Category Archives: Anglican Church of Canada

Anglicans synthesising muddle from the Bible

Posted on by
3

Canadian Bishop Sue Moxley had this to say about bible study at ACC-14:

We began this morning with Morning Prayer as we were to have a closing Eucharist at 4pm. The Bible Study focus was Mark 16: 1-8. One question was “If you were Mark, would you have ended with verse 8, or would you have ended the Gospel differently?” That was a nonstarter as some members refused to even think about tampering with the Gospel. The last question was “What will you be taking home to share in your churches about the Gospel of Mark or how Anglicans read the Scripture?” That discussion included the realization that Anglicans with different views of Scripture can read and share ideas together as long as no one thinks they have the only truth of the reading.

This approach to reading the bible is symptomatic of the muddle we find ourselves. It treats the bible as a thesis whose meaning is in question. Then, in using what appears to be a Hegelian dialectic of discussing thesis and antithesis, we come to a synthesis – an Anglican middle ground.

The problem is, the bible does not present a truth which changes depending on who perceives it or the culture in which it is read: it is a statement by a person – God – who had something particular in mind when he caused it to be written. When Bishop Sue says “as long as no one thinks they have the only truth of the reading” she is making at least two mistakes:

The first is that a reader of scripture can have a “truth of the reading”. It is the writer that has the truth of the reading and it is the reader’s job to understand that truth.

The second is the implication that if a reader firmly claims to have understood the truth that the writer was conveying, he is necessarily wrong. He could be mistaken, of course, but the purpose of discussing a reading is not to come to a middle ground of dissenting views, but to determine what meaning the writer intended.

Rowan Williams and most of the Western Anglican church is determined to find reconciliation through this kind of synthesising to a middle ground. It isn’t going to work.

The Anglican Church of Canada: the argument for Triad Marriages

Posted on by
2

One of the arguments that the Anglican Church of Canada uses for same-sex marriage is that a homosexual relationship can demonstrate the love that is found in the Trinity:

In the divine economy God is understood as Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit living in an eternal and divine relationship of love. Humankind is created in the image and likeness of God to live in relationship. The relationship is to love God, and to love others as God loves humanity. Marriage is to be an image of Trinitarian relationship and in the way God, in Christ Jesus, loves the Church.

A newer trend is “triad marriages”: 3 people marrying:

If you can think of a committed loving relationship that includes more than one person, then you’ve got a decent grasp of the concept. It’s not a casual escapade; the work needed to be in an honest, growing, healthy relationship rises exponentially when you increase to more than a standard couple. Thus, poly people are often very seriously committed to personal honesty, relationship integrity, and trust.

If the ACoC really takes its argument on the Trinity and same-sex marriage seriously, how much more so should it for triad marriages: after all, they have even more potential to demonstrate the love between the Trinity.

Coming next to an Anglican Church close to you: the marriage of those in committed long-term triad relationships.

Anglican Church of Canada: a predictable report on the theological justification of same-sex marriage

Posted on by
1

The entire nonsense it here for those who would like to subject themselves to it.

Interestingly, the preface contains the following:

Faith Worship and Ministry first sought, and then received, clarification from CoGS that the subject is the marriage of same-sex couples, not all legally qualified persons. The church wants to reserve the right to define for itself who the proper subjects of marriage are, rather than leave this to the state.

And buried inside we find this:

Canadian civil law has provided for the marriage of same-sex couples since 2005. The church, in applying the doctrine of marriage in this context, understands the purposes of marriage delineated in Paragraph 1 of the Preface to relate equally, though not identically, to these new circumstances. Such marriages provide for mutual fellowship, support and comfort. They are also open to the care and upbringing of children. For those who understand themselves to be so called, such a relationship provides an environment in which sexuality may serve personal fulfilment in a community of faithful love.

The second quote appeals to the state for creating the context where the ACoC is being nudged to accept all those who are legally married. By the time the preface was written, someone must have caught on to the trap the ACoC had set for itself: polygamy might be next.

So now the ACoC “wants to reserve the right to define for itself who the proper subjects of marriage are”. The reason for this is fairly simple: there are numerous ACoC homosexual clergy, relatives, friends and hangers-on who need to justify their behaviour and they don’t give a fig for future importunate polygamists whom they are quite prepared to leave out in the cold – heartless bunch.

The Anglican Church of Canada’s direction on same-sex marriage

Posted on by
4

Yes, the headline is same-sex marriage.

Just in case anyone has any doubt, the direction was elucidated at the Council of General Synod meeting held May 8-9:

Continuing from yesterday’s evening session, COGS members continued to discern what steps to take from the General Synod 2007’s assignments to the church around the issue of sexuality. Members had been asked to read FWMC’s Rothesay Report, which addressed one of these assignments: developing a theological rationale for same-sex marriage.

Note that we have moved from the stage of whether same-sex blessings are consistent with a Christian understanding of God’s purpose for sex, to coming up with a theological justification – excuse, really – for same sex marriage.

Since “same-sex blessings” has somehow, without warning, spontaneously morphed into “same-sex marriage”, some of the COGS attendees became restless:

Again, COGS members offered varied responses. Many were reluctant to bring forward a proposal about the revision of the marriage canon, and others commented that the church should concentrate on the issue of “blessing same-sex unions” as this was the concept considered earlier.

Fear not, a task force has been appointed to continue the – I can’t bring myself to say “conversation”, I really can’t – fuelling of the rampaging steamroller:

Ms. Marshall suggested that a small group of COGS members consider the next step for the conversations. The Primate, Archbishop Hiltz, further suggested that Bishop Colin Johnson, Lela Zimmer, and the Rev. John Steele form this group. The Primate reminded COGS that it was their responsibility to chart the path for discussions on human sexuality up to General Synod 2010.

Further:

“COGS considered the work that has been done in fulfilment of the resolutions of General Synod 2007 regarding sexuality and reached consensus that this is not the time to ask General Synod to amend the marriage canon to allow for the marriage of same-sex couples.”

The implication is that although “this is not the time”, the direction is set and the time is coming.

Next month the lawsuits will stop

Posted on by
Reply

It says so here:

Healing and Reconciliation Month

Dioceses and parishes are invited to observe a “Healing and Reconciliation” month starting on May 26, the National Day of Healing and Reconciliation, and concluding on June 21, National Aboriginal Day.

Now the ACoC has stopped abusing native children, are they also going to stop using the courts to abuse fellow Christians who happen to disagree with them?

Bishop Michael Bird  – are you listening?

Allow me to introduce my Church, the Entity

Posted on by
1

The  ACoC house of bishops loves, with gracious restraint, to take a dig at ANiC. Here is the first one, wherein ANiC is not only an Entity, but an Entity that is given to Self Identification. The intent of using the word entity is to emphasise that the ACoC views ANiC as separate from the Anglican Communion, even though it isn’t; and self identify implies an identity that is not recognised by others – whereas ANiC is recognised by the majority of the world’s Anglicans.

In response to a call for clarification of the status of entities who self identify as being Anglican, it was noted that the Archbishop of Canterbury has stated in writing that his office and the Anglican Communion Office recognize one ecclesial body in Canada as a constitutive member of the Communion, The Anglican Church of Canada. We affirm this statement. We cherish our Communion with the See of Canterbury and remain committed to the life and witness of the Anglican Communion in the service of the Gospel.

Dig number two is:

The House, responding to a question from the National Cursillo Secretariat, discussed the relationship with the Anglican Network in Canada, particularly as it related to leadership in Cursillo. It was noted that diocesan bishops have the authority to decide who may serve on Cursillo leadership teams. The House, with regret, is of the opinion that clergy and laity who are members of the Anglican Network in Canada (ANIC) should not be given permission to exercise a leadership role in the Cursillo Movement of the Anglican Church of Canada.

An act of pettiness odd in its particular singling out of Cursillo.  Although I am not too familiar with Cursillo, my understanding is that other denominations are routinely allowed lead Cursillo groups.

These messages brought to you by the Ministry of Inclusion at the Anglican Church of Canada.

Is anyone listening?

Posted on by
1

I remember in the 1990s I ran a program on my PC for SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence).

The idea was that SETI was listening to electro-magnetic energy from space to find intelligent life outside of earth; the program I ran was also running on many other PCs and analysed the data looking for a pattern.

This search for intelligent life is the origin of Rowan William’s Listening Process:

That the Instruments of Communion commit themselves to a renewal of the Listening Process, and a real seeking of a common mind upon the issues which threaten to divide us.

The problem is the inverse of SETI: anyone saying anything intelligible is ignored. Yet, this is Rowan’s hope for containing the chaos threatening the Anglican Communion. It is in vain: the ACoC and TEC are snakes and they are not listening: Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear. Ps 58:4.

Why the Anglican Communion Covenant is not going to work

Posted on by
Reply

There may be none left who doubt that, but for those who do, the following is instructive:

Canon Kearon stated that Rev Ashey was not qualified as his membership of the Church of Uganda was as a result of a cross-border intervention by the Church of Uganda in the United States, a practice which had been consistently disapproved of by the instruments of communion since 2004.

So far so clear. However, it was also drawn to Canon Kearon’s attention that another infringement of the requirements of the instruments of communion had been the continuance of the lawsuits against orthodox churches in North America by TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. The cessation of these lawsuits was a requirement of the Dar-es-Salaam Primates Meeting in 2007 as part of the compliance required of TEC and the ACoC with the Windsor Report and thus a condition for the re-entry of TEC and ACoC delegates to the Councils of the Communion ( they had been asked to withdraw from ACC 13 at Nottingham, but attended as visitors). How was it that TEC and ACoC had not complied with a requirement of the instruments of communion, yet had been readmitted, and that Uganda was not complying with the embargo on cross-border jurisdiction and yet its selected delegate was barred? The answer given that Uganda as a province had not been barred, only its delegate who was a product of cross-border intervention.

What comes across in all this is the lack of fairness and even handedness. TEC and ACoC are in constant breach of Lambeth 1.10, and by the secretary general’s own admission at the Saturday press conference, had in some cases continued to authorize same-sex blessings in defiance of the moratorium. They have not complied with the Primates’ call from Dar-es-Salaam to desist from lawsuits, but instead have increased them. Yet they are readmitted to full membership.

The group that is to decide on whether the covenant is to be adopted has made “cross border interventions” the unforgivable transgression in the mess that bedevils the Anglican Communion. The fact that the ACoC and TEC have not lived up to their part of the bargain by stopping the lawsuits and stopping the authorising of same-sex blessings is glossed over: also missing is the acknowledgement that the latter is what caused orthodox parishes to seek shelter in a different province in the first place.

The bias of the Anglican Consultative Council is clear: the ACoC and TEC receive a get out of jail free card.

Considering the duplicitous and slippery nature of both the ACoC and TEC, what is to stop them signing the Covenant while having no intention whatsoever of adhering to it? After all, that is how they have treated the moratoriums: they break them and attempt to conceal the fact by crouching behind meaningless concepts like “experiential discernment”; and the ACC smiles upon them benignly.

Why would we expect anything different with a signed Covenant? The best response we could hope for from the ACC would be a few tut-tuts, and then back to the main business of eco-justice networking, prophetic gender equality and singing appalling hymns.

The Anglican Consultative Council is doing the Discernment Group Jig in Jamaica

Posted on by
Reply

Three years ago the Anglican Church was invited to observe the ponderings of the ACC, but was not allowed to participate because of its wayward determination to bless same-sex couples. The ACC chairman, John Paterson, who obviously sympathises with the ACoC and TEC, indulged in some hand-wringing:

I was saddened personally by what took place at ACC13 in Nottingham. I chaired the session at which a vote was taken to “endorse the Primates’ request that ‘in order to recognise the integrity of all parties, the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the ACC, for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conference'”. Your representatives were not permitted to speak or to vote on that resolution. It was carried by two votes. The effect of it was to ostracise the American and Canadian representatives, who were forced to live apart and walk apart.

Now, however, all is forgiven and the ACoC and TEC have been welcomed back into the ACC’s bosom as a reward for behaving themselves and observing the moratorium on same-sex blessings. Apart, in the ACoC’s case, from the dioceses of New Westminster, Montreal, Niagara, Rupert’s Land, Ottawa and Toronto who are observing the moratorium through experientially discerning whether they should observe it by doing what they are not supposed to do. Or something. But the rotters in the Southern Cone are still intervening.

The conference will also consider the report of the Windsor Continuation Group (WCG). While organizers did not say what the delegates would be considering, Canon Kearon said that the report’s view of the three moratoria was that the moratorium on the consent to the consecration of a bishop in a same sex relationship had held, that the moratorium on the public rites of same-sex blessings had held by and large, but that cross-border interventions had not ceased but had gotten worse.

Canada’s lay delegate is delighted to be no longer anathema:

Canadian Anglicans are being greeted with warmth and stated relief that we are here to participate fully, and not suspicion or disgust as we experienced in Nottingham three years ago when we sat as observers)

And is in denial over the ACoC being a ‘problem’ – in a genteel Canadian way, eh:

Personally, said Ms. Lawson, “I have some concerns that I’m going to talk to people about and that is that the bulk of the responsibility for dealing with ‘problems,’ and I think the Canadian church is considered ‘a problem’ – although we don’t think so – [is] in the hands of the majority of primates, bishops and clergy of the Joint Standing Committee, which is being given increasing power….”

The hot topic at ACC14 is the Anglican Covenant which provinces will have to sign if they wish to be in with the Anglican in-crowd. Of course, by the time the Anglican Covenant sees the light of day and the ACoC has dithered over whether to sign it, the only people left in the church will be Marvin the Robot, otherwise unemployable assorted bishops and clergy, and three same-sex couples:

It would be up to two meetings of General Synod, the Anglican Church of Canada’s governing body, to decide whether or not the church should sign on to the covenant, a process that could take at least six years.

The Anglican Church of Canada Theological Commission's paper on Same Sex Hanky-Panky

Posted on by
1

The Primate’s Theological Commission has produced a new paper; it has taken 2 years to ferment and has now been released at full potency. Anyone wishing to be beguiled by the full brunt of its soporific charm can read it here;  it isn’t very long and the title, “Integrity and Sanctity”, gives the game away. The article itself appears to be little more than a build-up for the main event: a softening up of the audience.

This means that a relationship may have the potential for sanctity, but even a relationship that is specifically ordered toward the sanctification of its members is dependent upon whether or not they actively pursue holiness within that relationship. And since holiness consists in loving God, and loving God consists in doing God’s will, a relationship will be holy only to the extent that its members are doing God’s will.

In short, when we speak of the “integrity of every human person” and “the sanctity of human relationships,” we are speaking not of a quality inherent in ourselves, but of the destiny for which every human person was created – to become who we were made to be in Christ, in conformity to the will of God, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The quoted paragraphs illustrate the art of Anglican Ambiguity at its most refined: say something that could appeal to anyone. Nevertheless, I think the stage has been set: all that is missing is the paper that announces “God made me the way I am: gayness is a gift”. Once that appears, this paper’s “to become who we were made to be in Christ” will transport us to the finish line: same sex blessings coming to an Anglican church close to you in 2010.