Read the entire article here:
The largest section of the roughly 50-page report will be devoted to biblical and theological reflection on the feasibility of Anglican same-sex marriage. The report will also address other components spelled out in General Synod 2013’s original mandating resolution on the marriage of same-sex couples. These include the wording of any amendment to Canon 21 permitting same-sex marriage, the terms of reference of the Solemn Declaration of 1893, which created the Anglican Church of Canada, and legal aspects of a conscience clause protecting bishops, dioceses, clergy and congregations from being constrained to authorize or participate in such marriages against the dictates of conscience.
[……]
It also set additional criteria contained in amendments introduced by diocese of Algoma Bishop Stephen Andrews and Dean Peter Elliott, diocese of New Westminster. The amendments, approved by a vote, stated that the 2016 motion should include supporting documentation that:
-
“demonstrates broad consultation in its preparation;
-
explains how this motion does not contravene the Solemn Declaration;
-
confirms immunity under civil law and the Human Rights Code for those bishops, dioceses and priests who refuse to participate in or authorize the marriage of same-sex couples on the basis of conscience; and
-
provides a biblical and theological rationale for this change in teaching on the nature of Christian marriage.”
I can’t help noticing that the wording of this article is always on the positive side of changing the marriage canon. For example, considering same-sex marriage has not existed in the church for two millennia, I might expect to see a theological reflection on the infeasibility of Anglican same-sex marriage. Instead, we read that the reflection will be upon the feasibility of Anglican same-sex marriage. Similarly, rather than explain how this motion does contravene the Solemn Declaration, we find the opposite. The bias is obvious, surely.
I wonder how this could possibly work:
confirms immunity under civil law and the Human Rights Code for those bishops, dioceses and priests who refuse to participate in or authorize the marriage of same-sex couples on the basis of conscience
How can a group of clerics expect any pronouncement they make about what may or may not occur under civil law to be taken seriously? Have they all taken a break from their studies of global warming to become civil rights lawyers?
Any conscience clause effectively says, “You may not pee in this end of the pool, but you may in the other”.
Very good analogy. Those who are not peeing will still be swimming in a peed in pool. Yuk. Where are the showers?
The evidence is quite clear that the apostate leadership within the ACoC will, if necessary, force the change of the marriage canon but doing so does NOT change the clear message of Scripture. That, however, is of no real concern to the apostate leadership. What is needed is a thorough housecleaning within the ACoC including defrocking so-called bishops and other clergy that no longer accept either the authority of Scripture or the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. It takes a lot more than a purple shirt and a white collar to make a true bishop. Those who claim to be need to stand up for the Gospel and not fall into the stream of that deceptive phrase “political correctness”.
My comment is taken from My Fair Lady “They you for advice, your reply will be concise,
and they will listen very nicely, then go out and do precisely what they want!”
This whole report plus marriage canon seems to me to be far too late. Those of us who
saw this coming as long as 11 years ago have already (with much anguish) left the church. Mark Steyn said that the Episcopal church’s pronouncements look like ‘the latest Madonna videos’. The same could be said for this ACoC action. I pray that some attention will be paid to the pain this will cause – and has caused in the past.
According to + The Revelation of Jesus Christ chs.1-22
this ‘Bride’ is going to be left at the altar.
Ever since I was a young man, I always believe that marriage is a civil matter. Provincial governments issue marriage license, and they regulated divorces. The church should get out of the marriage business. My friend the late Rev. Harry Robinson wrote an article about this in the Toronto Star in 1974. He said: “There should be one civil marriage ceremony for everybody. At present, clergy are made agents of the provincial government and people are being forced to take religious vows when they have no real beliefs at all” (The Toronto Star, September 28, 1974, p. H4). No more weddings in our churches! The church as God’s church can certainly bless people in all relationships including marriages.
The last bullet point, “provides a biblical and theological rationale for this change in teaching on the nature of Christian marriage.” is the most telling. It assumes the change in teaching is a fait accompli, which of course it probably is.
Just dressing up deceit and dishonesty in biblical language. What hypocrites these men are!
This is amazing stuff.
“…confirms immunity under civil law and the Human Rights Code for those bishops, dioceses and priests who refuse to participate in or authorize the marriage of same-sex couples on the basis of conscience”
Sure. Just like the civil marraige commissioners were protected. Oh wait. I don’t think they were.