I see from this article in the UK’s Daily Mail that the Church of England is about to approve sex change operations for married people.
he Church of England is to tell husbands and wives they are free to change gender and stay married.
Its advice means couples will be under no pressure from the CofE to break up or divorce if one of them transitions.
The move is being seen as a shift towards recognition of same-sex marriages. In effect the Church will give its blessing to couples of the same gender, despite its traditional teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman.
The blessing for gender transition within marriage has been approved by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Reverend Justin Welby, and the CofE’s bishops, and will be made public by the Bishop of Newcastle, the Right Reverend Christine Hardman.
She is head of the Pastoral Advisory Group, set up to try to reconcile differences between CofE traditionalists and gay rights activists.
This should really come as no surprise to anyone who has studied the history of the Church of England. Ever since the Elizabethan settlement the tradition in the Church of England has basically been “you may believe whatever you like as long as you remain loyal to the Crown.”
What this meant in practice was not only “you must remain loyal to the Crown” but also “you must therefore adapt the Christian faith to the politics, culture and customs of England in your day.” So, for example, if you visit Lambeth Palace–the London home of the Archbishop of Canterbury–you will see portraits of all his predecessors. The men from the 18th century are shown in the episcopal regalia and one is bemused to see they are all sporting the apron of the Freemasons. At that time the royal family and most of the English establishment were dyed in the wool Freemasons, so a large number of the Church of England clergy also belonged to the Lodge.
The same trends are there in every age in the history of the Church of England since the break with Rome, so it comes as no surprise that the Church of England is still trimming its sails according to the prevailing winds. It was interesting in my own experience in the Church of England when she was debating the question of women’s ordination to the priesthood. The argument was long, but sure enough eventually the old Anglican instinct to adapt to the culture and customs of the day prevailed. Women were ordained as priests and then bishops.
What is curious about the present situation is that the Church of England is now poised not only to accept the transitioning of married persons thus implicitly condoning what would seem to be same sex marriage, but how this state of affairs came about.
The current confusion about human sexuality in the Church of England actually has its roots in decisions taken some ninety years ago. In 1930 the Church of England was the first historic Christian church to condone the use of artificial contraception. This decision (following the Spirit of the Age) opened the way not only to all the abuses predicted by Pope Paul VI, but these abuses also led to a confusion about human sexuality.
The question “What is sex for?” must lead to the question, “What is a man?” and “What is a woman?” A man can only be defined as a father or a potential father. A woman can only be defined as a mother or potential mother. Artificial contraception distorts the meaning of the sexual act and therefore distorts the definition of man and woman.
Of course this confusion did not happen overnight. Thirty years later the sexual revolution blossomed. The pill was widely available and the sexual act became even more separated from procreation. At the same time the feminist and homosexualist movements gathered steam which added more confusion to the complex issue of human sexuality.
The move to ordain women as priests and bishops added to the swirling confusion already existing in society. The Church–which speaks for God–decided that the traditionally male role of priest and father was to be performed by women. Not long after the Church of England added to this confusion with an increasingly bizarre and ambiguous positions on homosexuality.
The decision to recognize and endorse this gender confusion–indeed to bless it–is only the next step in the Church of England’s wh0le sale abandonment of traditional views on human sexuality –and as all things Christian are connected–to the abandonment also of anything recognizable as historic Christianity.
How can I make such a seemingly outrageous (and unecumenical) statement?
It’s common sense really. If human sexuality is open ended, then this must apply across the board. If the gender fluid ideologists are correct then it doesn’t matter whether it was Adam and Steve instead of Adam and Eve. Likewise it doesn’t matter if Mary was actually Martin and Jesus was Jenny.
The fact is God created man and woman in his image. Adam and Eve formed the first marriage and in the fullness of time God sent forth his son, born of a woman (Gal. 4:4)
One has all the compassion in the world for people who are caught up in the present trend of gender confusion, and for their families.
But it doesn’t do anyone real favors to fudge the truth.