showed that they'd failed to grasp it entirely.
