You can read the whole statement here on page 5. It would be remiss of me not to mention that, to reflect the importance it assigned to the missive, the Anglican Journal has given the ACA’s statement a prominent column in the letters section. Still, at least it was published.
The statement makes a good point: if we attempt to bless something that God doesn’t, we are not doing those who supposedly are being blessed any favours:
The ACA doesn’t view the preparation for changes to the Marriage Canon as a loving gesture towards those with same-sex attraction. To bless and even sanctify what God has not blessed is to lead people in a direction that cannot promise flourishing.
Moreover, the ACA has noticed that the ACoC, after years of vehemently denying that it intends to marry same sex couples, is now talking about marrying same-sex couples:
We are thankful for the pause that slows down the move to adopt sexual innovation in the process dictated by a canonical change to doctrine. We draw attention to the shift in emphasis from “blessings” to “marriage” that occurred incrementally without discussion and is now before us.
Having spent decades in conversations, consultations, dialogue and faux-Bantu indabas with the ACoC about same-sex blessings, the ACA is now proposing a radical new strategy to combat the drift towards same-sex marriage: conversations, consultations, dialogue and faux-Bantu indabas:
We endorse heartily the four-part amendment of the Rt. Rev. Dr. Stephen Andrews, Bishop of the Algoma, to Resolution C003 to change Marriage Canon XXI to accommodate same-sex marriage, and we look forward to participating in the “broad consultation” process that determines if a theological rationale exists for gay and lesbian marriage. May God’s grace and truth be our guide.
ACA’s website appears to have vanished, which is probably a good thing, because if I could contact it I would now be resigning.
God bless you, Gordon Arthur.
When the Bible speaks, surely there is no real room for “consultation” and “conversation”? Jesus did not “consult” with the Pharisees regarding the “korban” rule.
“Well, I can see that your scripture-twisting tradition involves getting out of having to help Mum and Dad by clothing your selfishness in a righteous cloak, but you know what, let’s talk about this.”
Why? What is the point in discussion when something is so abundantly clear as to leave no doubt. I’ll say this: I have had serious theological discussions with people who think same-sex marriage is compatible with the Bible. I have watched and seen serious theological debates between committed scholars. And in all cases – bar none – the debate has been a train wreck for the affirming crowd.
Why? Because the old hatchet-job about shellfish and clothes made of different fibres not being followed by Christians any more, means that homosexuality is okay does not wash under cross examination by a knowledgeable scholar of the Old and New Testaments.
It demonstrates that the number of confessing, orthodox, continuing churches are becoming increasingly thin on the ground.
” cannot promise flourishing.”
Is this 21st cc.-speak for “may bring one nigh unto damnation”? Just wondering.
What is a faux-Bantu indaba
In Rowan Williams’ words:
Faux because it is bogus, Bantu because that’s what the bishops might as well be speaking for all the sense they make.
The Anglican Communion is virtually ripped apart due to the leadership of many so-called bishops that are really apostates and that obviously includes the current ABC who is clearly more interested in accepting the standard of the civil government than in bringing the truth of the Gospel to them. This is precisely the reason why the appointment of the ABC not in any way be connected to the approval of civil governments. Currently the only parts of the Anglican Communion that is orthodox are the ACNA and its affiliates. If the ABC was truly committed to the vows he made before our Lord and Saviour he would insist on defrocking the apostate primates in both the TEC and the ACoC.