Anglican bishops prep for tough talks on same-sex marriage

The first same-sex wedding in an Anglican church in the U.K. took place when Peter Matthews and Alistair Dinnie married one another at St. John's Church in Edinburgh on September 16, 2017, after the Scottish Episcopal Church overturned the Anglican canon law stipulation that marriage must be between a man and a woman in a vote in June. Photo courtesy of St John's Choir/Twitter‏ @stjohnschoir

LONDON (RNS) — The primates of the worldwide Anglican Communion will face another tough test next week when they gather in the U.K. to grapple with the Scottish Episcopal Church’s backing of same-sex marriage, among other issues.

The bishops will meet in Canterbury two months after the first gay Anglican wedding took place in Scotland, following the SEC’s June vote to alter its canon law, which had previously defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

The move by the Scots has upset African primates in particular and three of them have already said they will boycott next week’s gathering. Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, who has responsibility for convening primates’ meetings, has indicated how difficult the meeting is likely to be, saying that the leaders of the Anglican provinces would gather together to pray, and even “to weep with one another.”

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby. Photo by Luke MacGregor/Reuters

The talks, which run from Oct. 2-6, give Anglican leaders an opportunity to discuss a wide spectrum of issues, from climate change to poverty. But as in the past, these discussions are likely to be overshadowed by conflicts over sexuality.

READ: Britain’s first Anglican same-sex marriage celebrated in a Scottish church

Those that do attend the meeting may consider some sort of punitive measure against the SEC, just as they did with American Episcopalians at the last primates’ meeting in Canterbury in 2016 for similarly recognizing same-sex marriage. The Americans were banned from representing the communion at ecumenical and interfaith talks for three years.

The Scots, however, are unlikely to be fazed by the prohibition. They went ahead with their change even after their then-primate, David Chillingworth, had checked with Welby to ask if they could expect the same treatment as the Americans should they endorse gay marriage — and learned that they would.

A leading advocate of Christian gay marriage in Scotland, Kelvin Holdsworth, provost of St. Mary’s Cathedral, Glasgow, described any action that may be taken against the Scottish church as “a price worth paying.”

Just how wide the gap is between north and south in the Anglican Communion over sexual matters has become evident in recent days, with flurries of defiant words from both sides.

Archbishop Nicholas Okoh of Nigeria, who is chairman of the conservative African organization Global Anglican Future Conference, or GAFCON, and is boycotting the primates’ meeting, is urging the communion to back the conventional view that marriage is a lifelong union of a man and a woman.

“Now we are living in the midst of the next great Reformation,” he wrote to GAFCON supporters earlier this month. “In our day there is broken fellowship, over homosexual practice, same sex marriage and the blurring of gender identity, none of which are mentioned in the Creeds, but all of which contradict fundamental biblical understandings of marriage and human identity.”

Archbishop Nicholas Okoh, left, of Nigeria and Archbishop Eliud Wabukala of Kenya, speak at a news conference in Nairobi. Religion News Service photo by Fredrick Nzwili

On the other side of the debate, the Rev. Giles Goddard, chair of the Human Sexuality Group of the Church of England’s Synod, argued that the status quo was not an option. In an open letter to the primates, the group, which represents 240 synod members and wants the Church of England to be fully inclusive of LGBT people, reminds the primates that “the direction of travel” for the church is now “clearer than ever.”

Yet Goddard acknowledges that the status quo enjoys strong support.

“Marriage between a man and a woman is the majority stance of the Anglican Communion and of citizens of the world but just because so many people say something does not mean it is right,” he said.

“We have to recognize other loving relationships and want people to be able to live in accordance with the Gospels.”

Goddard said that it was possible for Anglicans in different countries to have different takes on personal morality.

“In some provinces they don’t yet have women priests, but we are still Anglicans,” he said.

The voices opposing same-sex marriage in the Anglican Communion, Goddard continued, were small in number but very loud. “They are becoming more shrill. They know the tide of history is against them.”

The Church of England is unlikely to follow the SEC anytime soon and allow same-sex marriage. Although in February its synod rejected a report by its bishops that said marriage in church should only be between a man and a woman, it is restricted in allowing gay weddings: As England’s “established church,” it would require parliamentary legislation to change the rules of marriage.

The row in the Anglican Communion has rumbled on since the primates’ last meeting in 2016. Then Welby made a public apology for the way gay people have been treated in the past by the churches. The primates also issued a communiqué condemning homophobic prejudice and violence.

There may be some unpredictability, however, in the Canterbury gathering, for 16 of the primates — there are 38 in total — have been appointed since their last meeting.

About the author

Catherine Pepinster


Click here to post a comment

  • Look how happy they look. What an abomination! /s

    My daughter marries her bride tomorrow. Fortunately, here in Canada, it’s no big deal

  • Yes it is Mark. God still cares.
    1Corinthians 7 – Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.”
    Christ hasn’t sent out a memo contradicting this yet.

  • “We have to recognize other loving relationships and want people to be able to live in accordance with the Gospels.” I bet his dog loves him too.

  • 1Corinthians 7:6-9

    6) Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.

    7) I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
    8) To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9) But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

  • ya, well fortunately there is no god so I can just ignore all your bigoted BS
    Believe whatever you want but keep your f’n nose out of my business. Got it??

  • you people actually believe that crap from thousands of years ago? This is why WE make the laws that render your stupid a** god powerless

  • Another example that you don’t know Him. Learn about the subject before you make yourself look sillier.

  • No…..i just help them to know that Christ loves them enough that they don’t need to go to their death. What are you doing?

  • ah! so you are a freak that believes he has a relationship with a supernatural being

    I tried convincing them of that. They thought I was nuts

  • Mark, if you tried to help her, I commend you. It doesn’t matter what others think, my friend. The end result is what Christ thinks.
    Your lack of belief does not negate Him either. He is real and He loves you also, my friend.

  • A Santa is way more believable plus he didn’t murder anyone! Your god, conservatively murdered 25 million people. Those are just the ones he admits to. But you keep acting all high and mighty and now for the 4th time refuse to answer how you worship such a terrorist

  • I’m more concerned for how he is going to react to you, my friend. I will promise to pray for you though. God bless

  • yup, another christian that can’t answer a simple question.

    Please, pray! It makes you feel sooo good and yet you did f*ck all

  • I will use a word here that I rarely use of anyone, but biblically speaking, and in terms of his capacity to interpret both scripture and church practice, the Reverend Giles Goddard is an imbecile.

  • Judgment when properly applied is not condemned in scripture. None of what the Rev. Goddard has declared meets the test of scripture.

  • In his words one can hear the echo of the Roman administrator saying “Antipas, don’t you know the whole world is against you?”

  • Edward,
    Goddard is a sodomite and a spiritual child-molester who hates God and does not care about the test of scripture. He has devoted his life to recruiting other people’s children for gay sex. Curse Goddard.

  • you’ve missed the point entirely, haven’t you?
    The point being, sex between consenting adults is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

  • Yes it is. When employees are fired, my sons and daughters risk seeing disgusting homosexual parades, when children are taught at a young age that rear entry is normal – it is the business of us all.

    It needs criminalsing and thereby put back in the closet.

  • lmao. That’s why WE make the rules. You homophobes are incapable of fairness.
    Your silly god aint so powerful after all, is he?

    Guess, you are a terrible parent if you can’t teach them better than a parade!

    What a twit

  • If you have never done it the back way with a woman, well, I guess you’ll just have to wait for heaven

  • You’re avoiding the major point you made.

    When people challenge you retreat like sin squatting in the corner.

  • sure, I attacked you Personally. So what? point is still valid.
    You are a terrible and SCARED parent unable to properly raise his own children and SOMEHOW that’s an atheists fault!

  • That’s easy peasy. Only one person has ever filled the demands of the law.

    You sinner!

  • I was unaware that lesbianism and homosexuality were contagious diseases.

    Do enlighten us.

  • and yet your idiotic responses shows you don’t understand

    “my sons and daughters risk seeing disgusting homosexual parades, when children are taught at a young age that rear entry is normal…”

  • Oh yes I can show you the person who has been forgiving you all his mean, misreable, vindictaive life.

  • You used the term ‘sinned’; a biblical term and I supplied the biblical answer.

    You got what you asked for.

  • You’re the one that described it as catching – clearly therefore contagious.

    It’s all coming out of your mouth – not anyone elses.

  • and yet you don;t

    Ive had enough.

    I’ve asked ONE simple question. You KEEP avoiding it. We are done

  • I’m not done with you!

    That mean, miserable, vindictive man lives close to you. He’s been forgiving you all this time.

    Go on, dare me to invite naming him!

    I double dare you!

  • You can’t keep running away from that mean, misreable, vindictive man – he’s following you ‘outta here’! Unremarkably, he keeps forgiving you!

  • I’m not playing your games. I’ve asked for proof NUMEROUS TIMES

    If you had proof, it would have been provided IMMEDIATELY

  • But you might be ashamed if I reveal his identity on a public forum.

    God hasn’t forgiven you – but the miserable man has.

  • I have flagged you. You outright refusal to provide evidence is all ANYONE need to know your beliefs CANNOT be validated

  • clearly you don’t know what child molesting is.
    It’s actually like a christian forcing their children to believe fairy tales or they will be PUNISHED FOR ALL ETERNITY

  • ‘Proof’ you ask? Upon which standard of belief?

    1. Civil law;
    2. Criminal;
    3. Scientific;
    4. Literary;

    Which dictionary? Which vintage?

  • Umm, you kinda put your business on the public table by gratuitously advertising the situation with your daughter. Using the “none of your business” line doesn’t work under such conditions.

    I see this aspect coming up sometimes. People sometimes bring up stuff, and it’s like you’re not supposed to say anything about it, even though both you and they know what the Bible says.

    In person, I generally don’t say anything unless asked. But in an Internet forum, it’s okay to address it.

  • Who is forbidden and can’t marry? To the unmarried and the widows? The only ones “forbidden” were gay people.

  • Is there no end to your reviling and slander? Are you really so filled with hate and spite?

    Of course you are. More of your obsession about other people’s children and gay sex.

    Get help.

  • The denomination founded because the King wanted to divorce his wife for a younger one?

    Is that like how American Evangelicals avoid condemning the sins of an adulterer, cheat and bigot? We know they gleefully support such a person as their leader. They will even 1ie on behalf of his character.

  • “Christ hasn’t sent out a memo contradicting this yet.”

    Funny Christ never said any of that to begin with. It was the Johnny Come Lately Paul in his letter writing campaign.

    But Jesus did have something to say about people trespassing upon the personal affairs and sins of others. He had a dim view of people such as yourself

    Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

    “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?

    You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
    Matthew 7:1-5

  • Unless he was taking his kids away from exposure from priests, he was doing nothing of the type.

    But we all know Reactionary Christians love sexual abuse.

    Clearly you love committing the sin of slandering others to cover up your own acts.

  • Sandi – you have often been appraised of, yet clearly refuse, to understand the concept of “informed consent”.

    Please look it up now; you’re not daft and it isn’t difficult. If you don’t you are probably going to go barrelling down the marry-your-goldfish routine yet again – and yet again, by doing so, you will make Jesus cry.

    Your deliberate irrationality causes others to heap scorn upon you (which you have the right to invite) and also upon all Christians (many of whom don’t share your hatred) which will annoy Jesus and your God itself – possible earning retribution from it for breaking no.8 and probably no.2 as well!

  • On the one-hand you say you’ve never sinned and on the other you say you don’t know.

  • I assume you have incontrovertible evidence to support your attacks – otherwise you condemn yourself to whatever delicacy your personal god reserves for those foul-mouthed, lie-spreading, bearing-false-witness apologies for humanity that you appear to be determined to outdo.

    I don’t think you are a Christian – not as would be recognised by the Christ. Your verbal dysentery suggests that you are an antitheist – one who really hates god and tries to cause christians to give up their belief in revulsion at being considered like you. If that’s the case please stop now – we agnostic atheists don’t need the irrationality and corrupt reason that you vent upon these boards. The argument for reason and science is growing stronger daily without your appalling help.

  • Edward – I know that the RCC has a penchant for “tradition” as a way to fill the doctrinal gaps – but I question whether it is wise for you to unreservedly offer church practice as a justification when that church’s practice includes hiding clerics from the due process of law, knowingly exposing women and children to the virtual certainty of re-offending abuse and generally being an organisation which operates in a climate of institutionalised disrespect for humanity.

  • It is a shame when your religious views are such that you become a less-loving, more hate-filled person while on this earth. If your religion doesn’t bring you peace and let you try to make the world a better place for those other than yourself, you really should question your religion.

  • One Corinthians 6 verses 9-10.

    Slander and reviling.

    Ironically, the very same verses used by the revlers and slanderers to condemn gay people!

  • My dear Duke, in surveys of gay male couples, less that 30% report participating in what you refer to as rear entry. Meaning a very tiny percent of the human population participates in this act as gay couples. Yet, this is a very popular form of heterosexual birth control and is practiced routinely by hundreds of millions of heterosexuals, a huge percentage of the human population. So it seems rear entry is normal and your children have a right to be educated about it.

  • Funny, the only people bring up anal sex are the homophobes. It seems to be the only thing you can see. The only people thinking about children in the same sentence as their obsession with anal sex are the homobigots, because certainly, no one I know thinks that children are being taught all about it, or thinks it’s a good idea.

    It’s almost as if you can’t stop thinking about it, and you get off thinking about it, and then project your disgust at yourself for thinking about it as much as you do onto people who aren’t discussing it at all. And then you want it criminalized to stop eactly whom from doing what you can’t stop thinking about?

    I suspect you need far more help than I can give you on an internecine to board.

  • Well, let’s praise him for this great moral feat! he is taking a stand against child molesting! wow! I’m impressed! Just about every decent human being on the planet takes a stand against it.

    Well except for a certain percentage of the Roman Catholic Priesthood. And NAMBLA, if they ever existed. And Dennis Hastert.

  • I speak English as a 2nd language, but can’t find a definition for sandimonious. But I’m sure it isn’t a possessive noun.

    From the context I’m guessing that it means throwing a barb and then running to hide one’s head in the sand.


  • Sin is usually defined as a crime against a god. Those of us who are unable to believe in a deity are therefore incapable admitting to sinning because
    a) we don’t think we do and
    b) some numpty would pounce on that and claim that we must really, actually, deep down believe in their version of a supernatural being which we don’t.

    Difficult for some to understand I know – but true – we are unable to believe. Speaking for myself – it’s because I value evidence and reason and can see no way in which either can be used to indicate the existence of any of the deities that others think they detect.

    So – no – although we do wrong sometimes (wrong according to our conscience rather than someone else’s arbitrary diktats) – we don’t sin.

  • it’s a bit more simple than that. The Hebrew for sin means “missing the mark.” God has set some goals for how we behave and how we should treat one another. We all constantly miss those goals. Some here find great sport in missing their own sin but running around pointing to what they think the sins of others. They are to be pitied as they miss the mark all the more with that constant behavior. 😀

  • ‘So – no – although we do wrong sometimes (wrong according to our conscience rather than someone else’s arbitrary diktats) – we don’t sin.’

    That’s not new as the national socialists thought the same.

  • Ben said;
    “….More of your obsession about other people’s children and gay sex….”

    We love our children and we will not stand down and allow them to be molested without fierce resistance, that is why we are not passive, we fight back. Gays should avoid all contact and not communicate with other people’s children.

  • I’m sure you’re right – but we’re discussing the current usage of “sin” which is defined as “An immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law”

    No divinity – no divine law – no “sin”

  • I was afraid you were going to say this.

    No – it’s not obvious – it’s not even close to being rational.

    Tables have four legs, ravenous lions have four legs – are you going to eat your dinner of the lion’s back?

  • Oh dear.

    I have a rose in my garden – the Queen has a rose in her garden – According to your attempt at logic that makes me the Queen. It doesn’t.

    Just because two people may share a particular thought does not mean that they share all their thoughts.

    It really is very, very simple.

    PS – The “National Socialists of Germany” trusted in God enough to put “Gott mitt uns” on the Wehrmacht soldier’s belt buckle. The USA trusts in God enough to put “In God we trust” on their paper money. Therefore all Americans are Nazis??????????

  • Surveys by sexology & disease researchers in the US of men who identify as having sex with other men. However, if 100% of us engaged in rear entry, it wouldn’t put a dent in the number of heterosexuals who engage in the practice as there are far fewer of us. It’s time that you dropped your fascination of how folks express their erotic feelings for one another. Stop policing other folk’s bedrooms and worry about yourself.

  • ‘Just because two people may share a particular thought does not mean that they share all their thoughts.’

    I wasn’t aware that this discussion involved the para-normal. Unsure why you have introduced it.

    The common ground that you share with the National Socialists is that you and they are free to follow the dictates of ‘conscience’, I suppose.

    But do tell us how ‘conscience’ comes into being.

  • Free of the ridiculous restraints of an invisible friend’s imprecise suggestions – yes.

    Personally I like “Do as you will and it harm no-one”.

    There are restraints – most people have a conscience (psychopaths – the real deal ones – can’t) and are affected by morality – which basically comes down to socially acceptable behaviour enforced through peer pressure etc..

    If you want to get into the whole question of “free will” there is a lot of literature reflecting serious experimental research from Stanley Milgram in the 1960s to present day researchers using fMRI scanners etc.. There are very few active neuroscientists who think that we have “free will”. The consensus at the moment seems to be somewhere around ” Man does what he wills but cannot will what he wills. In other words we react at the subconscious level based on our unique mix of nature and nurture and then kid ourselves we had any choice.

  • It’s only a blessing in the same way as when a bare-headed person is presented with a calling card by a bird flying above them.

    You’re not daft, you could understand “informed consent” and if you refuse to do so you belittle yourself.

  • ‘Personally I like “Do as you will and it harm no-one”.’

    The latter is arbitrary and constrains freedom. Why do you wish to limit the autonomy of the individual?

    People want free choice and not to be constrained by your personal diktats.

  • Actually, He taught us that we will judge the world, Spud
    Matthew 19;28 – English Standard Version
    John 7:24 Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

    “But Jesus did have something to say about people trespassing upon the personal affairs and sins of others. He had a dim view of people such as yourself”
    2 Timothy 4 – English Standard Version
    1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.”
    Christ knew you would wander off into myths, Spud.

  • Men who identify with having sex with with men?

    Do the surveys say that they took into account or rejected as data men who who had sex vicariously?

  • Not all men who have sex with men identify as gay. Some identify as bi-sexual. Some still identify as predominately heterosexual. MSM is a standard sociological identifier that covers all of us.

  • I really, really hope you’re not from England.

    Hitler believed in God, at least he often said he did, the RCC never excommunicated him and the army belt buckle proclaimed “Gott mit uns”. I don’t believe in God.

    Your attempt to align me with NS is unworthy of further comment.

    Conscience is a function of the brain, it consists of activity within and between the cells inside our skull. Unless you don’t have a normally functioning amygdala (a part of the front right brain which acts rather like an interchange does on a railway system) your unique mix of nature (your genetic inheritance) and nurture (your life experience) – probably plus your epigenetic or post-birth genetic changes – causes you to react to sensory input in a particular way. Conscience, I suggest, is how we describe the effect that our environmental considerations (peer-pressure, legal restraints etc.) impinges on our awareness of the need to (post-decision) rationalise our actions.

  • If conscience is the product of chemical-electrical-mechanical activity (consistent with the fundamental propositions of Darwinian theory) then it cannot perform the functions we expect of conscience.

    Please explain why you don’t want other people harmed – after all they are merely trousered apes- ?

  • Why – because we are social animals and have evolved a means of enabling us to survive long enough to pass on our genetic material. No limit would probably mean early death and threaten the continuation of the species.

    I disagree – people don’t want free choice and a lack of constraints – the proof is that people surrender their freedoms to pursue ridiculous concepts such as religion.

    I said “I favour” – I should have said “I favour for me” though I can’t help but think the world might be a better place if we all lived the best life we can whilst striving to avoid harming anyone else – don’t you agree?

  • You invited the alignment with sharing the same philosophical underpinnings as National Socialism. No one forced you there. You went there of your own free will.

    Your error was the one that the great Russian writer Dostoyevsky pointed out:

    If there is no God then we are free to do anything we like.

  • I do not understand why an early death would bother you – based upon your own presuppositions.

  • “If conscience is the product of chemical-electrical-mechanical activity (consistent with the fundamental propositions of Darwinian theory) then it cannot perform the functions we expect of conscience.”

    A rebuttal without reasoning is worthless.

    Are you saying that’s what conscience is? If not how do you explain it? Explain why you’ve chosen to ignore my response in favour of one you’ve made up. What do you expect of conscience?

    “Please explain why you don’t want other people harmed – after all they are merely trousered apes- ?”

    Your assumption that people merely wear trousers is arrogant, sexist, racist and silly.

    I find your question back-to-front. Why would I want others harmed? Common sense says that my life will be better, longer, richer and healthier in a peaceful society – if harm is normal some of it will affect me and mine.

    Anyone who wants others harmed is, I suggest, in need of specialist care.

  • Why not argue for freeing us from laws and see if we are social animals?

    After all doesn’t Darwinian theory propel our constant advancement? Up, up into the bright new sunlit uplands of a glorious future?

    We could solve over population too!

    Survival of the fittest!

    Each should go through the ‘Renewal Ceremony’ as in the movie: Logan’s Run.


  • A bogus attempt at alignment is not “sharing the same philosophical underpinnings” – if you are can’t address issues without introducing red herrings I’m out (it’s just become Sunday morning here).

    ” If there is no God then we are free to do anything we like.”
    I’ve already fully refuted this.

  • No you haven’t – this isn’t the university lecture hall. You’re up against reality.

  • I have no idea what you mean by your post. I’m not citing surveys in defense of anything, I was responding to your ignorance to rampant heterosexual anal sex!

    As to the report, it is from 2015 and the date is from kids in high school in 2005, 2007 & 2009. Way out of date!

    I think that I shall block you, along with Sandi Baby, so as not to be confused by your craziness.

  • “Why not argue for freeing us from laws and see if we are social animals?”
    We are social animals

    “After all doesn’t Darwinian theory propel our constant advancement? Up, up into the bright new sunlit uplands of a glorious future?”

    “We could solve over population too!”
    Hopefully we will some day – through compassionate understanding of ourselves and the world we inhabit.

    “Survival of the fittest!”
    If you know what that means your just a boring troll – if you don’t understand it your not capable of having a worthwhile discussion with.

    “Each should go through the ‘Renewal Ceremony’ as in the movie: Logan’s Run.”

    Can you not get beyond the first letter of the alphabet?

  • Well Give, the premiere of Ontario is teaching kindergarten kids about “informed consent” right now. Does that make you feel better with your opinion? Didn’t think so.

  • Still nothing about permitting believers to trespass upon the lives of others in untoward ways. Sins of others are their sins, between them and God. Not your business. The role of God, judging others is already taken.

  • In what sense do you call ‘right’ right, and ‘wrong’ wrong; given that you are a descendant of the apes?

  • You are not in a position to judge reality as you are a product of evolution.

  • You are not in a position to discuss conscience as you have notbtold us how it araises in an evolutionary process.

  • ” …reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. ”

    That advice is not going to end well when the reprover, and the rebuker and the exhorter are themselves reproved, rebuked and exhorted by the rebuked and the reproved and the exhorted. I’ve seen it happen. A war of judgemental words. Bad feelings all the way around. Hypocrisy every which way. That advice is nothing but the start of ugly judgementalism and loveless antagonism.

    This is better, and it’s simply a repeat of what Spuddie said above and that is good, simple advice —

    Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

    “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? ……………Matthew 7:1-3

  • I’m not familiar with the specific situation to which you refer – I support teaching kids age-appropriate material about morals, attitudes to others, respect for themselves etc.. That’s why I’m part of our regional team working on what and how kids are taught about religion/ethics related matters at school.

    As to informed consent – it simply means saying yes or no to something/someone when one has the facts, understands those facts and freely accepts any possible consequences of one’s decision.

    Kids should understand that they can say “no” if they’re uncomfortable with “yes” and vice versa; and that they should only say “yes” or “no” if they feel that they can do so in a full understanding of what the consequences of that decision might be.
    I would expect the situations used to illustrate such teaching to vary as the kids grow older and as their knowledge of themselves and the world they inhabit expands – but teaching kindergarten kids that not everyone is the same, that different is not automatically wrong and that other peoples’ opinions should be questioned and their motives examined seems laudable to me.

  • and once again you show your inability to comprehend the english language.
    You try SO hard to look like you have a clue but people see your answers and see arrogance covering up for no evidence.
    Carry on, You are one sad dude

  • If you don’t know what’s wrong with your response you need to gain at least a basic understanding of the scientific theory of evolution.

    Whether you do or don’t replying to you will clearly be a waste of my time.

  • If you think this response is “rational” you need to explain what you think “rational” means.

  • Claiming I haven’t done something an assiduous reader knows I have is a paltry excuse for being unable to explain your irrational response. fail.

  • I think you are suffering a similar fate as me. He simply cannot comprehend the english language when he has his religious glasses on

  • Thanks give, but she, and the man who supervised the project are immoral. The man was jailed for child porn and admitting online that he wished he had sex with his children at an earlier age. He is responsible for the sex ed for the children.
    I’ve learned to put nothing past immoral people.

  • Probably either that or he’s just a wannabe annoying little tick who thinks asking questions and ignoring the answers is going to get him laid/into heaven/a free drink/whatever.

  • The situation, as you outline it, would not be acceptable here. That does not in any way invalidate, indeed it would seem to support, the need to promote appropriately the awareness of informed consent from an early age.

  • Seriously, do you know how to read?
    My ‘I don’t know’ was a response to you saying people hold grudges against me.

    I thought you were doing this on purpose, being stupid. I now realize it may not be an act

  • you love throwing out the ad hominem fallacy except when you use it

    Typical hypocritical christian

  • Former speaker of the house, family values man, caught up in a scandal involving money and inappropriate ogling of boys in the gym. You should google it. He’s in prison, I believe. Or maybe just got out.

  • Please, don’t have children. It would be too cruel and abusive to bring a new generation into the world which would have to deal with such hateful nonsense.

  • funny thing, my daughter gets married and somehow in your warped and twisted skull (can’t say brain, no evidence) you think that is an attack on your children. And I live thousands of miles away.
    Welp, I guess if you can believe you have a relationship with a supernatural being you can believe just about anything!

  • You first.

    When will you phony religionists leave other peoples children alone?

    When will you stop obsessing about anal sex?

  • Not at all…..children in kindergarten don’t need this information.
    God placed her in her position and then she has strewn her immorality over the school system to try to normalize it. Not a good way to thank the Lord for His blessings. She used an admitted, wanna be pedophile, to oversee the abomination.

  • Making the world a better place for others, rather than yourself is helping them to have a relationship with Jesus, who provides friendship, blessings, a relationship with God, culminating in meeting Him in Heaven. Telling someone what Christ taught on their errors, is helping them and protecting some from a world that would rather see them end up in Hell.

  • NAMBLA marched with Hay the first few homosexual pride parades, Ben. Then, when NAMBLA didn’t show up, he wore a t-shirt saying he supports NAMBLA.
    Now, with what happened with Bean, and another of the group – Brinkin – seems young boys are not included on their hand’s off list.

  • Oh, the right wing is just so lovely. I am not responsible for what Harry hay may or may not have said or done 25 years ago. I’m not responsible for brinkinn, and I’m not responsible for Bean.

    But thanks for proving yet again just how eager you are to play the bigot card.

  • Some things Jesus taught are definitely worth sharing (basically he is an ethical humanist on many levels so it is just basic decent human behavior – but many people need that reinforced). Not everyone needs some relationship with God or Jesus so there is no need to tell people what their “errors” are if they are not in fact always errors. For instance, since there is nothing wrong inherently with being gay or being in a gay relationship, and since Christ certainly never taught anything on the matter, it would be incorrect, even immoral to tell someone that they are wrong to be gay or be in a gay relationship.

  • Funny, I have learned to put nothing past people who are always pointing their fingers at other people and calling them immoral. I have some great scriptural backup on that from no less a person than jesus himself.

  • Men having sex vicariously?
    Welcome to the world of alleged heterosexual alleged Christian (and as far as ik am concerned alleged) men going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on…
    about other people having sex they claim to abhor.

  • I disagree – withholding age-appropriate information means kids at risk go unwarned and risk being groomed.

    Assuming you think that children need to aware of the dangers that such people pose – you do don’t you – at what age do you think they should start to be protected?

    Some of these kids are at risk from authority figures, family, neighbours, religious leaders etc. etc. from their earliest days. If parents resist appropriate education it calls into question their commitment to their kids.

    Grooming often starts many years before activity is uncovered – sometimes even just by building acceptance within the home when the child is a baby.

    Fortunately for you God has nothing to do with this particular situation; since, if as you claim, God had put her in power (knowing how she would act) the responsibility for her actions is his equally with hers. I know the God you believe in is ignorant, vicious, unstable and venomous but a supporter of paedophilia? I know you think he issued orders to kill hundreds of children, stood by and watched Herod’s massacre (didn’t happen) and drowned millions in the fictional flood but an enabler of paedophilia……….really? He ain’t gonna be pleased with you is he!

    Just done a little research – all becomes murky. Didn’t find anything about “the man jailed for child porn” but I do note that the lady in question – the one who is behind tightening up the protection of children is A LESBIAN!!!!!!! which just makes your rant predictable; as if you are clutching at straws rather than your pearls.

  • Homosexuality needs recriminilisation to protect our children; for example from homosexual parades and material in our schools.

  • Well, then, let’s just be glad that bigots, fear mongerers, and fascists like you have no power in the civilized world. Though I do understand that you share a lovely mindset with members of ISIS and the rulers of Iran. Thje good news is, you won’t have to whine “At least we’re not as bad as the Muslims.” The bad news is, ya are, Blanche, ya are.
    You’ll never ever burn out the darkness in your own heart by pretending it is in the hearts of others.
    And again, what will protect our children from you, Mr. Heterosexual obsessed with men having sex with men?

  • I wonder how you feel about euthanasia? Just because a government makes it legal does not make “no big deal.” You are tearing down the framework of your faith. Well done.

  • No. It completely supports my faith. My faith in equality and fairness for all people.
    See, our laws have determined you and your silly beliefs are WRONG and that your god can’t do a thing about it. Very Well done.

  • children should have parents to protect them, my friend.
    Yes, children need to know there is danger in this world, but I didn’t need to know there are pedophiles out there when I told the driver I didn’t want a ride. I had been forewarned, and no one needed to tell me, if you do this, the court will say you gave consent – something being set up today by our immoral culture.
    You know nothing about God and proved it above.
    Kathleen could have gotten into power because the Lord is returning and He is using here to expedite that return because:

    Colossians 3:5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.

  • Some kids parents are part of the problem – don’t they deserve protection?

    I don’t follow your reasoning about giving consent because you had been told about paedophilia. You have missed the point about “informed” consent – it doesn’t mean saying “yes” it means saying “yes” when you fully understand the situation and are able to evaluate the consequences. Courts will always hold that children are not able to give informed consent any more than your goldfish. Your fear is false.

    You know nothing of God either – you kid yourself you do but it’s really only a guess. I am thinking rationally about the pretend god that people tell me they believe in.

    As to a mid-level politician being God’s instrument of expedition – think about that for a minute
    1 – Why would a god need help?
    2 – Why would a god pick a relatively minor politician in a relatively non-volatile area of moderate world impact?
    3 – Why would a caring god have allowed suffering it could have prevented to continue for two thousand years?
    You’re clutching at straws again aren’t you?

  • Homosexuality is a sin. Sin keeps one out of the Kingdom of Heaven. If you don’t know what Christ taught on the issue, I’d be proud to take you through some of it. You do know that Christ is God, eh?

  • Yet, you try to make every Christian responsible for your choice to remain unhappy in homosexuality.

  • The bible doesn’t mention loving relationships, regardless of orientation, as being a sin.

  • Gawdamighty you crack me up sometimes.

    I’m not unhappy in my homosexuality. YOU’RE unhappy in my homosexuality. I feel just fine, fortunate that I have a wonderful husband and a great life.

    I try to make every Christian responsible for what? Responsibility is not what Christianity is about. Far from it. Do whatever you like, get caught, and then claim that Jesus forgave you. Or even better, that he died for your sins so that you don’t have to.

  • I was not told about pedophilia, Give. I was told to stay away from strangers, and that was what protected me… some ideal that I have rights that will protect me.
    I know more of God than you obviously realize…
    We sang this at church tonight and I thought of you all the way through it, and what you are missing.
    Before the throne of God above,
    I have a strong and perfect plea,
    A great High Priest whose name is “Love”
    Who ever lives and pleads for me.
    My name is graven on His hands,
    My name is written on His heart;
    I know that while in Heav’n He Stands.
    No tongue can bid me thence depart. No tongue can bid me thence depart.

    When Satan tempts me to despair,
    and tells me of the guilty within,
    Upward I look and and see Him there,
    Who made and end to all my sin.
    Because the sinless Saviour died,
    My sinful soul is counted free;
    For God, the Just is satisfied,
    To look on Him and pardon me, To look on Him and pardon me.

    Behold Him there, the risen Lamb,
    my perfect spotless righteousness
    The great unchangeable I AM,
    The King of Glory and of grace!
    One with Himself I cannot die,
    My soul is purchased by His blood!
    My life is hid with Christ on high,
    With Christ my Saviour and my God; With Christ my Saviour and my God

    That is Who, you deride, teach against,uphold things He condemns, and He yet loves you.
    You have no idea of Who Christ is, my friend.

  • Mark, we understand that you somehow have to justify the abominable decision your daughter has made and the repercussions she will experience, and will cause to experience for the person she thinks she loves. You love your daughter and want to believe what’s best, but, I also know you wouldn’t fight so hard against Christ if you didn’t know the truth of what He taught.
    I suggest you step away from the issue before you hurt yourself more in this misguided loyalty.

  • hehehe I’m not christian so I’m not brainwashed
    I’ll take my chances with your oh so scary god lmao

  • No. You can’t feel very confident about it, or you wouldn’t defend it so strongly, and in an anti-Christian manner. You are having difficulties with it or you wouldn’t need to fight Christ.

  • Christ is God according to some people. There is not universal agreement on that. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. You could not possibly ‘take me through some of it’, since there is nothing to see.

  • Christ is God according to Himself.
    You may also be interested in 2 Timothy 3:16-17
    God bless.

  • can’t change it now. Based on your answer you must refuse all evidence or risk an eternity of torment. Keep backpedaling. It is amusing

  • So you have no biblical or secular basis for your irrational hatred of loving relationships.

  • My comment was not intended to compass the sins, errors, and failings of the RCC, or any other sect that hides, condones, or minimizes the abuse of children and women, or men for that matter.

  • As he is a fellow human being and made in the image of God, I cannot in good conscience curse him, but pray that his eyes will be opened that he may repent before he passes from this realm to the next and is required to stand at the bar of God’s judgment. This, I believe is what Jesus requires of me.

  • Edward, if you are responding to BQRQ’s vile, hate filled slander immediately above, I would have to say that is the weakest possible moral statement I have ever heard you make. Please read it again, and rethink your response..

  • I didn’t know you suddenly became the incarnation of Jesus on earth. My surprise there. Nope. His words on the subject are clear. Until you are without worldly sin, don’t worry about the sins of others.

    The only one with a problem with Jesus is you. You prefer the words of Paul over Jesus’s direct command.

  • Then I suggest you read a Bible.
    He taught: James 5:20 – New International Version

    remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

  • I have no irrational hatred of “loving relationships”. But, I do want to help people to not end up in Hell because they chose to rebel against the Living God. Why do you want people to end up in Hell?

  • You do. Why else would you call a loving healthy relationship a sin?

    Again, you can’t point anywhere that says love is a sin.

  • Nope. Nowhere in the bible does it call love a sin. You’ve failed at even basic reading comprehension.

  • Zed, there is no love in sending the object of your affections to Hell. That actually, is your first error.
    Second people love their dogs and their dogs love them….are you now a proponent for best/iality?

  • You can’t find anywhere that states love is a sin. You’re perverting the bible to justify your hatred of others .

  • No hatred for others. Intolerance for people who don’t care about people and think that endorsing their sin will keep them out of Hell, with no concern whether they end up there or not. All unconfessed sin leads to Hell.

  • Clear hatred of others that
    seek love and companionship. To you that’s a sin even though the bible doesn’t support that.

    Why do you hate love? What sort of perverted teachings did you buy into?

  • Sandi – usually, when people can’t/won’t answer sensible questions they tend to keep quiet in the hope that no-one will notice their lack of response.

    When you can’t/won’t answer but instead go off on an irrelevant tangent you are drawing attention to the lack of an answer. It’s a bit like asking a politician a question about human rights and being told that fish stocks are very important – people notice!

  • It was you who introduced “church practice” as though it was supportive of your position though wasn’t it?

    For the record – I don’t doubt you condemn many of its past actions as both unchristian and immoral.

    I grant you that the RCC is not alone in covering up abuse – the CofE, relatively recently, pulled strings to cover up and then minimise the actions of one of its own bishops. That said, whilst I disagreed with my mother over much she was right when she insisted that “two wrongs don’t make a right” wasn’t she. IMO it ill behoves any organisation when people appear to try to minimise its culpability by pretending that blame is finite and therefore lessens locally when spread wider.

  • Another person who never knew Jesus in life and came long after the fact. Again not the words of Jesus or even a second hand version of it. Somehow you place these Johnny come latelys to the Gospels with more importance than Jesus himself on the same subjects. There apparently is no Christ in your Christianity.

  • tou don’t know Jesus without the gospels Spud. Btw – James was Jesus’ brother. Learn what you are talking about

  • You obviously have no idea what I like, or dislike, and just want to keep repeating the same thing. ta ta

  • You keep expressing hatred of love. I find that interesting and seek to know the source of this perversion within you.

    How you refuse to look inward is all on you.

  • 1 – Why would a god need help?
    2 – Why would a god pick a relatively minor politician in a relatively non-volatile area of moderate world impact?
    3 – Why would a caring god have allowed suffering it could have prevented to continue for two thousand years?

    I missed the answers?

  • Because I do not know the biographical circumstances of Rev. Goddard, I can’t address the accusations BQRQ made against him, I can only affirm my disagreement with him theologically. However, to your point, it is my hope that BQRQ will take the hint and reflect more carefully on what attitude a mature Christian will take when confronting these issues and those with whom he/she disagrees ( I hate neuter nom’ de’ plumes). You are quite correct that hatefulness, whatever one’s belief system, is an improper response to take. Knowing my own predilection to moral error whatever the degree, I am, more and more, not inclined to vilify others. My present weakness is that when scorned and disdained, my inclination is to respond in kind, and I’m working diligently, though not always successfully on that. My own reference to Rev. Goddard as an imbecile, was an uncharitable hyperbole, though I think him quite wrong on the issues. But my remark regarding imbecility was outside the frame in any case, as Rev. Goddard has not engaged me in any discourse, nor was it the proper term to use.