Helen King ViaMedia.News Share and Share Alike? Living in Love and Faith and Funding the Church of England
Rachel Starr ViaMedia.News Behold the Men: Identifying Risks, Reconsidering Relationships
Mark Clavier Well-Tempered Can Something Good Emerge from the Crisis of Clergy Burnout?
Johanna Stiebert ViaMedia.News Marriage and the Bible: It’s Complicated
Marc Clavier says “Neglectful or incompetent clergy often remain unchallenged, not because no one cares but because the system resists their correction.”
That sounds about right to me. As soon as anyone begins to suggest that some clergy might not be trying very hard, people leap to their defence.
I totally agree with this. We do need more rigour and accountability with many clergy who are simply treading water and doing the basics without any challenge. Equally, I think there need to be more support as well as more challenge. The two have to go hand in hand. I find many clergy just unmotivated – almost that they have lost their vocation. Which then leads to others who work their socks off and then don’t get the support they need because they are seen to be doing well.
Greater accountability should mean that those who are doing well are recognised. A good start would be to publish Statistics for Mission at parish level.
I once got a phone call from the department in London which deals with Statistics for Mission. The baptism numbers had gone up dramatically from the previous year. They were calling not to recognise this but to suggest that I must have got the numbers wrong. I think it’s fair to say that we don’t have much of a culture of celebrating when things go well but I can see why. So much of success in ministry is hidden and the biggest achievements are sometimes the things that don’t happen. The rows that don’t erupt because of the tact, discretion… Read more »
I had a similar experience during the pandemic. The number of funerals that my parish undertook increased dramatically in that period, and I had an e-mail asking if the numbers I had submitted were correct. When I confirmed that the numbers were correct I had another e-mail saying how sorry the person in the diocesan ofice was that I had had to do so many funerals, revealing just how little central office staff understand parish ministry.
Actually, in the circumstances I am more inclined to receive that comment as kind and considerate towards you. As you say, the numbers of funerals had dramatically increased, and therefore the burden on you.
How do you measure spiritual growth? How do you measure faithfulness in adversity, or the careful work to overcome suspicion of the Church in a hostile community?
It’s impossible to measure these things Janet, but they are all likely to lead to greater church attendance, which is a good reason for measuring it.
Attendance is measured – and regularly. And published. You are apparently not aware of this.
I’m not aware of this David. If this is really true, would you please be so kind as to share a link?
Greetings Oliver. As a former parish priest I can assure you it is true and has been so for a very long time! Are you a member of a local church? It would be easy to ask your questions there and see the evidence you are asking for. If you are a member you will be aware that the electoral roll is being revised this time around. Everyone has to sign on again – a measure of membership. Every church is legally required to keep a register of all services, including attendance figures. At this time of year, as churches approach… Read more »
Thank you David. When I say Statistics for Mission at Parish level, what I’m talking about is all of the data for all of the churches. I can tell how many people attend my own church just by looking – I don’t really need help with that. I can get the Parish Returns Online data for my own church, but only because I have the password. What I’m looking for is data for each individual church in the diocese. It isn’t published and it should be.
Why?
Yes, why – but in any case it is all published.
I am a being of little brain and am just a jobbing vicar. It does seem to get more confusing as I get older. On the one hand, I receive all sorts of hints about courses, initiatives and mission led ways of being church; underpinned by statistics of all kinds. On the other hand, I am informed that clergy well-being is very important and to be taken seriously. You can then top all of this off with ministerial reviews and also studies which show how stressed we all are. HELP!
Graeme Buttery
I know what you mean, Graeme. When a busy working life (and increasingly so, as volunteers age and numbers dwindle) means that just keeping the wheels turning leaves little time in the week for considering new initiatives, the promotion of relentlessly upbeat ideas about how to grow the church, accompanied by photos of wonderful successes elsewhere, can become a bit demoralising!
It’s complicated. But should it be? At my age I am starting to think about the day I meet my Maker and He asks me why I did such-and-such, and do I think I was right to do it? Now it could be like the High Court (Biblical analysis) and quoting the chapter and verse of a Statute (aka book of the Bible) and precedent (aka Christian tradition) will be expected, but I doubt it. My guess – my hope – is that He will be wanting to understand what broad principles guide my life and how, with the benefit… Read more »
Hi Kate, I guess you are now living according to the broad principles that guide your life here and now, and that these are carefully thought and prayed through Christian values and principles that over time you have understood to be your fundamentals. It is enough! I believe that is what all of us are called to, within our own awareness and culture and community. There’s no High Court or Biblical chapter and verse Statute or precedent in tradition in the here and now, let alone in the whatever comes after or in the “mind” of an unconditionally loving God,… Read more »
Thank you Colin.
In the rest of our lives we are increasingly forced to parse texts very carefully. We have all been caught out by a purchase which wasn’t what we expected because there was some small print we didn’t read. It’s very easy to start reading the Bible in the same way and that’s a temptation we need to avoid.
There’s an old Rabbinic tale about a particularly well regarded Rabbi, who once said that when he met his Lord, God wouldn’t ask him why he wasn’t more like Moses, Isaiah or Ezekiel; rather he’d ask him why he hadn’t been more like himself. Like you and Colin (I suspect we’re all of similar age) I too wonder about meeting my saviour and, like you, can only acknowledge that I’ve lived according to the broad principles he laid down, in faith and obedience to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Maybe the judgement will take the form of unpacking our… Read more »
For additional context to Helen King’s noting that “The Charity Commission gives the total income for the OGST in the year ended 31 December 2023 as £448,099”, I’ve worked in the charity sector for years and years now, and anything under about £1m is a small charity, and even up to about £5m a charity might really struggle to make an impact. Now the OGST is only working in the Diocese of Oxford and not the entire country, but it’s not a lot of money in charity terms.
Helen King focuses on one type of church, those wishing not to support so-called “sinful churches”. Yet in my own diocese of Sheffield I am aware of a neighbouring parish church, St Marks Broomhill, a member of Inclusive Church, that is withholding part of its parish share as it disagrees with the vision of the diocese and the bishop’s views on SSM and PLF.
How is that Inclusive?
See below. It is Fantasy rather than Inclusive.
I am aware of suggestions from some clergy that their parishes might withhold parish share over other, entirely unrelated, matters. How likely that is, I don’t know, but the fact that it is being suggested perhaps reflects that well-known truth that money talks.
Hi Bob, I’m the Vicar of St Mark’s Broomhill. I’m not sure where you have heard that we are withholding our parish share. We have paid our parish share each year, in fact we often contribute extra money on top of a parish share contribution. When the Diocese set up an in-house restricted fund to enable churches to pay into that rather than the Ephesian fund, we were asked whether we would like an alternative restricted fund. We said, no, we would like to continue to contribute to the normal Diocese fund. We are working with the Diocese to explore… Read more »
St Marks annual report for 2022-23, page 4. In the public domain on the website.
“Finance is no small part of every idea and decision and how to match expenditure and income. Painfully we decided to reduce our contribution to the Common Fund to balance our books; it was felt that we were out of kilter with the diocesan vision and as part of a Mission Area, our vicar is also Priest in Charge of St Mary’s Walkley. The PCC wrote to the Archdeacon outlining our rationale for this and mentioning several other areas of disquiet including suggesting that the faculty process is not working.” Taken from Annual Report 2022-23, page 4, on website of… Read more »
I did a little more research on this. Bob. If you look at the minutes from the APCM in 2022, https://www.stmarkssheffield.co.uk/Publisher/File.aspx?ID=332682, you will find this: “Sue [previous incumbent] noted all the hard work and effort by everyone involved in making the decisions needed for balancing the budget and the difficult decision to reduce the additional amount we give to the common fund over and above that requested by the diocese. It is important however that the time that we contribute to other churches in the diocese such as St Mary’s and St Cuthbert’s should also be counted in terms of… Read more »
Hi Bob, at the time we were paying our full parish share, plus contributing extra money into the Diocese. The incumbent had also become incumbent of another church, who were also paying a significant parish share, without having the provision of a vicar. Together the two churches have continued to pay significantly above the full parish share. There are very few churches in Sheffield Diocese that do pay full parish share and we have been one of the highest givers into the Diocese for quite some time. To suggest we are withholding parish share, or asking for a restricted fund… Read more »
I have not stated that St Marks was asking for a restricted fund separate from the common fund. The church warden clearly stated that St Marks was out of kilter with the diocesan vision, which is what I have stated.
You also asserted they withheld parish share over LLF, which is clearly untrue. Will you apologise?
Thank you Beth for your detailed reply. I apologise if I have misinterpreted the situation at St Marks, in particular linking the warden’s statement in the annual report to SSM and the PLF.
Thanks for your reply Bob.
Bob, would I be right in assuming you are also a PCC member of a church in Sheffield? In the interests of full disclosure would you be able to share which church that is, its annual income, its annual parish share payment and the number of stipendiary clergy at the church paid for by the diocese, and also whether it has decided to restrict who can benefit from its parish share payments either through using the Ephesians Fund or an arrangement with the diocese. It would be useful to know the full context of your concern for parishes paying (or… Read more »
I am not a PCC member, just a member of the Church of England.
Could you share which church do you attend, its total annual income, how much it pays in parish share, the support it receives from the diocese in terms of stipendiary ministry and does it restrict who can receive from the parish share payments it makes. It would be useful to know the context you are coming from.
Bob. Given Beth’s response below I am perplexed at your comment. I very much hope you will substantiate or withdraw your comment. If not, I hope higher authorities will act accordingly. Despite differing views we try to search for some ‘truth’ here. Alastair
I am glad Bob actually named the church he makes these allegations about. They have been able to respond here with the actual facts. We may hope Bob goes back to his sources to say so. Meanwhile, as Helen King relates, some conservative churches are withholding their diocesan share and insisting their money is given to those they agree with on issues of human sexuality – a pot called the ‘Ephesians Fund’. Quite why the church of Ephesus finds itself named in this context is not clear. The misleading implication is that such a giving scheme was in place among NT… Read more »
Helen King’s article is excellent: detailed and showing her workings. Ernest Hemingway wrote in The Sun Also Rises that people go bankrupt slowly, and then suddenly. The problem with attempting to hypothecate taxes, which is what’s going on here, is that once the premise is accepted, everyone can have a go. Payment into a common pot works if everyone agrees to it: the moment it stops, you end up with in effect dozens, hundreds of private charities, each funded by individual payments and making small payments in turn. It is chaos, and other than in the worst fantasies of small… Read more »
Anthony Archer in the thread below talks about the different parts of the C of E having become politicised . In the Interview no-one mentions Justin Welby spoke of being unable to lead as he has wanted because of Synod .
Can the Church of England survive- or indeed should it if this is the level of double dealing which is going on?
IIRC, in the ‘unmentionable interview’, Justin Welby made a couple of mentions of decisions of General Synod which had not, as it might be thought, bent to his will. Had not the House of Bishops determined a ‘line to take’ regarding the order in which numbered Amendments were to be taken, and Options consifdered and voted upon. Was ‘the Leadership’ poorly advised or unaware of how General Synod business is ordered and undertaken. Is the former ABC laying blame on those who elected members of clergy and/or laity to Synod? I seem to recall the Bishops did not vore ‘as… Read more »
Someone from a very top-down culture is likely to be a square peg in a round hole when asked to lead a distributed culture with many committees – and its own legislature.
“funding the undifferented C of E” this reminded me of Alec Vidler’s description in Soundings of “un-hyphernated anglicans”. I hope they are still the majority.
I wonder whether the Stiebert article provides the best route to more fully understanding Christian marriage. Stiebert appears to try to do this by deconstructing the church’s current understanding. This leads the author down some difficult paths including: dismissing Genesis 2 as mythological, thereby overlooking that myth can have profound meaning; seemingly claiming to have a better understanding of Genesis 2 than does Jesus; and criticizing the church’s understanding of marriage as being too idealistic while criticizing some Old Testament descriptions of marriage as being very unideal. It may be more productive to acknowledge that the early church had a… Read more »
How relevant is it that (if?) the early church had a clear understanding of marriage? The early churches were so, erm, diverse in their doctrine that St Paul and others kept having to write to them to correct things. It doesn’t seem like a particularly secure foundation on which to base a modern philosophy.
In a nutshell, why would anyone want a Christian marriage if it was the sort of mess Stiebert describes? And if it isn’t a mess and is in fact good, then the best way of widening it while keeping its essence is to show that the new version is an authentic extension of the original.
Were I to marry I would want my family and best friends there so equally I would want my Heavenly Father there. Isn’t that what a Christian marriage is about? All talk about authenticity seems irrelevant to me.
But given that your heavenly father is omni-present and your family and friends can move around freely, your definition of a Christian marriage would include any ceremony carried out anywhere. So why not have a state wedding in a registry office? OK, perhaps because a church building and community might have particular meaning for you, I get that. But might not the form of the ceremony also have meaning? And might the ceremony be more meaningful if it reflects human experience over the last 2-3 thousand years sensitively and reflectively adapted as circumstances change, rather than being a set of… Read more »
This is purely my personal opinion here; it has no more weight that that. For personal reasons, mainly to do with preventing her lawfully ex – husband turning up to cause trouble, my wife and I had a registry office wedding. For us the ceremony didn’t matter so much as the attitudes which we held, both to God and to one another. The registrar, a kind lady, sensed from the initial interview that we genuinely meant the vows we were making and was so grateful for our positive attitude, compared to some of her ‘clients’, that she went well beyond… Read more »
John, thank you for sharing this personal comment.
Thank you for this Kate. It has always struck me as bizarre that the Early/ New Testament Church is viewed as normative (apart from Acts 2:44-45 obviously) as if Christians have been unable since to develop or increase or deepen their understanding. A bit like refusing to let someone grow up and insisting that what they said as a child will be always what they will say. And, as you point out, this view assumes the ‘early church’ was with one voice on everything.
A key question is whether the early church had broadly the right idea for its time, which might be further developed for new times. Or whether it actually had the wrong idea which needs over-turning.
If the Christian church got the basic idea of marriage wrong, surely it should stop doing marriages and leave them to the civil authorities. But if there’s something sufficiently good about Christian marriage to make it worth continuing in an evolved way, then it’s important to work through how the evolved form maintains the good elements of the initial form.
I don’t think the early Church was in the marrying business at all, was it? They accepted the marriage defined by the state. Only when that state disappeared did the Church begin to take over officiating at marriages. And legal marriages were perhaps largely for the wealthy — those who needed legitimate heirs to inherit their property. Not until Lord Hardiwcke’s Act of 1753 did English statute law require a formal ceremony of marriage.
Good summary here – https://iarccum.org/archive/ARCCM/ARCCM-15-JEH.pdf
That’s a fascinating article, thank you, especially his discussion of Augustine on marriage as a sacrament (page 209ff).
There are Nonconformist ministers who refuse to do marriages, not because of any concern as to its sacramental significance, but because they don’t wish to function as an arm of the State. I imagine that they would be perfectly happy to conduct a Christian wedding ceremony or blessing if that followed a civil legal ceremony (as is, of course, the practice in many countries).
When I was a nonconformist it was the usual practice, in the churches I attended, for couples to have a civil wedding in the registry office. This would be followed, usually within the next few days, by a wedding blessing in church. Many regarded the latter as the real wedding in the eyes of God.
As an Anglican priest I’ve done wedding blessings several times, for different reasons.
The major challenge this position has is in convincing people that this evolution doesn’t end up changing Christian marriage into something else. A sizeable proportion of Christians can’t and won’t agree to this. I can’t see that changing any time soon.
Also the question surely isn’t if the Christian church got marriage wrong (which in part you’d have to say yes if you’re proposing changing it) but whether or not God got marriage wrong.
Nobody, to my knowledge, is suggesting that God got marriage wrong. They’re questioning whether (a) the church has properly understood God regarding marriage and/or (b) marriage is of divine origin at all.
If the church got it wrong it got it wrong pretty early.
When do we reckon it started?
Christ regarded marriage as being between a man and a woman in the gospels, Paul and Peter were similarly clear and that’s before we get into sexual ethics rather than simply marriage.
If we’re saying that from the infancy of the church or even in the teachings of Christ we find that it’s wrong that’s as good as saying God got it wrong in my book.
“Christ regarded marriage as being between a man and a woman in the gospels”
I don’t think that is clear.
For what it’s worth (not much because it’s changed over time) my view is that equal marriage follows from the totality of Jesus’ teachings taken together with current knowledge. And if that’s correct, then equal marriage is a logical development of the church’s historic view of marriage. I appreciate that some conservatives will view it as too different, and some liberals will want something radically new. But I reckon the best chance the church has of moving forward is to earnestly put the work in theologically and sociologically, to discern what God wants – and we’re all in trouble if… Read more »
The division you’ve got is that the conservatives think that there’s plenty of theology surrounding this in the historical position of the church plus the clear teaching of Scripture (you may disagree with this as Johanna Stiebert has but that’s largely not going to change the minds that are settled). At the point where we’re arguing for serious innovation and change and a large proportion of the church believe this is a first order issue at what point do we suggest that a split is necessary bearing in mind that this has happened in pretty much every other case in… Read more »
I’m not disagreeing, Gareth. The early church’s view does seem to have been clear to me, and that seems to go right back to the very early church. What I was trying to say, perhaps not very well, is that while it might be convenient to claim the early view was incoherent and so should be changed, that’s not a recipe for moving forward together because it doesn’t really seem to be true. Much better to have a discussion based on whether new knowledge and conditions suggest a change in the historic understanding. And if that leads to a division,… Read more »
You say this as if the conversation hasn’t been had but we know both inside and outside the CofE this discussion has been had many times over.
There’s an impasse.
The traditionalists think there isn’t new knowledge or conditions that warrant changing what Christ and the apostles taught and find the affirming arguments deeply lacking.
Christ wasn’t ignorant of the human condition but compassionately encouraged to repent and follow Him even when it was hard.
Surely we should do the same?
The conversation has often not been very good, imho. The issues are well known. Church history and scripture indicate marriage is between a man and a woman. But why shouldn’t God want something similar for gay people? And practically, what is so wrong about gay marriage? Convincing answers to these questions have not been forthcoming. Not much serious theology seems to have been offered by liberals to explain why a change in doctrine is compatible with scripture and tradition. And conservatives have not provided much detail of a vision for how gay people can be valued and loved by the… Read more »
My point is irrespective of your thoughts on how well the discussion has been going, it’s been had several times inside and outside of the CofE at this point. The reality is that those who want to hold to the traditional teaching of the church and Scripture have explained their reasons for doing so several times at this stage. You may not agree with them but I don’t know why you’re expecting a substantial changing of minds. There have been reams of books arguing for how an affirming view is compatible with Scripture, the problem is that people (myself included)… Read more »
The question can’t be reduced to what authority we attribute to scripture, with the assumption that conservative evangelicals are the only ones to take it seriously. The issue is really how we interpret scripture. Many on both sides of this issue hold equally high views of scripture, but interpret it differently.
I’m not sure I agree Janet. It isn’t possible to come to affirm same sex marriage purely on the basis of Scripture as heterosexual marriages are the only marriages spoken of in Scripture. In order to get to an affirming perspective you need to argue on the basis of personal experience, presumed reason, and insights from society and culture. Otherwise you should be able to explain how we get there with Scripture alone? I’ve not seen an affirming argument that claims to do this. Similarly, I’ve not seen an argument based on the tradition of the church from a more… Read more »
I think Jesus’ silence on the matter is significant, as is his healing of the centurion’s servant/sexual partner (as I understand the term used in the text signifies) without any mention of sin. I also note that David and Jonathan’s love is described in terms usually used of sexual partnership – very graphically, at one point. My problem with evangelicals – and I used to be one and still have considerable sympathy for them – is that often they are not careful enough with the text, don’t respect the genre of a particular text, and don’t look at the whole… Read more »
Interesting that you speak of Christ’s alleged silence and then continue to read a lot into passages which are definitely silent on sexuality! Christ defined marriage between a man and a woman in Matthew 19 and condemned sexual immorality in Mark 7 in a Jewish context without qualification. (If we consider the apostles we’re also fairly clear on this). Meanwhile the centurion’s servant isn’t mentioned as being in a romantic or sexual relationship and you jump to conclusions in respect to this. Equally the same is true for David and Jonathan. With respect I can’t see that as being careful… Read more »
This is a good illustration of what I mean. In Matthew and Luke, the centurion uses the word pais of his servant, rather than the more general doulos used by the evangelists. Pais is a rather ambiguous term which was also used of lovers – it was common for Roman soldiers to keep a young slave who was their lover, as they weren’t allowed to be married. And the centurion was clearly more than ordinarily fond of this particular servant. We can’t be sure that the boy/servant in this incident was the centurion’s lover but it seems likely – but… Read more »
1 Samuel 18:21 says “Now you have a second opportunity to be my son in law”, in reference to the fact that David missed an opportunity to be his son in law as Merab was married to Adriel of Meholah in verse 19. There’s no mention of David being his son in law due to being married to Jonathan. This is obvious from the immediate context. The assumptions that you’ve made in all of these cases require substantial leaps beyond the text. Matthew 19 shows us that Jesus understood marriage to be the union between a man and a woman,… Read more »
Gareth, you and I are both interpreting. It’s impossible to read Scripture without interpreting – or, as you call it, ‘reading into the passages’. It takes a big leap to conclude that David and Jonathan did not have a sexual relationship – and incidentally I had understood that, just reading the story in English, long before I had read ‘other {i.e.Hebrew] authorities’ on the text.
The apostolic authorities are not as clear as you think, either. But if we read with assumptions in our mind, we will always find what we want to find. All of us, including conservative evangelicals.
No denomination has succeeded in keeping all shades of opinion within the tent (on any issue), but plenty have been able to accommodate equal marriage and those who oppose it. The Scottish Episcopal Church and The Church of Scotland both lost some members who couldn’t accept others affirming what they abhorred, but neither required a “negotiated split”. The only church I’m aware of where that became necessary was the United Methodists where conservatives held a small majority and the alternative to a split was them being able to impose their conscience on everyone else.
The Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church of Scotland have both seen substantial exits so I’m not sure I agree on this. I’m less familiar with the Methodists but suspect there was simply a smaller traditionalist contingent there.
Looking across to America we can see plenty of examples to show that keeping people together with diametrically opposed theologies ultimately doesn’t work.
What does “substantial exits” mean? Some people left, and a couple of groups did so en masse, but the bulk of those who oppose equal marriage have stayed put. That surely indicates that it is a choice whether to live with difference or insist that everyone you associate with must agree with you.
A spit might take the heat out of things. But over time ‘progressives’ will need to ensure their new understanding is rooted in the older ones, since otherwise they will increasingly just reflect UK society’s views back to it. Practically, ‘traditionalists’ will need to further strengthen their pastoral provision to make sure they value rather than tolerate people. And my guess is that eventually the two wings will end up at much the same place. I wouldn’t dismiss the chances of new insights. Good research is not a zero-sum game in which one side can only win at the expense… Read more »
For the record I think a lot of conservative churches have upped their awareness of same-sex attraction and supporting people to live according to what Scripture calls us to. I’ve seen this discussed a lot more in evangelicalism both inside and outside of Anglicanism. There are also several good books on this, one of my favourites is Ed Shaw’s The Plausibility Problem whih was particularly challenging on our low view of friendship, and singleness and our over elevated view of what marriage is. I suspect we’ll differ as to what pastoral means. I see it as compassionately encouraging people to… Read more »
So I’m not going to push this point very hard, but if you were around in the 16th century and came across Martin Luther, would you say:
‘You’re completely wrong Martin because all your new insights are out of line with mainstream catholic opinion.’
Or would you somehow identify that Martin’s insights would be in line with 21st century evangelical opinion and were thus right?
Martin Luther used the Scriptures to challenge the teaching of the Catholic church. That’s true largely of the other reformers also. They went back to the Scriptures.
That’s precisely the approach we should use in respect to wider culture, we should bring the Scriptures to bear on our daily lives as we seek to follow Christ.
Often I feel that we’re quick to temper the teaching of Scripture with insights from culture rather than to challenge culture with the Scriptures in order to more faithfully follow Christ.
Well said, sir. I admire your tenacity and faithfulness to the gospel. In fairness, teaching at the time of Luther was based on interpretations of scripture that had developed within Catholicism. And Luther’s new insights were indeed uncovering the underlying meaning. So sometimes it has paid off to think very rigorously about the meaning of scripture and whether the current view is right. But your point about scripture needing to be spoken to culture is bang-on right and needs making far more often. It is great to see how committed you are to it – there is much I can… Read more »
“It may be more productive to acknowledge that the early church had a clear understanding of marriage”
Since the early church didn’t have a clear, if that that we mean consistent and universal, understanding of much, so why would marriage be different? The early church was not a single thing, had wildly differing views and was fissiparous to a point that makes the British hard left (or, indeed, the CofE) look stable and well-organised. The Council of Nicea wasn’t just a social gathering of people in broad agreement, after all.
one grows weary really. In all the horrors of this world, the worst is two people of the same sex make a firm loyal commitment to one another? The CoE deserves to die.
It may deserve to die. That is arguable. Whether it deserves to die because people don’t agree with you on same-sex marriage is another question altogether. If everyone agreed with you it might well die anyway. And is doing just that unless something serious changes. I doubt that ‘something serious’ is a sudden universal acceptance of your personal view. (BTW, is anyone against firm commitments?)
The more one reads TA the more one sees the same circling around irresolvable differences.
Abram got up and shooed the birds of prey away. Something like that is in order.