From here:
The Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) has urged the Anglican Church of Canada not to amend its marriage canon (church law) to allow the marriage of same-sex couples, saying such a move would “cause great distress for the Communion as a whole, and for its ecumenical relationships.”
The IASCUFO’s statement came in response to a request from the Canadian church’s Commission on the Marriage Canon for an opinion about proposed changes to Canon 21 that would allow for same-sex marriages. Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary general of the Anglican Communion, decided IASCUFO would be the “most appropriate” body within the Communion to deal with such a question.
The Anglican Church of Canada has the prerogative “to address issues appropriate to its context,” the IASCUFO said, but it noted the ramifications of “a change of this magnitude” for the Communion and its ecumenical partners. In a letter addressed to Canon Robert Falby, chair of the marriage canon commission, IASCUFO members said they were unanimous “in urging you not to move beyond your present policy of ‘local option,’ ” which allows dioceses to choose whether or not they will offer same-sex blessings. They noted that the absence of a General Synod decision about the blessing of same-sex unions or same-sex marriages “has given space for the rebuilding of fragile relationships across the Communion.”
When deciding whether to allow the blessing of same-sex civil marriages, the ACoC delegated downwards: the ever slippery national church has made no statement that unequivocally gives its approval for same-sex blessings, yet it doesn’t censure individual dioceses that do. In this way, the ACoC nurtures the hope that it will not be held accountable for the chaos created by its sexual agenda.
I’ll be interested to see how the ACoC attempts to wriggle out of accepting responsibility for continuing with the marriage canon discussions; there aren’t enough conservatives left in the dwindling denomination to prevent the almost inevitable marriage canon change, yet there can’t be a local option marriage canon.
Perhaps the church will abdicate its responsibility by exiting the marriage business altogether.
Sad to see any organisation fall into the hands of trolls.
Actually, getting out of the ‘marriage biz’ might be a concrete solution.
Jim, yes that seems to be an increasingly popular view.
It seems to me, though, that it is the act of a church which has lost the will to fight on this issue – a capitulation to the age; the same view is prevalent in ANiC circles.
Surely one of the most significant things in a person’s life, an undertaking that was instituted by God, should be a part of the church’s life?
What could be more central to a Christian community than marriage? What’s next, Baptism?
We do not have the wisdom to “prune” our faith traditions. Call it what it is -hacking.
Many believers never get married. Paul even suggests that it is better to remain single. The focus of a Christian community is Jesus, not marriage.
The focus of a Christian community is faithfulness to Christ’s teachings. Unfortunately, some don’t take that as a priority because “If it (salvation)really was contingent on not sinning again, I think that we’re all hooped.”
The relationship with Christ is abject penitance combined with the elation of hope. It is ongoing, daily, moment by moment.
Sin is not a sports metaphor joke and neither is Christ’s agony on the cross for our absolution.
I don’t quite follow your comment… my point was that marriage is not central to a Christian community as many Christians choose to remain single. I was not debating the definition of marriage but responding to your comment on the centrality of marriage to our faith.
Since you seem to be merging comments from multiple blog postings, let me ask you a question: Have you sinned since becoming a Christian? The obvious answer is yes. Thankfully, God’s forgiveness is big enough to cover this. Sin is serious but to think that if our salvation is based on never sinning again, we are hooped (this means screwed or out of luck… I was not making a basketball analogy). My protestant background emphasizes that salvation is based on faith, not works. So despite my inadequacies or failures, I can be assured of my salvation in Christ. I think we are saying the same thing but just emphasizing the two sides of the same issue. You focus on the repentance while I am stressing God’s willingness to forgive. Both are needed.
We are not on the same page and I suspect not in the same book.
Do not assume that forgiveness is automatic. The ‘go and sin no more” is not a quaint suggestion. A half hearted soul searching will uncover myriad sins of commission and omission. But we are required to even be pure in thought as well as word and deed. At its best this is a moment by moment spiritual dialogue with Christ,
I can only marvel at God’s forgiveness of my sins, but I am responsible for desperately seeking to eliminate them. Otherwise, I would not be sincere in asking for forgiveness, and the Lord can tell me to go and sell all that (you) I have and follow me knowing that I would only be paying lip service to repentance.
Let the dead bury their dead.
We really are saying the same thing… you are just reading into my comments too much… and I am probably doing the same to you. (1 John 1:6-10 sums up what we are both saying).
Back to the actual discussion of this thread, I’d like to hear your opinion on what you think of Christians who choose or end up not marrying. Since you claim that marriage is central to Christian community, are you suggesting that non-married believers are lacking something in their faith? This is perhaps where we differ. I believe that marriage (between a man and a woman) is a good thing but not necessary for believers (see 1 Cor 7). As such, I do not see marriage as central to my faith and disagree with your original post.
Marriage is indeed central to society particularly to Christians. Tragically we are witnessing within the ACoC and the TEC a movement to follow in the footsteps of public opinion which means downgrading marriage into nothing less than simply co-habitation regardless of any Christian commitment or adherence to the authority of the Word. Christians should indeed exchange their vows before the Lord and having a genuine commitment to Christian ethics and beliefs should be mandatory. Otherwise marriage in the church and before our Lord is nothing but a sham. The ACoC and the TEC need a thorough housecleaning with ALL apostate clergy being removed from office
How about we have a clean schism and sail our separate ways? I wish the rest of the Communion well. I wish ANiC well. I’ll wave to you from the bridge of the ship as I sink. 🙂
To my friend Vincent, it is not you or I who are sinking…………..it is the CoE in all its many expressions. It is a failed experiment. Period. The ACoC has been taking on more water than the Edmund Fitzgerald. And I am trying to be a charitable as I can.
I know you believe that. My point is I will gladly go down with that particular ship.
Mind you these days I worpsip at a Lutheran church, for practical reasons, but those guys are sinking too according to you guys. Which is fine.
All churches are one generation away from extinction, unless they start evangelizing the world.
Michael, at the risk of being considered an alarmist, might I suggest that Christianity is being attacked from all fronts. Having said that, my AnaBaptist friends tout growth in just about every province in Canada. And also my Eastern Orthodox friends as well. The reason falls to teaching, tithing and culture. Without those three………they might suffer decline as well.
Lord George Carey (a former Archbishop of Canterbury) said: “Christianity is just a generation away from extinction in Britain unless churches make a dramatic breakthrough in attracting young people back to the faith” (The Telegraph, November 18, 2013).
Well, these days the churches who are doing well are the ones preaching the imminence of the End. People are bewildered and terrified by the world, and they love being told there’s a good reason they feel that way. So if you don’t tell them they have to get their house in order NOW or they’re hellbound in about two shakes of a duck’s tail, they don’t think you’re doing religion seriously.
Fair enough, I guess. Just not my thing. 🙂
The Eastern Orthodox don’t even include the Book of Revelation in their Bible, I think.
Jim Muirhead brings up a valid point. One that I have from time to time considered. The ACoC has shown signs many decades ago of being just that…………a Congregational construct. Low, broad, high…………..what the heck is it. Now, sadly we are reaping the benefits. I jokingly said to a friend of mine, a member of the ELCA, that soon ‘we’ will be known as the Luthercan Church of Canada.
I t depends on which denomination of the Lutheran Church you are talking about.
The sea change is well underway. I also detect a definite trend to Congregationalism.
Bon voyage!
In an effort to clarify, I will once again suggest that the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada now, you should pardon the expression, is imbedded in with The Anglican Church of Canada. Hence my observation that in ‘our’ lifetime what is left of the ACoC, will be known as the Luthercan Church of Canada. Members of the ELCoC tended to build larger buildings and seem to have a more manageable view of real estate. The catholic expression is all but dead leaving the charismatics and the evangelicals holding the fort.
I find your perspective interesting… especially the point on larger buildings. I tend to think this as a negative for a church as it makes them less flexible both in terms of finances and in terms of the ability to adapt to a changing culture (and I am not referring to beliefs). I know that mega-churches were a big craze about 10 years ago but I get the sense that smaller churches (and therefore smaller congregations) are more effective as they provide genuine opportunities for relationships.
I also find your last sentence very interesting. My impression was that a “cathlo-evangelical” expression was growing. Perhaps its my circles but I keep meeting people from evangelical circles (both within the ACoC and outside) who are experimenting with ancient practices and liturgy. Perhaps different “trends” are occurring in different regions across the country.
I’ve been busy, but want to say in response to the original posting that the “local option” always was a bridge far too far. All it really means is that what is grossly sinful in some places is good and godly in others.
For what it is worth………….that is the price one has to pay for the so called via media construct. It’s really a euphemism for chaos.
A little puzzled by your reference, Jim. The via media is not a construct, except in modern thinking, to the perverse effect that since I am Anglican whatever I think or do is Anglican. Not Cranmer, not Elizabeth I, not Hooker, not even J.H. Newman who failed to understand that Hooker was thoroughly Reformed, could have been anything but appalled by homosex. The Elizabethan settlement is alive and well all over the world, especially those parts of it which used to be coloured red on the map.
Be puzzled no more. I simply offered what I believe to be an honest observation of ‘the situation’. Actually, the ‘via media’ is a construct who’s time has come and gone. As is the ACoC. The current Bishop of Rome speaks volumes as to the ‘human condition’. Human sexuality matters not as one takes the ‘journey’ as I am wont to call it. Who am I to speak on behalf of God.? Let God do the talking and me do the listening.
I think it more important to be a Christian first than a denomination.
The Church of England in all its many ‘expressions’ is a failed experiment. Period.
I wish those handful of ‘crew members’ well as they go down with the ship. But as for me I will retire to Bedlam.