Agreeing to sin and sinning to agree

Of course, the hoo-hah about same-sex marriage continues to contort the Established Church to the point of breaking. The common statement from the Liberal Agenda is, "what's wrong with leaving it up to the priest's conscience whether to marry people of the same sex?"

Of course, if this were an issue of sacramental theology, one might be tempted to take a two integrities approach and allow it to conscience. Yet the reason that this threatens to split the Church is because there can be no agreeing to disagree about sin.

Is same sex marriage a sin? Yes. It is the condoning and indeed an attempt to bless the sin of fornication because same sex marriages are not marriages. While we may not be clear on the severity of that sin in individual cases, it is still very much sin.

Whether or not they agree with this, the Liberal Agenda cannot accept this argument because it is rooted in moral relativism: "just because it isn't right for you, doesn't mean it isn't right for me." Thus it enshrines that in the "integrities" approach and cannot understand why conservatives still refuse to put up and shut up.

It is precisely because the Church loves all human beings that she will simply not put up with any sin that separates mankind from its Creator. The Law is there for us to see sin and seek to root it out by repentance and struggle through the Cross of Christ. The issue of same sex marriage is a first order issue precisely because it is earthly thinking being elevated to a divine mandate. It is Man telling God what is good.

I can see fully why the Evangelical wing of the CofE will not agree to disagree, for to do so would be to fall into the same mire of confusion: as soon as sin is accepted, the glory of the Lord departs.

The trouble is that there can be no middle ground. There is simply no way of accommodating two diametrically opposed views. God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all. Thus, on the matter of the Liberal Agenda which says that God can support "conflicting opinions" St John proves otherwise.

I wish, if the Liberal Agenda wants to peddle these ideas, that it would leave the Church and stop pretending to be Christian. If it were Christian, then the Divine Will would be paramount in its thinking, not the will of Man masquerading as the will of God. If they want to support same sex marriage then they must do so outside of the Church and play their part in the secular society, rather than secularise what is sacred.

The Evangelicals would do well to distance themselves completely from the Established Church. I might suggest, rather than try and set up new ecclesial bodies, they might consider supporting a more experienced church. Might I recommend UECNA?