The Anglican Journal has an article covering the rewriting of the Lambeth Call on Human Dignity. The headline is “Same-sex marriage controversy erupts pre-Lambeth”.

In case you are wondering what the controversy is, the body of the article offers clarification. It’s defining marriage as the union of a man and woman rather than two men. In the Anglican Church of Canada, to avoid controversy, we have to all agree that two men can marry each other.

From here (emphasis mine):

A draft Lambeth Conference statement reaffirming a 1998 resolution that describes marriage as the union of a man and a woman has been revised, with the resolution now mentioned but not explicitly reaffirmed. On Tuesday, Lambeth Conference staff published a new version of the Lambeth Calls, with several revisions, including the removal of the call to reaffirm 1998’s controversial resolution I.10 on same-sex marriage.

What level of insanity have we reached when a church newspaper tells us that “marriage is confined to men marrying women” is a controversial proposition? Is this an example of “those whom God wishes to destroy he first makes mad”? Let’s hope so.

Yesterday the Call on Human Dignity included this (my emphasis):

All human beings are made in the image of God. Therefore, Anglicans are committed to respect, protect, and acknowledge the dignity of all. There has been, however, a gap between rhetoric and reality. Historical exploitation, deepening poverty, and prejudice continue to threaten human dignity. Amidst these threats, and our own divisions and discernment, we call for: (i) an Archbishop’s Commission for Redemptive Action; (ii) the establishment of an Anglican Innovation Fund; and (iii) a reaffirmation of Lambeth I.10 that upholds marriage as between a man and a woman and requires deeper work to uphold the dignity and witness of LGBTQ Anglicans.

Today it says this:

Prejudice on the basis of gender or sexuality threatens human dignity. Given Anglican polity, and especially the autonomy of Provinces, there is disagreement and a plurality of views on the relationship between human dignity and human sexuality. Yet, we experience the safeguarding of dignity in deepening dialogue. It is the mind of the Anglican Communion as a whole that “all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ” and to be welcomed, cared for, and treated with respect (I.10, 1998). Many Provinces continue to affirm that same gender marriage is not permissible. Lambeth Resolution I.10 (1998) states that the “legitimizing or blessing of same sex unions” cannot be advised. Other Provinces have blessed and welcomed same sex union/marriage after careful theological reflection and a process of reception. As Bishops we remain committed to listening and walking together to the maximum possible degree, despite our deep disagreement on these issues.

Notice that the reference to “a reaffirmation of Lambeth I.10 that upholds marriage as between a man and a woman” is missing.

The liberals have had their way – shocking, I know. Conservative bishops who refused to attend made a sensible decision; the whole thing is rigged from the top.

Here is Bishop Sam Rose (he/him – sorry Sam I forgot that last time) who has tweeted his love for the change with a ❤️. We are so blessed in Canada to have bishops who not only list their pronouns on twitter, but are fluent in emoji. And he has a rainbow thing on his photo.

Anglican clergy expel endless volumes of hot air on climate change, racism, mosquito nets, universal basic income, gender-based violence – and so on. Nothing about Jesus, salvation, eternity, heaven and hell, of course, but we’ll save that for another time. They would like you to think that these weighty temporal predicaments occupy every minute of their waking thoughts. It’s not true. What really excites the average Anglican bishop is sex. They can’t get enough of it – particularly the homoerotic variety. When sex is on the agenda, the climate can boil for all they care.

There are so many bishops foaming at the mouth in horror at the very, very small possibility that they may be asked to consider that the only legitimate form of marriage is between a man and a woman, that it would waste terabytes of bandwidth to list them – so I will confine myself to some Canadian bishops:

Here is the statement from Bishop Susan Bell:

I know there has been concern over the proposed reaffirmation of Lambeth Resolution 1.10. Please be assured that in our discussions, in our fellowship, and in our conclusions, I will bear witness to the many decisions we have made in the Diocese of Niagara to embrace equal marriage and uphold the dignity of every human being.

And here is the statement from the Diocese of Edmonton’s Bishop Stephen London:

I do have to say I was extremely disappointed to see in the resolution about Human Dignity that there is a call to reaffirm Lambeth resolution I.10, from 1998, which is against marriage equality for our LGBTQ+ community. This goes against what I thought we were doing in speaking where we find we have a common mind as a communion. It is clear that there is no common mind on this issue

Here is Sam Rose, bishop of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador:

And here is Todd Townshend, Bishop of the Diocese of Huron (click on the image to read it more clearly):

And last (for the moment), but not least, Anna Greenwood-Lee, Bishop of the Diocese of BC:

To anticipate the objection that this is all about love – it isn’t, it’s about sex.

If the homosexual clergy in the Anglican church simply loved other men but either did not want or had no intention of having sex with them, none of this would be being discussed. Lambeth resolution 1.10 would not have been written, the communion would not be divided, GAFCON and ACNA would not exist.

It is all about sex; clergy who deny this are trying to deceive you.