(Archbishop Fred Hiltz writes) Dear Friends in Christ,
Today the Council of General Synod received The Report of The Commission on The Marriage Canon. The report is very comprehensive and reflects the commitment of the members to address General Synod 2013’s Resolution C003 in its fullness.
You will recall that the resolution requested consideration as to whether the proposal for amending The Marriage Canon would contravene The Solemn Declaration of 1893; and called for a theological and biblical rationale for the blessing of same sex marriages. The Commissioners take us into a deep exploration of the theology of marriage and present several models for understanding same sex marriage. In accord with the request in Resolution C003 for broad consultation throughout the Church the report includes a succinct summary of feedback received from Anglican Communion and ecumenical partners.
Read it all and yes you need to look at the whole report (64 page download).
This should be read along with similar papers produced by TEc bishops as how not to do theology. Once again, it shows that it takes far too many words to try to justify a wrong than it does when you stick with what is right.
Examples:
P 24
[blockquote]Thus we take a via media approach to Scripture between one way which appeals to isolated texts as “proof †of a particular understanding of being biblical, and another which discards Scripture as a site for hearing any authoritative word that stands over against uncritically accepted and culturally derived ideas.
By contrast, we are adopting a stance consonant with the broad approach to Scripture of the Windsor Report, which seeks to discern what faithful practice with regard to the question of samesex marriage might look like in our Canadian context. It also accords with a welcome shift in the use of Scripture by opponents of same-sex marriage away from the six “bullet†texts, which are then answered by those sympathetic to same-sex marriage, invariably generating more heat than light about the overall intent of God in sexuality and marriage within the biblical story.[/blockquote]
After Jesus’ statements on marriage and divorce are contextualized away, Romans 1 is dismissed in far too few words.
[blockquote]the particular language Paul is drawing upon (“natural intercourse†in Romans 1:26-27) is different from the popular “It’s not natural!†sentiments often expressed as a gut-level revulsion at the mention of (usually male) same-sex practices. Since revulsions are socially and psychologically formed, they are unreliable as pointers to natural order. By contrast, for some people same-sex attraction is the most “natural†thing, and to contemplate physical desire toward a member of the opposite sex would feel “unnatural.â€
Second, for Paul “contrary to nature†is not necessary a synonym for “sinful.†For instance, the term “contrary to nature†(para physin) is also used later in Romans to speak of the grace of God, para physin, in grafting Gentiles “as a wild olive branch†onto the cultivated tree (“natural branchesâ€) of Israel (11:17, 21).
Third, Paul’s concern in the passage is not sexuality, but selfrighteousness. Indeed, his use of such diatribe is a very specific
strategy within Romans to attack the usual ways people see themselves as more righteous than others. New Testament scholar
Richard Hays identifies Paul’s purpose as “a homiletical sting operation†in order to show how “self-righteous judgment of
homosexuality is just as sinful as homosexual behaviour itself.â€
Put another way, Paul is attacking the “holier-than-thou†people of his day who claim that “others†(Gentiles) need the grace of God more than they (Jews)[/blockquote]