Support the Café

Search our Site

Keeping up with evolution of marriage

Keeping up with evolution of marriage

Brian Tammaus says that all churches should do as the Episcopal Church is doing: study, think, pray, and talk about marriage and sexuality in real-life terms.

National Catholic Reporter:

Marriage, in fact, has been evolving for tens of thousands of years and has taken various forms in various cultures. As Steven Mintz, a Columbia University history professor, said in a 2012 piece about marriage in The Week: “Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands.”

In almost any Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox congregation today, you’ll find young couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, cohabitating. And you’ll find older single people living together but not married for many reasons, including issues of taxes and inheritance laws.

Are all of these people — often faithful church members — “living in sin,” as the old phrase so indelicately puts it? The Episcopal Church intends to speak to that matter.

Posted by Andrew Gerns


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Susan Russell

So nobody is interested in discussing the fact that marriage HAS been evolving for thousands of years, that the church’s understanding of marriage has likewise been evolving and that having these important conversations as a community of faith is part of claiming our part in our history and tradition?

Frankie Andreu

Susan, I am not sure that Darwinism applies to religion, ministering, and ethics. I understood the Gospels to say that the meek will inherit the earth, not the survival of the fittest.
I think you may also have missed the conversation above. But I do agree there have been digressions and “software withholding.”

Susan Russell

And Darwin owns the term “evolve?” Really? Highly commend actually reading the history of marriage in the report — which has absolutely nothing to do with “the survival of the fittest.”

Frankie Andreu

I am astounded at the level of ignorance about religion and ministry shown by the General Convention and outspoken priests in the TEC. Not to know the difference between a “teaching” and a “control,” between ethics and the market place, simply astounds me. If we teach people to be loving and compassionate, to be generous and forgiving, to respect boundaries, and to act responsibly and provide accountability, are we really “controlling them.” Or is it that a ministry that is not tied to convenience and a narrow worldview is simply dismissed as a “control.”

David Streever

Frankie: Being astounded by the ‘ignorance’ of the General Convention of TEC with regards to religion should be a wake up call to you that you may not be as knowledgeable as you have perceived yourself to be.

Donald Hill

What the state means by marriage ( a legal contract) and what the church means by marriage (a covenant of faithfulness compassion and caring) should not be confused – though we do it all the time in these kinds of discussions.

Our tradition goes back more than 20 centuries and has involved a number of ways the state has defined marriage and how people have responded.

The church is not in the business of establishing marriages – that is the business of the state. We are in the blessing business and our role is to call people into covenant relationships of caring, compassion and love and assisit them to invite God’s presence and blessing into that relationship and bestow grace to enable them to successfully live in that kind of relationship.

Frankie Andreu

Donald, thank you for saying something based on religion and ministering, not based on history, scientific theories, cultural anthropology, Wall Street, or the flavor of the month.

christopher seitz

“Is gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? The difficulties in changing sexual orientation do not spring from its genetic innateness. Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However, habit is refractory, once the sensory pathways have been blazed and deepened by repetition….[H]elping gays learn how to function heterosexually if they so wish, is a perfectly worthy aim. We should be honest enough to consider whether homosexuality may not indeed be a pausing at the prepubescent stage when children anxiously band together by gender.”

If Camille Paglia is correct, the idea that there is something innate overriding “the distinctions of the Creator re: gender”, is mostly a late-modern fiction. For her, that is harmless of course. Unless one declares it immutable fact. That is simply another form of foundationalism.

christopher seitz

Is there some reason my comment is not appearing?

Ann Fontaine

which comment?

Frankie Andreu

christopher seitz, some have their comments ‘monitored’ (and potentially removed for no apparent reason), others comments as freely as they like, personal attacks and false statements included. Being in your company is no small compliment to me.

Frankie Andreu

c. seitz is, with apologies Bro, precisely correct. “Awaiting moderation” for hours and then just disappearing. I have the impression that c. seitz never saw the posts from Anne and David; I surely didn’t. So the accusation of “lying” will have to be put on your account.

c seitz

No, they are ‘awaiting moderation’; or just disappear.

David Streever

We’ve had to put several of our newer commentators on manual approval, because they write many comments, and have dominated too many of the stories recently. None of the comments are disappearing; they are being deleted or simply not approved, in order to give people a chance to cool off and take a break from arguing with strangers on a website.

Bro David

There isn’t a selection process. The editors have stated they can’t figure out why the automated spam filter occasionally snags one of our comments.

Frankie Andreu

Bro David, appreciated. “Sinister” was not suggested; “editorializing” was. Your information on the software is helpful. But it does not explain the selection process going on here.

Bro David

I doubt that it is as sinister as you assume! It has been mentioned by the editors in a number of threads that this new webpage software has an automatic spam filter that catches some 40k spam messages a day and many of us, my posts included, have had comments swept up in this automated system.

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café