±«Óãtv

Firstly I'd like to congratulate the happy couple on their union, it is always good to see people who have reached a stage in their relationship where they feel they want and need to commit to each other both in terms of the public expression of their bond and the associated civil benefits it brings. May they continue to be the strength to each other which will need in the coming days.

Secondly what's changed ? 2 people who have been together for 20 years have entered into a civil legal union which the their church does not recognise. Why must questions be asked now about their bedroom habits which were not asked before (if indeed they are ever appropriate). As far as the church is concerned nothing has changed.

Maybe it is more sinister, maybe some people in the church just do not like the fact that homosexuals exist in all walks of life and would rather we all stayed in the closet and this expression of commitment is just too public for them. Or maybe that's just paranoia.

Either way it is light the blue touchpaper and retire.

This 'new situation' within the Church of Ireland, as the Primate puts it is one of terrible reproach caused by the sin of homosexuality, (1Cor13:6) and by the unscriptural concept of civil partnership. While the terrible actions of the ordained and serving clergyman have indeed reproached his office and that of his denomination; the reproach does not stop there.

There is a sense in which the ripple action of reproach moves across all of the visible church of Christ; every nominal and professing Christian is affected to a greater or lesser extent. Ultimately, the reproach is heaped against the Lord Jesus, 'Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it'.

When sin is tolerated, excused or concealed in any Church, then that Church becomes a dysfunctional Christian establishment; it becomes the launching pad of reproach against Christian testimony everywhere. The scandals that are evidenced in various denominations, with regard to sin, have reached epidemic proportions; the reproach and infamy is discrediting and destroying the visible Church of Christ.

As a Bible believing Christian, I feel very strongly about this; it is unacceptable for dysfunctional Christian establishments to hold unto the name Christian, when in reality they discredit Christian testimonies and reproach the name of Christ. If these religious establishments want to accommodate sin then let them have the decency to remove the name Christian and present Secularist as their true identity.

Obviously Archbishop Harper is being extreemly careful in his choice of words as he comments on this case. I appreciate the fact that he has made the statement that " Marriage is understood by the Church to comprise a lifelong and exclusive commitment by one man and one woman to each other." Furthermore, I also welcome him saying that "The Church has no provision or proposals for any liturgy for the blessing of civil partnerships and there are no authorized public rites of blessing for same-gender relationships." This, therefore, inadvertently highlights the Churches historical position on same-gender relationships.

He also said today via the ±«Óãtv news website that both sides in the debate believed their views were formed through reading and interpreting scripture with integrity." If this is the case, I believe that the Wesleyan rule of interrepting contentious subjects be established, i.e. Scripture, Tradition, Reason & Experience. If so, I believe with over 2000 years of history on our side that we would be able to articulate a valid church position on this issue.

In reality it doesn't make any difference. Religious marriage isn't valid or recognised by law unless the 'building' is registered by the civil authorities. Many buildings are registered to perform legal ceremonies of 'marriage' or 'partnership'. There is no monopoly.

This is merely ownership of the word 'marriage'. The word isn't owned by any particular religious Institution & only the 'civil' components are valid in the eyes of the law.
It is of no consequence whether a group of religious people decide to split their Church up over the issue. If anyone entering a 'civil partnership' (or in their words) 'marriage' wants to get a religious blessing in a religious setting- they will ALWAYS find a way. The self-interested, all too human clamour for ownership, power & jurisdiction of this word is the least important part of a 'marriage' to most people. The most important part being the commitment 2 people make to each other infront of friends, family & a higher authority (if they hold belief). Venue & who officiates is on the list alongside cake, hats & transport. Meanwhile, sales of gay & lesbian Wedding cards are booming in Ireland...Time marches on.. with or without church 'authority' ;)

I agree Ryan,

It's only a matter of time before civil marriage is equalised (Scotland has already started the consultation) and religious institutions who want to will be able to conduct them the same way they do heterosexuals ones should they desire.

The statement that the church has or hasn't something really should be 'the church I belong to'. Authorised liturgies are available from other churches and, in other countries, are part of the everyday operation of marriage regardless of whether it is same sex or otherwise.

As regards this topic however It is really of no consequence to anyone other than the churches themselves whether they split or not as it will have no influence on the progression of equality for LGBT people. They have split many times in the past and I am sure they will do it again.

My concern is more for the damage to LGBT people that the inevitable offensive rhetoric will have when the bunfight takes off. I have to say the CoI have at least been measured from what I have seen - the same cannot be said of some of the other sects of christianity in NI. Even here we have a measured (even if I disagree with it) response from one and a modded post from another. Having seen the same poster (I assume) on other message boards I am sure his post was not pretty.

@ Independent_methodist_minister

I cant help but thinking that if, when frustratingly marching continuously forward fighting a hostile parliament, had William Wilberforce, himself a committed Christian and also Humanist, dealt with the contentious issue of the slave trade, approached it from the standpoint of Scripture, Tradition, Reason & Experience, instead of what is Right and True, might we still have slavery today? Or would the victims of slavery had to wait many more decades to be freed?

Sadly prior to William Wilberforce on the slave trade, and even today in respect of the GAY issue, when confronted with the truth on what the Bible really says on a matter, most 'christians' will attempt to deny the facts no matter however indesputable, they will twist, distort and blurr the issues, in order to hold to cherished beliefs and traditions, preferring what is familiar to what is right and true.

No where in the four Gospels is homosexuality described as sin. No where.

Hi Gerry,

If you get a opportunity, have a look at this web page.

It seems that there is a hardcore of extremists within the Church of Ireland who are determined to continue to discriminate against homosexuals. What lawful activities consenting adults do in their own homes is no one's business but their own. I do not know all the ins and outs of the Church of Ireland's teaching on sexuality; but is it OK for a man and a woman to do what they like between the sheets, and if a heterosexual were seeking an appointment within the Church would s/he be asked what s/he gets up to?

5 Dave

Cardinal Keith O'Brien lashes out at plan to legalise gay marriage in Scotland.

'"Any attempt to redefine marriage is a direct attack on a foundational building block of society and will be strenuously opposed."'

newlach,
@9 I expect no less but I thought the interesting quote from the Green MSP was

"Just as non-Catholics respect Catholic marriages, so it's time for the Cardinal to start respecting the right of every adult to love who they please"

That is why Amnesty use the slogan "Love is a Human Right"

@Newthornley

Ok I have looked at that web page as suggested.

What is your point? do you have any input to the debate? Have you any original thoughts on the subject?

gerry

No where in the four Gospels is homosexuality described as sin. No where.

Which means what exactly?

Something can be mentioned explicitly or implicitly, induced or deduced.

Andrew, since you're quite content dissecting other people's supposed 'sins', can you list yours. Since you enjoy feasting off others perhaps you should open yourself up to the same scrutiny - you can apply the same principles - whether they are implied in the four gospels explicitly or implicitly, induced or deduced.

@12&13 my thanks to Ryan and Andrew. debate is good. And in all things new and some things old, it is worth remembering, that before we make up our minds, we should first open our minds.

And it is all too easy in this issue to get off message. This message is the Church of Ireland and is it likely to split. Now I hope what I say here is not offensive to anyone, but it might be, for we sadly know some people have a habit of going out of their way to be offended. So I will make my statement and explain why I say it.

If the Church Of Ireland splits over this Gay issue, or any other gay issue, then I hope it disintegrates into a thousand pieces.

my reason, It has lost it's focus, has lost it's vision and is completely "off message". It has lost touch with whom it exists to serve. It's ministers and members have planks in their eyes, (Matthew 7:3 ), They are forming judgements when they out not be doing so, (Matthew 7:1
Luke 6:37 )

We read in John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. and again in John 3:17 (I know many Christians like to quote the preceding verse 16 and forget all about this verse 17) For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Christ's own words here plain and simple to understand even to a twelve year old, no need for degree in rocket science or theology to understand these verses. Christ's own words, didn't come to judge, didn't come to condemn, only came to save.

Do you suppose for one second that the reason Christ did not come to condemn or judge because he was going to give that task to the Christians who would follow him, God Forbid. If the Church of Ireland does split on this issue it will be because it wants to usurp the prerogative of Christ the Son of God only to Judge or Condemn. If so may as well split into a thousand pieces, for it has lost focus on Christ.

Remember (Matthew 1) the apostle Peter after he left the boat and without thinking walked on the water, It was easy, he was focussed on Christ. But he lost his focus and what happened to him? He sank into the water. Lucky for him, Christ was there for him, and he refocussed and came up out of the Water holding the Master's hand.

Andrew I mentioned the 4 Gospels for only in there are the words spoken by my saviour, in whom I trust totally for my salvation. I dont need to know about some old law that says I should not steal or covet something belonging to my neighbour. Christ Commands me to love my neighbour. And leaves it at that. I know, have the common sense to know that I am not loving my neighbour if I steal from him/her or covet anything or anyone belonging to him/her, definitely not loving my neighbour if I kill him.

The Old testament has nothing to do with my relationship with my God. It was not written for me, I was not delivered out of bondage the Jews were, It was written for the Jews not Gentiles like me. How King Solomon thought about the roundness and firmness of his wife's breasts have nothing to do with me, or my God's relationship with me. And how anyone can describe Solomon's descriptions of his wife body, as God's Word, is beyond me.

Andrew as the epistle writer tell us you can go back into the old testament if you like and apply 'The Law' to yourself but as the the epistle writer tells us, it is 'The Law' as a whole, and if you are not circumcised you need to be. mind you observing it will not save you, wont make you righteous, and your decision to do so is saying the Christ died in vain, as many Christians do, the epistle writer Paul, an apostle, writing to the Galatians. (A good read, eye opening, mind opening)

Andrew, since you're quite content dissecting other people's supposed 'sins', can you list yours.

There is a difference between arguing that something is sinful and 'dissecting other people's' sins.

Since you enjoy feasting off others perhaps you should open yourself up to the same scrutiny - you can apply the same principles - whether they are implied in the four gospels explicitly or implicitly, induced or deduced.

Scrutinising the food at a feast? How offensive to the host.

My belated but warmest and most heart-felt congratulations to Dean Gordon and his partner - I trust they will enjoy many happy years together. Congratulations also to Bishop Michael - I applaud his acting on principle and his timely moving of the debate into a higher gear. The church has obfuscated on this issue for far too long. It is good to see a Christ in a benchful of Pilates.