"Thus I think "redefinition" does not apply in relation to divorce in the way it does in relation to current proposals."

I really think Andrew is clutching at straws here! We all know that most evangelicals have moved on from Jesus's injunction in terms of divorce and remarriage just like most of us have moved on in terms of WO. These are significant changes in the development of doctrine. Just accept it rather than trying to deny it!

Andrew-- Since you are watching this space, this is the moment to thank you for contributing to Fulcrum the several essays that I have discovered on the site in recent months. Your perceptive discussion of Calvin on usury has been particularly interesting, and helpful to the present discussion.

About (3a)-- In a couple, sexual differentiation does not appear to be related to the agreement that makes them a sign of God's covenant relations. The tradition since Calvin has seen exclusive monogamy, as we find it is in nature and without need of sacramental improvement, as a sign to us of the congruence of wills that is the nature of covenant relations between God and Israel and between God and the soul. Neither maleness, nor femaleness, nor their combination, nor reproduction have a necessary relation to this congruence of wills. And indeed the locus classicus Ephesians v 31-33 makes no reference to reproduction or children. Why then are the sexes of those united in matrimony relevant to the definition of it?

About (3bc)--And how is a couple in exclusive monogamy not a natural sign of God's covenant relations (cf. rainbows), even if their relationship is not recognised by either state or church?

Simon,

Thanks for your various posts and hope this won’t distract you again from what you are meant to be doing but wanted to respond quickly on two important areas.

Your recent posts on divorce have I think helped me see what  I was suspecting – you see acceptance of divorce (and remarriage) as rewriting the definition of marriage but I don’t think that is necessarily true.  If marriage had been held to be indissoluble in strong sense of “once married to X, always married to X; can never say of two living people ‘they were married, they are no longer married’” then this would be true.  But such a view has not been the only - or even I think majority - evangelical or Christian view.  Your Flash Gordon reference I think shows the problem – all marriages in UK by definition are entered into by making a commitment for life not on short-term or renewable contracts. We all know many do not succeed in reaching that goal and fulfilling that commitment and how we respond to such situations is what questions around divorce and remarriage have to wrestle with but entering with that intention is still a requirement as is, at present (apart from complications under Gender Recognition Act!), that it be one man and one woman. Thus I think "redefinition" does not apply in relation to divorce in the way it does in relation to current proposals.

On Lambeth 1998, a few points. (1) It is I.10 because Roman numerals were used for the 5 (ie V) sections – the official report actually makes the mistake you object to and lists resolutions from the first section as 1.10 though it then has II, III, IV and V; (2) the resolution does not say what you say it says about “not of one mind” – that wording is in the Section I sub-group report which the resolution merely “commends”; (3) precisely because many bishops did not like that ambiguity in the report various amendments were passed including “incompatible with Scripture” one which is about as serious a claim for a large group of Anglican bishops to make; (4) the Primates and others who speak of this as stating the mind of the Communion are therefore quite right to do so; (5) you are though right that “not everyone agreed with Lambeth I.10, including some of those who voted for it” and part of the problem has been that those who didn’t then disregarded it and those who did agree did not really engage with them and others in listening and discernment called for.

About (1abc)  Given the evidences that differences in brain physiology (e.g. faces of the same sex-- but not faces of the opposite sex-- elevate BOLD signals in fMRI scans of the medial orbitofrontal prefrontal cortex, etc.) can explain the difference between heterosexual desire and homosexual desire, Part 1 appears to declare that an involuntary variant of brain physiology is God's criterion for excluding some from a "key form of relationship" for the practise of "Christian love" that is "empowered by the power of the Holy Spirit." How does this representation of God's will reflect what God makes known about himself in Jesus Christ?  

About (4b). Is it fair to say that this encourages persons who have no inclination to the opposite sex to either--

(i) marry a member of the opposite sex who cannot stimulate arousal in her (or his) brain; or,

(ii) practice ascetic avoidance of sex?

If so, then--

About (i), in what Christian understanding of marriage is a physiologically-determined absence of affective mutuality in marital relations ethical?  Some may believe that it would be seriously unethical for a person who is certain of her or his lack of desire for marital relations to marry. Which Christian traditions teach that this is ethical, and how would they explain this to the fiancee or spouse of such a person?

About (ii), what sort of pastoral guidance should evangelical pastors mindful of their Reformed heritage give about the subjective experience of sexual desire and the practice of sexual asceticism to persons abstaining from sex for life? Some may believe that (4b) inadvertently proposes to revive a pre-Reformation state of life that evangelicals cannot live with conviction. Which Christian traditions routine provide pastoral support to persons intentionally engaged in lifelong celibacy, and how far are their beliefs and methods acceptable to evangelicals?

Simon - we agree!  The double standard is a disgrace......  I hope you object to any you find turning a blind eye.....  but you surely don't mean to suggest that two wrongs  make a right?

(I find myself looking here rather than doing what I should be doing - which is writing the damn book... so this'll be my last for a while)

Dave - re: Lambeth I.10 - yes, Lambeth resolutions usually have the weight of being "the mind of the communion". Lambeth I.10 explicitly does not: they said so in Lambeth I.10.

I know (and am eternally grateful for the fact that) there are no windows into the souls of men. Heterosexual ones, anyway. But, by and large, lax heterosexual sexual behaviour gets a pass where homosexuals in committed relationships do not. The church accomodates young unmarrieds-but-living-together, single mums and dads with their kids, the divorced, the serially remarried - and unlike Joey Barton found, there's no red card, no suspension, no fine. The rules of marriage changed - we compromised. (I'm passing no judgement on whether that was good or bad, just noting it happened).

Then when the state says "gays should be able to be married", it's all "We never compromise! Marriage is unchanging!"

That double-standard is what I object to.

Simon,

There are no windows into the souls of men. The church offers marriage to those wish to make the vows in the service just as if offers adult baptism to believers. It does not judge those who request the sacraments. The church accepts civil marriage. The early church accepted Greek as well as Jewish converts as well as others and there is no mention of remarriage, if you can accept an  argument from silence.

Dave

Simon,

The "mind of the communion" is also stated in the resolution as being:

in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;

cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;

The range of views expressed in the section report does not affect this. Rather the conference was able to express the mind of the communion by passing the resolution. The mind of the communion was established by thye reolution and can only be chnged by a subsequent reolution. This seems to be how the phrase is used.

Dave

Dave - seriously?

If Joey Barton punches players from the other team (or his own, he's not fussy) and gets away with it, it's still football - but the rules have changed. Likewise marriage and divorce.

I'm reminded of the scene in Flash Gordon (the 1980 film) where Ming is marrying Dale:

Zogi, the High Priest: Do you, Ming the Merciless, Ruler of the Universe, take this Earthling Dale Arden, to be your Empress of the Hour?
The Emperor Ming: Of the hour, yes.
Zogi, the High Priest: Do you promise to use her as you will?
The Emperor Ming: Certainly!
Zogi, the High Priest: Not to blast her into space?
[Ming glares at Zogi]
Zogi, the High Priest: Uh, until such time as you grow weary of her.
The Emperor Ming: I do.
Dale Arden: I do NOT!

At least Ming was honest... of course no one gets married "until such time as they grow weary of each other", but I'm reasonably certain you've been to weddings where all the right words were said, only for a few years later for the couple to split up, find someone else (hopefully in that order), get married again using the same words again. Till death us do part is no longer true: it's an aspiration, not a requirement. The rules have changed by the state. The church has accepted that. I find that to be a singularly uncontroversial point.

Simon,

Divorce is breaking the rules rather than changing them. Morality is a different thing than the law. The law protects as best it can those who suffer as a result of divorce. How it does this has changed over time. This is not a change in marriage entered into in an Anglican church. The form of marriage offered by the church has not changed much in the last 350 years. It is still solemnized by the same ceremony. An adjustment to the age of marriage for example is a reinterpretation of the principle that a man leaves....The change from a man takes a woman to a man takes a woman is fundamental. This goes against not only the whole Christian tradition but the tradition of western culture.

Dave

I'm posting this here, rather than cluttering up the Southwark trust fund page with yet another post about homosexuality, which we've been asked not to do.

1. The Lambeth resolution in question is http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-1-10.cfm

2. Please (please, in the name of all that is holy) realise that it's properly called Lambeth I.10  That's a letter I and not a number 1. It's making the vein on my temple throb every time someone (yes Nersen, I'm looking at you) gets it wrong. It's almost as if they haven't bother to read it.

3. While we're on the subject of not having read it, I'm going to quote part of the resolution here:

"We must confess that we are not of one mind about homosexuality. Our variety of understanding encompasses:

• those who believe that homosexuality is a disorder, but that through the grace of Christ people can be changed, although not without pain and struggle.
• those who believe that relationships between people of the same gender should not include genital expression, that this is the clear teaching of the Bible and of the Church universal, and that such activity (if unrepented of) is a barrier to the Kingdom of God.
• those who believe that committed homosexual relationships fall short of the biblical norm, but are to be preferred to relationships that are anonymous and transient.
• those who believe that the Church should accept and support or bless monogamous covenant relationships between homosexual people and that they may be ordained."

My bolding. We are not of one mind, it says. And in the next but one paragraph -

"We have prayed, studied and discussed these issues, and we are unable to reach a common mind on the scriptural, theological, historical, and scientific questions which are raised."

My bolding again. We are unable to reach a common mind, it says.

4. This is significant because Lambeth resolutions do usually reflect "the mind of the communion", as expressed on the ABofC's Lambeth Conference page:

"The Lambeth Conference is not an executive which imposes doctrine or discipline but it is a forum where the mind of the Communion can be expressed on matters of controversy."

5. Now, given that Conference resolutions are usually given the power of "the mind of the communion", but that Lambeth I.10 was explicitly denied that power within the text of the resolution itself, it means - by any fair reading of the text - that the views expressed in Lambeth I.10 are not "the mind of the communion", and never have been.

6. A majority of the bishops at the conference did accept the resolution, including (d) where it rejects "homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture". It should be noted that other words are also included in (d), and the preceding (c). It should also be noted that "over 100 bishops, including some who voted in favour of the resolution, immediately repudiated it and signed a letter of apology to gay and lesbian Anglicans." (last part from Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_views_of_homosexuality)

7. Concluding: not everyone agreed with Lambeth I.10, including some of those who voted for it. It explicitly ruled itself out of being "the mind of the communion". It does call homosexual practice incompatible with Scripture - it also calls us to listen to the experience of and recognise that homosexuals are full members of the Body of Christ.

Hi Simon Morden,

You wrote "Moreover, it's the reason for the denial that makes it particularly egregious - solely to prevent the marriage of homosexuals."

I thought there was a break from the topic, but seeing as there isnt..

There is nothing stopping any man or woman that God created getting married. If your homosexual is a man he can marry a woman. If he doesnt want to, thats his choice, but no one is stopping him.