Welby then used the Old Testament tale of the Tower of Babel to criticize the use of language for "the imposition of one's will, the means to bring coercion and dominance," and suggested that unity for its own sake is not always ideal.

"They want to make a name for themselves, and so choose to attempt self-created unity. They do it not with mutual love, but by coercion," Welby summarized. "We constantly face this temptation -- to make something of ourselves, or to seek to impose our own unity through rules, hierarchies and structures which become a way of controlling others."

Some initial observations.
1. Yes, God invites all sinners to His table. But this must not be interpreted as come as you are, stay as you are. The key to all sin, including homosexual behavior is repentance.
2. So, who exactly is doing the "raucous hammering?" Truth be told most of the "hammering" is coming from the left not the right. Orthodox Christians have either been cowed into silence or quietly left their churches to join other jurisdictions, leaving behind a minority of pansexualists who will soon discover they don't have enough "converts" to keep the parish afloat. After all, only three percent of the population is officially homosexual, despite the vast media attention they get. It will be interesting to see who among the evangelical bishops and clergy will stand up at Synod and declare the Word of the Lord over sodomy. Don't hold your breath.
3. So, who is imposing his will on whom exactly? If you argue that the "will" being imposed is coming from conservatives, then all they are doing is upholding 2,000 years of church teaching, "to banish and drive away all strange doctrine contrary to God's Word," while revisionists are the ones looking to change God's mind for Him.
4. So, who is trying "to make a name for themselves"? Well, I can think of two persons -- Jayne Ozanne, a lesbian laywoman, and Colin Coward, a vitriolic homosexual vicar, who are happy to tear the community apart to protect their sexual identities which is far more important than finding their identity in Christ.

And what of imposing "unity through rules"? Susie Leafe of Anglican Futures describes the opening of Synod, "as a day of half-truths - used to manipulate and attempt to demand "unity" despite doctrinal differences. Faithful members of the Houses of Laity and Clergy have raised objections but the bishops just point to the lawyers and the lawyers point to the bishops - and it seems nothing can be done to change the course of action."

As the Rt. Rev Bob Munro, Bishop of Ebbsfleet writes; "This week's Church of England General Synod debate could threaten to break our unity on the doctrine of marriage, redefine our sanctity with respect to holiness and sexual activity, undermine our catholicity having little obvious regard for the wider Anglican Communion or beyond, and jeopardizing our apostolicity with respect to the clear teaching of Scripture."

Could one be any clearer?

In proposing the new prayers that celebrate same-sex relationships -- titled "Prayers of Love and Faith" -- the bishops wrote that the church's centuries-old teaching of marriage as the union of a man and woman had not changed. Since it is the introduction of a liturgical resource and not a change in church doctrine, it does not technically need Synod's approval to go into effect, some bishops and observers have noted.

That is too disingenuous by half. What are the bishops now saying about marriage?

Theologian Ian Paul summarizes it: "By setting out what the bishops (and their legal advisors) are now claiming about marriage in our society...there are significant changes in their account which have not been clearly explained or defended. It traces how the church has viewed marriage in society generally through history and summarizes how the bishops previously have interpreted and responded to the introduction of civil partnerships (first for same-sex and later for opposite-sex couples) and same-sex marriage and related these to church teaching about marriage. In so doing, it shows that there are now novel claims being made. These contradict past statements in various ways and raise a number of major questions about the coherence and legality of the bishops' response to LLF and why what is now being said contrasts in so many ways with past statements the bishops have made."

Theologian Andrew Goddard writes: "By setting out what the bishops (and their legal advisors) are now claiming about marriage in our society...there are significant changes in their account which have not been clearly explained or defended. It traces how the church has viewed marriage in society generally through history and summarizes how the bishops previously have interpreted and responded to the introduction of civil partnerships (first for same-sex and later for opposite-sex couples) and same-sex marriage and related these to church teaching about marriage."

"The first headlines that appeared when the decisions of the bishops in response to Living in Love and Faith (LLF) were leaked emphasized that they were not changing the church's doctrine of marriage. That marriage remains a union of one man with one woman. That is indeed the case but in other ways, once set in the context of previous statements, there have been significant shifts which deserve careful scrutiny."

One of the most surprising aspects of the bishops' response to LLF (GS 2289) was the way in which it spoke about holy matrimony in relation to civil marriage. It did this in order to defend the proposed draft prayers being used in relation to a couple who have entered a same-sex marriage, even as the church continued to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

There can be little doubt that by the time Synod is over, some form of homosexual marriage will be regularized. This will cause evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics to ask the deeper question: can they any longer stay in the Church of England?

As one informed Anglican leader told VOL: "There is nothing sacred any longer. No Word, no Law, no moral compass. Everything is up for debate."

END