I thought the following article from the Globe and Mail, which includes a subsequent Bp Ingham Q&A, is most interesting:

First, the story:

Homophobia accepted in church, bishop says
MICHAEL VALPY

June 26, 2007

Canada’s only Anglican bishop to authorize the blessing of homosexual unions said yesterday the refusal by his fellow bishops to approve the rite for the national church is the product of institutional inertia rooted in homophobia.

Bishop Michael Ingham of the Vancouver-area diocese of New Westminster said homophobia, hiding behind interpretations of scripture, remains an acceptable prejudice in Canadian Anglicanism.

“There are members of our church who staunchly defend that. In my view, [it] is a total misreading of scripture and a misuse of the Bible to oppress people. But they clearly want to continue to do that.”

A motion before the church’s triennial general synod - or governing body - meeting in Winnipeg, to allow individual dioceses to permit blessings of same-sex unions was approved on Sunday by clergy and laity, but vetoed by a slim majority of bishops, who voted 21-19 against it. Earlier, however, the bishops had voted by the same margin in favour of a resolution stating that the blessings were not in conflict with the church’s “core doctrine.”

“To say that the blessing of same-sex unions is not in conflict with doctrine is a hugely significant thing,” Bishop Ingham said. “But to say at the same time there’s no doctrinal conflict but we’re not going to [do] anything about it is inertia - it’s institutional inertia rooted in homophobia.”

The two bishops who voted for the no-conflict resolution but against the blessings were David Torraville of the diocese of Central Newfoundland and James Cowan of the Vancouver Island diocese.

Bishop Cowan said after the vote that, while he favoured same-sex unions, he was still “asking for the theological rationale.” Bishop Torraville is known to have faced strong opposition from among his clergy to the blessings.

Then, the Q&A. I’ll refrain from addressing the points myself, though would point out they have been addressed and readdressed multiple times. Positions stay the same however and I would contend that the deeper issue is a fundamental difference in the interpretation and understanding of the Christian faith and the role of scripture within that faith.

J. Loo: Hi, Bishop Ingham. Thank you for taking the time to answer questions on G&M.

Last weekend, the General Synod passed a resolution that perhaps received less media attention than the defeated motion to authorize individual dioceses to bless same-sex unions.

The General Synod resolved that the blessing of same-sex unions is not in conflict with the core doctrine (in the sense of being credal) of the Anglican Church of Canada.

In your opinion, what are the theological as well as practical implications (if any) of this core doctrine resolution, particularly with regards to future decisions by the Anglican Church of Canada on the issue of same-sex unions?

Bishop Michael Ingham: I agree that the Church’s declaration on the doctrine question (that same-sex blessings are “not in conflict with the core doctrine of the Anglican Church”) is by far the most significant one to come out of the Winnipeg meeting.

Theologically, our Church is saying that the core beliefs of Christianity — the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the salvation of the world, etc. — are not affected by the blessing (or non-blessing) of same-sex relationships.

In other words, human sexuality is not on the same level of importance as these primary foundational beliefs.

That means Christians are free to disagree on secondary questions, and the unity of the Church ought not to be threatened by them.

This position is in stark contrast to those who have argued that homosexuality is a “salvation issue” — meaning, in effect, that homosexuals are going to hell.

General Synod disagreed with that claim, and placed Christian ethics at the level of a second-order question, i.e. within the realm of evolution and change.

Practically, it means that those who do bless same-sex unions are not acting contrary to the doctrine of the Church.

This has many implications. Clergy who go ahead, for example, cannot be accused of heresy. Nor could any disciplinary action against them be sustained. Nor is any relationship so blessed beyond the teaching and embrace of the Christian faith.

Kevin Farris, Victoria, B.C.: Bishop Ingham, first I would like to thank you for your leadership on this issue. It seems to me that the two decisions at General Synod — first, that same-sex blessings are not inconsistent with doctrine but, second, we still won’t approve them — are logically consistent.

There are plenty of things the church could do that would be in line with doctrine. The church is not bound to do all of them.

In April, though, the House of Bishops met and was joined by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Out of that meeting came a statement to the church, saying: “We are committed, as bishops in Canada, to develop the most generous pastoral response possible within the current teaching of the church.”

Having voted at General Synod to say that same-sex blessings were not at odds with the teaching of the church, would not the most generous pastoral response have been to approve them? Or had too many of the bishops made up their minds before Synod? To what extent do you think the Archbishop of Canterbury influenced this outcome?

Bishop Ingham: I agree that the most generous response would have been to approve blessings, but I am also aware that generosity means giving other people time to catch up on where the Church is going.

In my own diocese, we have tried to be as generous to theological conservatives as to gay and lesbian Christians.

Change does take time.

Most of the bishops had made up their minds before General Synod. We have been living with these questions for many years, and it would be hard to find any bishop (or priest and deacon) who has not come to some sort of conclusion already.

This does not mean they can’t change their minds. One of the interesting things about Winnipeg is the way some bishops voted differently on the various motions after listening to the debates.

The Archbishop of Canterbury may have influenced the debate, but perhaps not in the way you might think.

He issued invitations to all Canadian bishops to the Lambeth Conference before Winnipeg. (The Lambeth Conference is widely viewed as an indication of who does and who does not belong to the Anglican Communion.)

With those invitations already in their pockets, some bishops may have been more open to moving ahead.

JC Canada: Why does the Anglican Church insist on portraying the same-sex debate with such polarity?

Why is there not room in its discussion for tolerance, understanding and accommodation towards same-sex couples without going to the step of venerating their lifestyle through the institution of marriage? Can we not find a way to honour homosexual people who commit their lives to one another without impeding on the sanctity of man-woman marriage?

Bishop Ingham: The debate in the Anglican Church to date has not been about same-sex marriage.

Our discussions in Winnipeg were about non-nuptial unions, though we did (easily) pass a motion to consider the marriage question in light of revised Canadian law. That will take several years to work through, however.

At this point, the Church’s definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman remains unchanged.

G. Canadian: One side of the church is saying that same-sex relationships are unbiblical and sinful and therefore cannot be blessed.

The other side is preaching that not only is the relationship not sinful but it is one which God blesses.

How can local option be an answer? How can these contradictory messages be held within the same church?

Isn’t it better to agree to disagree and to divvy up the church, allowing congregations to go their separate ways and dividing up the cathedrals to ensure both camps get their fair share of cathedral churches?

Bishop Ingham: Actually, differing positions have long — if not always — been held within the Church.

Much of the New Testament, for example, reveals healthy and vigorous disagreements on things like circumcision, food offered to idols, and the place of civil authorites in the governance of the faithful.

In recent years, just in the Anglican Church alone (not to mention other churches) Christians have tolerated different practices on divorce and re-marriage, the ordination of women, the admission of children to communion, and the legitimacy of armed conflict.

Christianity is a living faith, and thus subject to evolution and development. Historically, this does not start everywhere at once. Nor is change always from God.

Anglicans have a healthy notion of “provisionality” that requires us to test things out and see if they are of the Spirit or not. You can’t do that as an abstract exercise, but only through lived experience. In other words, sometimes we have to begin it and see.

Seydlitz 77, Edmonton: There are no less than seven places in the Bible (both Old and New Testament) where homosexual behaviour is condemned. They are Leviticus 18:22; Deuteronomy 23:17; Romans 1:22-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10; and Jude 1:7. How can you justify behaviour that your scriptures strongly condemn?

Bishop Ingham: You say “no less than seven verses” in the Bible condemn homosexual behaviour, which of course means that only seven verses (out of thousands in Scripture) do so.

Or do they?

We need to ask several questions here. What exactly is being condemned in these verses? In what context do these condemnations appear? And what authority should these texts have?

Whole libraries have been written on these questions, and space here is limited.

Briefly, the verses in the Hebrew Bible occur in the context of the Holiness Code — a series of regulations and prohibitions covering wide areas of ancient Jewish ritual. These include things like ritual bathing for women, the preparation of food, the observance of festivals and sacrifices etc.

Most of these rules and rituals are no longer observed by Christians. The onus of proof is on those who wish to retain a few selective prohibitions, not on those who no longer regard them as normative.

Secondly, the biblical assumption is that all people are heterosexual. Thus homosexual behaviour is seen as both a personal choice and an act against nature.

This is clearly what St. Paul means when he speaks of people “exchanging natural intercourse for unnatural” in Romans 1. To exchange something is an act of will.

These and other similar passages seem to refer to homosexual acts voluntarily undertaken by heterosexual people, and this is what is condemned.

There is no biblical condemnation of natural homosexuality, nor is any consideration given in Scripture to the question of permanent lifelong committed relationships between persons of the same sex.

Thirdly, what is clearly condemned in the Bible is every form of sexual exploitation and coercion — rape, sexual manipulation, prostitution, promiscuity, child abuse, and all manner of sexual deceit and domination. These are condemned in both their homosexual and heterosexual expressions.

And lastly, by far the greater witness of Scripture is toward love, justice and compassion — especially for the outcast and despised.

These texts outnumber the seven passages you mention by so great a margin that it is puzzling to see such focus on the few at the expense of the many.

Paul Siemens, Squamish, B.C.: Bishop Michael, you mentioned that people are misinterpreting scripture when they are against same-sex marriage. Please, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, interpret the following two passages: Mark 10:6-8 and Romans 1:26-28. Thank you for your answers.

Bishop Ingham: The Markan passage is about the permanence of marriage between a man and a woman.

If one were to interpret it strictly, it seems to state that all men and all women should get married, which Jesus himself did not do.

So, it must refer to those who do join together in marriage.

It says nothing at all about homosexual commitments — indeed Jesus himself is entirely silent on the matter in stark contrast to many of his followers.

Gail Thomas: As an Anglican who was brought up with the Church’s teachings, I don’t see why the Church has to change to suit the sins of people. Yes we should be kind and love one another, but condoning any sinful lifestyle should not be the focus of religion.

The Church seems to be changing direction to suit the people rather than choosing the biblical teachings. There are so many false gods today that people are confused and need guidance not sympathy.

The book of life called the Bible and the Ten Commandments are treated like instruction booklets that come with a product. They are either ignored or worse filed away or disposed of because our free will tells us we know better than the Creator.

Bishop Ingham: I don’t see homosexuality per se as sinful, nor as a lifestyle.

Both these notions assume we have a choice about our sexual orientation. There is no sin without voluntary personal decision.

Certainly there are sexual sins, and both gay and straight people are capable of committing them.

It seems to me to be to be hypocritical, however, to deny homosexual people the comfort and intimacy of permanent relationships and then at the same time to condemn them for pursuing impermanent and casual ones.

The Church should be supporting committed families of both homosexual and heterosexual types, so that all people can experience the love that God intends for each one of us.

This debate is really about love, and the desire of many for the chance to lead holy lives of love before God.

Denying that opportunity is the real sin.