However far Dr Sentamu has travelled, he still has probÂlems with applying the term “marriage” to any partÂnership other than a heterosexual one. He resists the idea that the state has the power to change the definition of the word, and he is right: Britain has no Académie Française to govern its language. But neither has the Church any control over a word that has, after all, been used figuratively for cenÂturies. As with the word “gay”, the Church has, ultimately, to go along with whatever definition of “marriage” emerges in general parlance.
A remarkable editorial that clearly demonstrates the degree of cultural shift since the establishment of [i]The Church Times[/i], almost 150 years ago.
So, the Church Times openly endorses sinful and heretical practice. Poor ++Sentamu has never been noted as a strong champion of orthodoxy, but even his mild suggestion that the Church of England should not itself endorse homosexual “marriage” is now the subject of virulent personal attack in the journal of the Church of England!
No author is given, which presumably means that this article represents the official policy of the Church Times.
All orthodox Christians should study this carefully. The Church Times appears to have forfeited its right to be considered a legitimate organ of a Christian church. Naturally it is entitled to express its view, just as e.g. an atheistic magazine is so entitled, but why should it receive any endorsement or support from the Church of England or the Anglican Communion?
The level and depth of thinking here can be judged from the comment that a politician (in this case David Cameron) ‘ would not pursue a policy if it made him less electable’. If this were true, you wonder how politicians ever lose elections.
There’s some very odd thinking in this editorial. It may be true that contemporary society does and will use the term “marriage” in a different manner than the church. It may also be true that even an Established Church can do little about this. However how does this translate into a justification for the church to drop its own doctrine of Holy Matrimony? Clearly it doesn’t. The prime minister may well feel obliged to go with what he perceives to be the flow, but the Archbishop isn’t obliged to climb in that boat with him.
It is passing strange that the Church Times can at one and the same time approve the bishops in the House of Lords opposing government policy (only to be overruled by the Commons) and disapprove of York opposing the government’s position on marriage.
One notices a confusion about church policies. The church isn’t a political party, obliged to reframe its teachings in a sort of evolving platform. It has its teachings, long established before there was an English nation. Or do we now reject Scripture and Tradition and adopt ‘box populi’?