Actually the message of the magi at Epiphany said that indeed everyone is included. We are strengthened by diversity and acceptance of those who are not like us.

Society has said through the constitution and the courts that marriage is indeed a rights issue.
But then society has to abide by a higher standard than the church.

Dear Elisabeth Staton,
Sorry but you are barking up the wrong tree. My theology and my Christian (not Biblian) life -since you seem to worry- are solidily orthodox and credal (I have been told that I do preach about sin, and on our redemption through the crucified Christ – go figure since I believe I preach about the risen Christ!).

You are right that Christianity is not about inclusion per se and for the pure sake of it (how can we possibily offer open communion to the Nazis for example? Or those who seek always to pay the lowest wages possible?) nor we should give up to any secularized notion of human rights.

Having said all this, it is obvious by my previous comment that my very conservative theology leads me to not reduce divine revelation to the scriptures. For me the fullest and most complete manifest revelation of God was, is in Jesus Christ our ONLY redeemer and saviour (no apologies). For all this I am a Christian and not a Biblian. I follow Christ as constantly revealed in Tradition (oral and writen the Didache, the biblical canon, etc., Life in the Church, Sacraments, Communion to God in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. I think your theology is bound to a specific set of writings. Mine is not.

Now, going back to your correct appreciation that it is not about PR.

I did not bring that topic up thinking it to be decisive or determining for our course of action, but because as the minority we are becoming in an increasingly secular society, the perception that we can not tell gay people that God does not condemn them for their unchosen sexual orientation, is perceived as anything except love. This perception, wrong or not, does hinder our ability to proclaim the Gospel (bear in mind that the ability of the new religion to attract new converts was due in large part to the way our ancestors lived loving each other in spite of their being sinners; of course you might argue that homosexuals were admitted once they had renounced to their “sinful ways”, HOWEVER, our knowledge -and therefore understanding- of the nature of human sexuality demands from us as Christians to act accordingly to our following Christ in Tradition, liturgy, prayer, theology, ecclesial life, life in community and life on the Holy Spirit…and in the way we read the Bible).

Of course you seem to reject the findings of sciences and perhaps even the human experience of Christians who are gay, and for this you do not feel the need to adjust your notion about gay couples. Makes sense! So much so that naturally and logically for you God must be very upset about two people of same gender loving each other, caring for each other and respecting each other’s human dignity and condition as child of God. So, you believe the Bible condemns homosexual acts, and that the Bible attests to God being upset at a gay couple. For the sake of argument let’s say that-yes- the Bible does condemn gay couples and that therefor -since for you the Word of God is contained in between the first and last page of this book- God is upset at gay couples. Can you tell me why do YOU think God is so mad at a gay couple?

Your answer would help you to discern why you stand where you stand. Of course, this is for your own growth in your faith and not for any desire to convince you of anything.

I will hold you in prayer and ask you to hold me in prayer.

Rev. Julio C. Martin +

Your servant in Christ our only redeemer and saviour.

Hello Claudia,
Thank you for your thoughtful post. I can appreciate the dilemma and challenges you and your wife are struggling with.
Blessings.

Dear Katherine,
I appreciate your honesty, bravery, and your compassion. Standing down to bullies is never easy.

God loves you and your wife. John 3:16 states ‘whosoever’ and not ‘whatsoever’.

Blessings to you both.

Ms. Staton is correct—and I apologize for publishing the above comment from Ms. Thraves. While there is clearly disagreement over which approach to marriage is more or less Christian—and I know emotions are high—we should refrain from attacks upon the faith of others.

-MT

FYI, the Diocese of the Arctic has provided a follow-up statement saying they have not seceded, on Facebook:

The Diocese of the Arctic remains a diocese within the Anglican church of Canada, but must distance itself from those who violate the Marriage Canon. The implication of this is a state of “impaired communion”. By using the phrase “self-determining,” we are reserving the right not to affirm or submit to decisions that violate the doctrine of the church on marriage.

One of our writers has been in touch with Bishop David Parsons, and we’ll have more reporting on this soon.

-MT

I appreciate your response Brent and accept your good faith suggestion that being a delegate would have been one way to support the traditional teaching of the church ( this without of course knowing what I have done in this regard up until last October). Where would I be today, then, with more than 11 Bishops declaring this week that the vote at General Synod last Friday meant nothing? Would it be better or worse to have been a delegate and to have your voice ignored? I chose to accept that this issue would not be dropped until the pro argument got its way, by whatever means. John Wesley said that while schism was one of the worst things, there was something even worse than that. I leave you to ponder what that might be. I have just read that the Diocese of the Arctic had ceded from the Anglican Church of Canada. Here we go.