Synod delegates have asked to discuss three seemingly innocuous questions:
After an introduction to the report of the commission on the marriage canon presented by some members of the commission, General Synod members, seated at roughly 30 tables, were asked to discuss three questions with the others at their tables: What is your overall impression of the report? What does marriage mean to you? Has your understanding of marriage changed in your lifetime?
Whether same-sex activity is right or wrong is not being discussed. That is because the ACoC has already decreed that same-sex activity can be holy. Once you have gone that far, marriage is a small next step; conservative Anglicans have been fighting a rearguard action ever since and, short of a miracle – a commodity in short supply in the ACoC – the liberal juggernaut will roll on until it gets its way.
Since General Synod 12 years ago already affirmed the sanctity of adult, committed, same-sex relationships, Jennings said, “we did not see it as our job to reopen the debate as to whether homosexuality is fundamentally sinful or whatever—that is no longer the teaching of our church. I realize that for some of you, this might seem unsatisfactory, but it was not the question before us.”
“…we did not see it as our job……as to whether homosexuality is fundamentally sinful or whatever”:
In that world of “whatever” does not that out-subtil the Serpent himself;
even, or especially, he with his sinful due diligence removed all Divine Imprimatur,
“Yea, hath GOD said?……Ye shall not surely die……”
+ Genesis chs. 3; 18-19 says otherwise.
I suggest for questions two and three substitute: 2. What does marriage mean to God? 3. Has God’s understanding of marriage changed?
Amen.
My guess is that the next question would be, “God who?.
That would certainly be the pattern followed by the United Church.
I was surprised to read this comment from one of the members of the commission (Dean Iain Luke): “I think if we had given a similar amount of time and resources to the theological rationale for not changing the marriage canon, we could be having a much more genuine and mutual conversation here and now.” How true. But a genuine conversation is not what was desired. And I’m not sure there’s a road back – although I think that reflects a lack of faith on my part.