From here:
Gay marriage has strengthened Canadian society, an Anglican Church leader visiting Dunedin’s St Paul’s Cathedral said yesterday.
The Very Rev Dr Peter Elliott, rector of Christ Church Anglican Cathedral, in Vancouver, preached in St Paul’s Cathedral yesterday.
His visit is part of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) under way in Auckland.
While he did not believe in commenting on a country’s domestic politics, Dr Elliott, who is gay, told the Otago Daily Times legalising gay marriage had increased respect and tolerance in Canada.
In actual fact, the crusade for normalising homosexuality in Canada has resulted in the suppression of free speech, intolerance for any view that deviates from the received dogma that homosexuality is a wholesome lifestyle choice and persecution of those who will not bow before the altar of sexual inversion.
As Michael Coren notes here, there have been between 200 and 300 proceedings against critics of same-sex marriage; the Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Fred Henry, was threatened with litigation and charged with a human-rights violation after he wrote a letter to local churches stating standard Catholic teaching on marriage; marriage commissioners have been threatened with losing their jobs if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages and a Knights of Columbus hall was fined for not allowing a lesbian couple to celebrate their “marriage” in the hall. Schools – even private schools – will, in all probability, be prevented from expressing their disapproval of homosexual behaviour.
Canada allows freedom of conscience on a person’s view of homosexuality, as long as the person is prepared to live with violating his conscience by not acting on it.
It fits his agenda, but I’m with you on the interpretation.
Dean Elliott is a wonderful Christian man and a courageous leader against the homophobic version of Christianity espoused by fundamentalist Anglicans.
I am offended by your comments.
Firstly, not all who appose the shift towards a more liberal attitude to human sexuality within the Church are homophobic. Could it not be for a variety of reasons of which homophobia is only possibly one? For example, I am apposed to it within the Church (I could care less about what secular society does with this) for scriptural reasons and for unity reasons.
I have decided that with controversial issues within the Church that scripture must have the final word, but perhaps I am even more apposed because of the split this issue can and has caused within the Church. We are family and we do not do things that split the family, no matter what our political correct friends think of us because in the end, when all comes crashing down on us, the only thing we Christians will have left is the family and God’s good grace. For those less than 1% of Christians who have chosen a homosexual lifestyle, well good for them. You are just not that special enough to split the Church over in my opinion.
Secondly, because of original sin, there is no such thing as a wonderful Christian. All people are depraved sinners in need of redemption, including you and I and Bishop Dean Elliot. If a Christian is “wonderful” it is through the merits of Jesus Christ alone and not because of anything a Christian does or says apart from the words “Jesus is Lord.”
Thirdly, I am to the point of rage when I hear people being called “fundamentalists” who appose anything the current crop of ecclesial bureaucrats have decided. I am not a fundamentalist in the way the word has been currently used. I do not believe in a literal interpretation of the six-day creation myth. I do not believe in a historic Adam and Even, the talking snake or Noah being swallowed by a big fish and surviving the digestive juices in its gut etc. etc. etc. but I do believe in the timeless didactic and moral merits of such stories. Heck, I even believe in a woman’s freedom of reproductive choice and I vote NDP. I am a moral conservative in terms of sexuality in what the Church should teach perhaps, which in my opinion is nothing to be ashamed of.
We live in two kingdoms, the religious and the secular and we can place ourselves in difficult waters when we try to mesh the two together in evey issue that arises.
If you believe in a woman’s freedom of reproductive choice then do you agree with a lesbian being allowed invitro fertilization in order to have a child with her legally married wife?
Many members of your NDP party would say yes.
I am sorry but I am not up on all current events. When did the Church start performing intro fertilization in its sanctuaries? When priests start doing the procedures, then you will hear more about this from me. The Church ordains and the Church performs marriages and that is as where I am. I do not have time for every thing that happens “out there,” nor could I care. People can marry and have consensual sex with alligators in the secular word for all I care, just not in the Church.
If you read my comments, so will see that I believe we live in two worlds, the profane and the holy. For example, I believe strongly in the words “blessed are the peacemakers” but they did not prevent me from serving six years in the Canadian Forces. I even have medals for being a “peacekeeper.” Why did I join the Forces? Well mainly, because they have such cool toys to play of which only a fraction are designed to kill. But when Lutheran pastors start commanding armies attacking the local Alliance congregation, then that is a different issue.
Oh, yes, bring on the totally reductive approach to personhood and parenting, Sanctimonious! Why should consideration for the child’s interests enter into the discussion when there’s so much at stake where needy lesbo-mommies are concerned?!
You cannot be a Christian and a relentless promoter of homosexualism, Savorless.
“Fundamentalist Anglican”? Surely that must be an oxymoron!
Not in the sense it is generally used – and is being used by Savant above – as a term of abuse, a theological swearword.
As J. I. Packer says of the word “fundamentalism”:
“According to this article, CIBC thinks the huge amount of household debt in Canada and the beginning cracks in the housing bubble are nothing to worry about. The main reason for this benign assessment seems to be that there have been a few other credit and real estate bubbles in the world that have grown even bigger than the US one before it burst. What a relief.” — Peter Tenebrarum
http://www.acting-man.com/?p=20331
No, if I was going to use a swear word on this blog, it would not be a theological one. I can think of better ones to use here on this site than fundamentalist.
Savant & SLF,
Abortion is immoral and it is murder. You cannot reconcile abortion with Christianity. Jesus was for life not opposed to it. Never, never, never would Christ continence the destruction of the soul in a mother’s womb.
No, you can only murder people and the fetus is not a person.
In Exodus 21, it clear that the writer did not see the fetus as person either. In one passage, it says if you attack a pregnant woman and she dies, then there is a certain prescribed punishment. “And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
In Leviticus 27:6 a monetary value was placed on children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value). Likewise, in Numbers 3:15 a census was commanded, but the Jews were told only to count those one month old and above – anything less, particularly a fetus, was not counted as a human person
But when pastors start performing abortions on our communion tables, then you will hear me growl more loudly.
Balderdash. Never have I heard anyone try and use scripture to defend the murder of innocents. Reconcile your anti-life rhetoric with Jeremiah 1:5 or with Psalm 139:13. Christ himself proclaims in John 10:10 that I come that you might have life and have it abundantly. No my friend you will never convince me that the womb should ever be a tomb.
Never before? Well I guess there is a first time for everything. By the way, I am only saying what the bible says. If you have issues with that, take it up with the Holy Spirit.
I find your over-dramatic language humorous…. the murder of innocents, okay whatever rhetoric you choose is you exercising your freedom of speech and I will not get in the way of that.
Abortion laws will not change in Canada because the Supreme Court of Canada made its ruling saying that limiting a woman’s right to freedom of reproductive choice contravenes her rights as person. The foetus according the Supreme Court has no rights, because it is not a person. Conservative party members who are pro-lifers know they cannot change the laws no matter what they do or believe because of the ruling of the Supreme Court. They cannot pass laws that contravene the ruling of the Courts. They know that but they continue to use this issue as a way of getting support both financial and electoral from people who cannot except the fact that they lost this battle.
If we elect an entire House of Commons full of pro-lifers and appoint a Senate full of them, any law restricting a woman’s right to freedom of reproductive choice will get struck down in the first court where and when it is challenged.
Forcing a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy is a losing battle. History is full of recipes for terminating an unwanted pregnancy dating back as far as when we used to paint pictures of now extinct animals on the walls of caves.
Rich women in Canada will fly off to some country where they get the procedure done and pay for it with their credit card. Poor women will go to some back ally butcher and maybe even die. Rich women will to continue to live and poor women will continue to die.
Some people just cannot get over the fact that women will actually have sex for pleasure, will choose to exercise free will and want control over their own bodies.
You make abortion sound like a sacrament.
SLF, I must take issue with your arguments here.
Your texts from Leviticus and Numbers are classic examples of “non-sequiturs.”
In Leviticus 27, a monetary value was placed on various members of the nation. The value varied from person to person, and I don’t think it necessarily follows that the value assigned had anything to do with the actual degree of personhood of the assignee. In other words, that a man between 20 and 60 was any more a person in God’s eyes than a woman or a younger man. Would it have been less wrong to murder a woman or a younger or older male than a man in his prime? Certain people may be more economically valuable, but no more or less persons.
In Numbers 3, a census was commanded, and the minimum age, for a reason we do not know, was drawn at one month. But it cannot be assumed that that age limit necessarily referred to a dividing line between person and non-person. We just don’t know why it was drawn there. In Numbers 1, another census considered only men over twenty. Granted, we do know the reason for this cut-off, but just because there were parameters for a census, it cannot be assumed that those outside these parameters were not considered people.
Exodus 21 is translated differently in various versions, but the original language can just as easily be taken to mean that if the woman delivers prematurely, but the child lives, the punishment will be less severe than if the child dies. If the child dies, there must be, “…life for life.”
All this just to say there is an alternative case to be made, and, “…what the Bible says” must be carefully examined, and not just assumed to support our particular point of view.
Savant: here in Vancouver, gays and lesbians are not allowed to park in the handicapped-only spots, unless they have a blue sticker. Is this not also homophobia?
I suggest it is not: there are time-honoured rules restricting who can park in the handicapped-only spots, and those rules apply to gays and straights alike. In the same way, there are time-honoured and scripture-based rules restricting who can be joined in marriage, and those rules apply to gays and straights alike. If a couple does not fit those rules, they should not be married in the church. That does not mean that we hate those people.
And by the way, when Safeway says that I can’t park in the handicapped spot (even though it would be very convenient on a rainy day such as this) I don’t feel hated by them.
Comparing homosexuality to those physically or mentally disadvantaged…good one buddy. Just proves my point.
What point? Just because you have one doesn’t make a valid one.
My point is indeed valid. You just compared the laws of handicapped parking to the laws of not allowing two people to be married in a church because they both have the same set of chromosomes. If the law of the nation permits gays to legally be married and the same government laws allow those with physical disadvantages permission to utilize specialized parking, than any religious organization should not expect to be exempt from government taxation which is a law of the land.
Any church which denies legal rights to individuals should reject special legal exemptions from taxation. If you accept no taxation, than you are no different than those lazy jerks who park at Safeway in the handicap parking.
Ha! Now you’re all over the place. I merely asked what your original point was and you launched into another completely different area regarding tax exemption.
I can’t pretend to speak for Michael D on this, but the sense I got from his argument pertained to the concept of whether an organization had a right to set rules and whether we should feel entitled to be exempt from them for no other reason than that we felt like it. Handicapped parking refers to a man-made rule. Marriage refers to God’s.
Your monicker, “Savant” connotes a thinker, a philosopher, a sage, a scholar: all difficult to reconcile with your posts.
Methinks thou art misnamed.
Wow John K…someone can have more than one point in a single conversation?!?! Who would have thunk it?
Actually Savant, read my metaphor more carefully: the parallels are as follows:
Privileges: get married === park in the H zone
. . . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . .
Privileged: heterosexuals === handicapped people
So my metaphor sets up a parallel between heteros and handicapped people, because under the old regime, they were similarly privileged. Your response is, I am afraid, typical of many ‘liberals’ (whoever they are): very committed to opinions, but less committed to the rationale behind the opinions.
Reply
Although this blog posting is not about abortion, it seems to have evolved in that direction. I will insert a small historical note that Christians have stood against abortion from the very earliest days, even though abortion was widely-used in the Roman empire.
We stand against abortion as we stand against all other manner of violence, particularly opposing violence against those who are notably vulnerable: the handicapped, the poor, racial minorities, gays, lesbians, children, women. Yes, yes, I know that a lot of men are vulnerable too.
There is a cost to taking a stand against the Establishment, and pro-abortionists are certainly the Establishment in Canada. But
Christians have been taking such stands for 2000 years, so we stand in solidarity with the saints who preceeded us.
I note with interest Peter Elliot’s ideological point of view…hardly Anglican. I am also curious why the ACC-15 took up a highly radical feminist agenda regarding domestic violence. The MRA’S must be very angry with this apparent lack of dialogue about latest academic findings regarding gender based violence, especially in the west.
Given all the criticism regarding the sexist and shabby anti male diatribe of the so called “White Ribbon” campaign I am amazed that the ACC-15 endorses the campaign with such reckless abandon.
The adoption of such feminist principles is of great concern and merely adopts the sophistry of platitudes and rhetoric. Hardly Anglican and Christian?
Comment on an article that lesbian civil unions are considerably more likely to end in divorce than gay-male civil unions or (traditional) marriages, according to a study of Norway and Sweden http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/06/lesbian-divorce-shocker/#ixzz2BOZr3eNq
“No big surprise. Women initiate over 3/4 of the divorces in American marriages, and probably induce a good bit of the other.
The reasons for it aren’t complex. For obvious evolutionary reasons, men are naturally polygamous–sex with anything that moves–women naturally hypergamous–sex with the best man available at a particular time. The old mores constrained, shamed, sanctioned both these tendencies to try and enforce lifelong fidelity, for raising children and turning male labor from mate competition to productive use. (Basically the definition of a civilized society is one that does this—sets things up so male energy does productive stuff. That’s why we have indoor plumbing, jet airplanes, the Internet. Unciviled societiescultures map pretty much one-to-one with promiscuity, males preening, fighting, mate guarding and chasing tail.) Now in the new mores, only the male tendency is shamed, the female one–which is basically serial monogamy–is celebrated.
When most guys sign up for marriage they are willing to trade chasing polygamy for the benefits. They tend not to bail unless either a) they determine they really need to enjoy another woman (and even then they often don’t bail, don’t even want to bail, but just go for it) or b) their wife is making their life too unpleasant. Women on the other hand will marry in the natural course when the man seems like a “catch”, and then start looking (usually after about one breeding, when the child no longer requires constant supervision, say age 5-8) again, especially if they man no longer seems like a catch.
Now lesbians aren’t normal women but i think a similar structure applies. If a woman isn’t haaaaaappy it’s her partner’s fault, and out heshe goes!”
Apparently the picture’s not better with respect to gay male civil unions, where it seems lower divorce rates don’t necessarily indicate great fidelity to a partner. The rate of fidelity may be as low as 3%, according to an article in The Apologist.
“The quote below is part of a pdf which goes into some pretty ugly statistics about the less told side of homosexual sex. There is a lot about the physical damage and the bacteria, viruses, STDs, etc (79 footnotes in 14 pages, not bad). This snippet below focuses on the number of sexual partners that homosexuals typically have. To break it down, if you have 33 homosexual friends who have been gay/lesbian for awhile, statistically speaking only one of them has been monogamous (with one partner). 7 of those 33 will have between 100 to 500 sexual partners in their lifetime.
Baring a complete re-definition of marriage (which is what many, including myself, are convinced is taking place) this data suggests that the popular view of a monogamous same-sex marriage is absurd from a homosexual perspective. Of the homosexual populace, less than 3 percent even act monogamous. But so many more have been pushing for the right to marry. After reading these statistics, such a push seems inconsistent.”
http://eyeonapologetics.com/blog/2010/08/07/studies-show-that-less-than-3-of-homosexuals-are-truly-monogamous/
Actually Savant, read my metaphor more carefully: the parallels are as follows:
Privileges: get married === park in the H zone
. . . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . .
Privileged: heterosexuals === handicapped people
So my metaphor sets up a parallel between heteros and handicapped people, because under the old regime, they were similarly privileged. Your response is, I am afraid, typical of many ‘liberals’ (whoever they are): very committed to opinions, but less committed to the rationale behind the opinions.
I don’t know how to insert this comment where it belongs in the above thread.
Savant, the question of whether the concept of a “not for profit” organization is valid, is probably for another track. I have never been in a church whose income exceeded its expenses, so there is probably nothing to tax for most churches. Those on the church payroll pay taxes like everyone else.
The main advantage of charitable status is that donors can reduce their income taxes in proportion to the amount of income tax paid by the church employees.