Anglican Journal’s report on yesterday’s vote by Montreal Synod in favour of asking Bishop Barry Clarke to allow same-sex blessings in the diocese includes this interesting tidbit.
[W]hile some opponents of the resolution did refer to potential political dangers, there was no lack of scriptural argument. Rev. Gregory McVeigh of St. Stephen’s Church in Westmount said the strongest scriptural arguments against same-sex marriage come not from a few selected texts but from a general view of the couple as male and female right from the creation story through the Bible. “However you interpret this scripture, you have to take it seriously.”
Rev. Dean Brady, a doctoral student at McGill University in Montreal, said his studies of scriptural interpretation suggest that same-sex couples run counter to all traditional levels of scriptural interpretation. To support the motion would be to reject the “lens” of scripture as a way of interpreting the world in favour of a “lens” of modern social science.
This appears to refer only to statements made by opponents of SSBs. Still, I think it interesting that no scriptural references by SSB proponents are reported.
Are we to conclude that there weren’t any? Or that Anglican Journal considers that aspect of the debate of only minor importance?
Also of interest, The Rev Joe Walker notices that Bp Clarke, in his charge to Synod, brings up the precipitous decline in Anglican membership in his diocese. In only twenty years, membership has declined from 33,000 to 13,000—a drop of over 60%.
c/p: Magic Statistics
Algoma just had their Synod at the same time as Montreal. I understand that it was a very “good” Synod, supporting both the Windsor Report and a common Covenant. Maybe someone else has more detailed news?
I wasn’t aware that Algoma just had their Synod. I was raised in that diocese and it has given me peace to know that, as far as I’ve heard so far, they haven’t sacrificed our Lord to Satan.
It was reassuring to read here that they still support the Windsor Report.
As to any covenant, I’m not for any covenant that ties any group in any way to the church if they don’t accept God’s breathed Word in the Scriptures as the authority. I don’t believe God wants us to compromise on anything, in any way. He makes very clear in the Scriptures how He wants us to be obedient to His commands. All the documented history of His wrath against His own people in the Scriptures should be enough to tell us that He means what He says. He’s not going to budge and tell us we can have any say in His plan. No “covenant” can be made that doesn’t obey God’s own Word.
The idea of 2 tiers of the Anglican Communion is what I’ve been talking about here. There cannot be 2 tiers. If we have only the covenant that God made with us in His Word as our covenant, then I’m all for it, but as to a 2nd tier that compromises God’s Word, then I’m not for that at all. We can’t re-write God’s Word!
Marg
Agree completely! The 2-tier suggestion baffles my mind. Perhaps it was suggested as possible in the same way that we still love our children dearly and do not completely sever ties when they go astray. But I think we need to take a strong stand against the apostacy which has crept into our church — we are siblings, not parents! — and our Lord will purify His Church in His time. We cannot invite the world into the church to make decisions for us — all our decisions must be made in complete submission to the Head of the Church and those who do not recognize that Head cannot be part of the table.
The precipitous 60% decline in church attendance was only one part of the bad news. The diocese is also facing a 1.1 million dollar deficit this year and after this vote at least another 700,000 next year. A budget was not even available because the finances are in such bad shape.
Of addition note was the fact that throughout the entire Synod “worship”, not one hymn mentioned the name of Jesus. “Christ” was referred to 3 times, once as an adjective, “Christ-like graces” and twice as a noun.
There was no lack of liberal mantras, however. “Justice” “Love”"Inclusion”. Of particular note was the “poem” that replaced the opening hymn extolling the God (goddess?) who dances and sings and, of course, hugs and unconditionally “includes” everyone.
The only scriptural reference in the debate that I heard, was someone suggesting that in Ephesians where Paul refers to a man who joins himself to a prostitute becomes “one flesh” with her, so why should that unity not be available to loving, committed same-sex couples?
The only other references to scripture were to note how scripture had been used to justify slavery, refute the ordination of women, and other “justice” issues.
There was also some condescending praise that the use of scripture on the conservative side had become more nuanced and fuller in the mind of the principal of Montreal Diocesan College, which boasts an enrollment of less than 20.
With the “dire” debt situation being what it is, (possible bankruptcy in 5-10 years) there is no doubt that any moves affecting the financial bottom line (for example, leaving, or Supplemental Episcopal Oversight) would be met with bullying and strong arm tactics.
Please pray for us.