The Bishop of Ballarat, Garry Wetherill, has set out his response to the recent action of his synod in asking him to authorise a rite of blessing for same-sex couples who have entered into a marriage.

Writing in the diocese’s regular “dNews”, he says the following:

A controversial motion, recognising the reality of same gender marriage at law in Australia, asked me to consider preparing liturgical material that would recognise civil same sex marriages. The Bishop’s [sic.] have agreed not to act unilaterally on this matter, and so I will not be promoting such a liturgy at present. It is important to understand that this proposal is not a change in our Church’s doctrine of marriage, but rather a pastoral response to same gender attracted people in our churches who choose to contract a civil marriage. No doubt there will be further discussion about this and other matters concerning human sexuality in the years ahead.

A number of things are worth noting here.

  1. The Bishops’ Agreement appears to be having its effect in restraining any precipitous actions.
  2. Wetherill’s claim that “this proposal is not a change in our Church’s doctrine of marriage” will not convince everyone. The motion asked for a liturgy that blessed the same-sex marriage. To bless something is to endorse it as approved of by God. It is difficult to see howow this is not making a statement about our doctrine of marriage.

Attention is now likely to turn to Bishop John Parkes in Wangaratta, currently the most outspoken proponent of changing the approach to marriage. He still has a motion from his own synod to respond to.

 

Leave a Reply

5 comments on “Bishop of Ballarat “will not be promoting” same-sex blessing liturgy

  1. Good on the Bishop. Church Leaders should take great care when handling innocuous-sounding requests for new liturgical responses whenever Caesar changes a law “down here”. The amended Marriage Act, for example, at S.47(3) reads “A minister of religion may refuse to solemnise a marriage despite anything in this Part, if any of the following applies: (a) the refusal conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the minister’s religious body or religious organisation.”

    TBC

  2. Sufficient members of the Uniting Church in Australia were able to persuade their Leaders that, rather than taking the Section as authorising their clergy to refuse religious marriage on religious grounds (self-evident to most), it actually enables the Church to write a new, additional, liturgy allowing its ministers to marry any “2 persons” whom Caesar now deigns eligible for marriage. Unbelievably, UCA Leaders agreed, the new liturgy was written and same-sex couples are being married by agreeable UCA ministers in church.

    TBC

    • Sufficient members from the Uniting Church? Pray, inform us exactly how many members “persuaded” their Leaders ? I didn’t realise that the Uniting Church had ‘leaders” in their Congregation. Instead of using speculation and innuendo, state the truth and factual evidence. Also, how many times has the Marriage Act been amended since its inception?

      • Sufficient members to have a new, additional, liturgy written & now in use. There’s no speculation or innuendo here, the facts have been widely reported.The Marriage Act has been amended a number of times since 1961. The 8/12/17 amendment changed eligible parties from “a man & a woman” (there since 2004) to “2 people”. That concept, now formally embraced by the UCA, differs from Christ’s teaching on eligibility. Hence the congregational split in that Church (widely reported).

        I do not wish to see the ACA similarly split. Hence my bob’s worth on this forum.

  3. Such is the slippery slope the Australian Caesar has embarked Christian churches upon. He should, of course, have separated Church & State in the amended marriage law but did not. Beware Anglican Leaders of the next move from the “bless em” crowd.

Leave a Comment - but please pay careful attention to the commenting rules