That’s Ted Byfield’s take on the media-supported crusade by Michael Ingham, Bishop of New Westminster, to discard traditional Christian sexual ethics and legitimise same-sex blessings in the Anglican Church of Canada.  Mr Byfield cuts right through Bp Ingham’s claim that modern science has discovered facts about homosexuality of which the biblical writers were ignorant.

Did the early Christians not know that some people had a sexual desire for persons of the same sex?

As a matter of fact, they knew all about it, because many of them lived in a society that fully approved of it. Did they not know about sex outside marriage? They did indeed. Did they not know about abortion? They certainly did and the people around them widely practised it. So what are the sexual things that we know and they didn't know?

The answer is we know nothing they didn't know. Then why should the church change its teaching?

Though the bishop doesn't say, we know his real reason. It's because society itself has changed.

Society has reverted to the sexual standards of the pagan world, and the bishop wants the church to revert along with it. The church must adopt new attitudes towards sex, he says, by which he means the old pagan attitudes.
. . .
How different were the bishops who actually converted the pagan world. They saw the church as setting an example for the world to follow.

Bishop Ingham sees the world as setting an example for the church to follow. Small wonder the world shows so little interest in such a church.

Got that right!  Yet, the ACC doesn’t seem to care.  It’s been well over a year since the McKerracher Report Presentation detailing precipitous declines in ACC membership became public knowledge, and the church has done practically nothing.  Budget cuts have been discussed, but initiatives to counteract the downward trend do not appear to be on the radar.

I don’t agree with everything that Mr Byfield said, however.  He is a knowledgeable and usually astute observer of religious affairs, so I was surprised at this comment.

The Canadian Anglican church is to decide the issue in June.

If the church rejects gay marriage, Ingham will no doubt be expected to recant or resign.

I cannot see either of those happening.  The ACC rarely “expects” a bishop to “resign”, and Michael Ingham will not quit.  Moreover, his revisionist view has a solid group of supporters who, if past experience is any guide, simply will not take “no” for an answer.  If the ACC fails to accept his position at this June’s General Synod, he and his followers will come back again and again for as long as it takes to wear the church down.

That’s the liberal modus operandi: “No” really means “The process of listening and dialogue will continue”, while “Yes” means “The issue has been decided in our favour, so debate is now closed—forever.  It’s time to move on to more important problems.”

Previous related posts: