This month (February 2017) the Synod of the Church of England met to discuss whether or not the Bishops’ report – indicating that the church should continue to oppose Same-Sex Marriage – be accepted or rejected.

The question itself is of great significance, since a decision to uphold the report and to continue to oppose same-sex marriage would place the church in opposition to the law; yet the rejection of the report would represent a refusal to uphold the principles of the religion.  Whichever was chosen, the very fact that the question has been raised suggests that even the leaders of a religion do not agree on the interpretation of the teachings of the religion.  If the leaders of a religion cannot agree even amongst themselves on the meanings of the words which form the basis of their religion, then how can they expect to fairly judge and guide anyone with regards to their choices when following (or not) that religion?  If there is no agreement on the path to be followed – does that not suggest that there is no religion?  If the tenets of a religion can be doubted by others of that religion is there any common ground at all that can be considered the religion?

In the end, it was a close call but the report was rejected; the Church of England voted to no longer oppose same-sex marriage.

Had the report from the Bishops been accepted, then the Church of England would have maintained its adherence to scripture – in the face of an ever-changing world outside of that religion.  The Church would find themselves at odds with the social and political order of the day, a situation which should perhaps cause the Church to question its role.  If the principals of religion dictate that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and yet the laws of the land impose that it should be otherwise, then the Church cannot reasonably support the law and should be decried by the government of the day as being ‘outside of the law’.

On the other hand, the rejection of the report indicates a belief within the church itself that the original teachings are perhaps not as fixed as they have hitherto been considered.  After all, if you reject adhering to the original teachings and accept that a religion can be adapted from this position, then it must surely follow that the original teachings cannot be considered immutable.  Where you go from there, is of course up to you:

• if the teachings are not immutable then god is not infallible, therefore religion should not be followed blindly….
• if the teachings were appropriate for the time but now that times have changed so should we, and therefore religion should not be followed blindly…
• if our previous interpretation was incorrect, then it follows that humans are fallible, therefore we should question what we are told by religious leaders since they are only human…
• if our current religious leaders are mistaken in their judgement, then the path they ask us to follow can be questioned, therefore we should not follow them blindly…

In reference to the question concerning departure from scripture or otherwise; it may perhaps be useful to quote scripture:

Galatians – Chapter 3, Verse 28 (King James Bible)

“There is neither Jew no Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

My own personal interpretation of this verse is that if there is neither male nor female, then there is no distinction between the two and thus there can be no requirement that marriage be only between one of each, as any such requirement would infer a distinction.  (When extrapolated, the same of course applies to homo & heterosexuality, as it does to all people of all colours, all types and all abilities.)

There does remain of course the possibility that this entire process was one that a god intended; having foreseen that a point would come whereby the human culture and the religious culture would diverge, and thus having created the religion and the human culture in such a way as to provoke this very debate…but to what end?  Who knows?  However if the timeline of our lives is already set (if only to the extent that this outcome has been predicted) then this denies humans [the perception of] free will – which in itself contradicts the teachings of religion.  However, that is another topic…