Category Archives: Anglican Church of Canada

What is the Anglican Church of Canada's position on Abortion?

Posted on by
3

The number of abortions per year in Canada is running at about 105,000 or 30 abortions for 100 live births.

You would have to be forgiven for not knowing what the ACoC’s position is on this, because the ACoC has done its best to conceal its official views on abortion. From one perspective, this is strange, since the ACoC spends a considerable amount of time trumpeting its support for a just society –  informing us piously that Jesus himself was on the side of the oppressed – and conducting Justice Camps where backsliding communicants are sent for re-education. It is hard to imagine an act more unjust than the deliberate murder of an unborn child; but where are the clarion calls for justice from the ACoC? Silence.

Strangely enough, the Canadian Armed Forces site has a rare unequivocal statement by the ACoC:

Abortion is always the taking of a human life, in the view of the Church, and should never be done except for serious therapeutic reasons.

This looks promising, but where does it come from?

This site provides a clue:

The official policy of the Anglican Church of Canada is that “abortion is always the taking of a human life and, in our view, should never be done except for serious therapeutic reasons.”[12] It is common for “serious therapeutic reasons” to be interpreted very liberally, on the grounds that “both the rights and needs of women, and the rights and needs of the unborn, require protection.”

Footnote [12] points us to a page on the ACoC’s web site – now we are getting somewhere!

No we’re not:

Sorry! Page not found.

But this was at one time a sub-page of the “resources” page here:

Sadly, the “resources” page has, over time, devolved into Five Marks of Mission, Human Sexuality and New Beginnings. No room for 105,000 dead babies.

In spite of the ACoC’s reluctance to proclaim justice with a prophetic voice – or any voice – it is possible to glean a hint of where the ACoC stands from other sources. This one, for example (my emphasis):

Last October, REAL Women received an urgent request for information from the World-Wide Movement of Mothers, a pro-family organization based in Paris, France, with whom we work at the UN.

That organization had been requested to participate in the World March of Women 2000, which was being organized in Montreal.

We investigated the March at its request, and learned that it was being organized by La Féderation des Femmes du Québec, which advocates abortion on demand and lesbian rights.

We thought nothing more about the matter until early March of this year, when a pamphlet promoting the March 2000 was forwarded to us. We were shocked to read, according to this pamphlet, that the March had been endorsed not only by the usual assortment of radical feminist groups and the Canadian Congress of Labour (the latter spear-headed by pro-abortion / lesbian NDP activist, Nancy Riche), but also by the Anglican, Presbyterian and United Churches in Canada.

This from 1989 is of historical interest, but sheds little light on the church’s view today:

ANGLICAN CHURCH AFFIRMS ITS POSITION ON ABORTION

In the light of the Government’s announcement of a new Abortion Bill, the Anglican Church reaffirms its position that both the rights and needs of women, and the rights and needs of the unborn, require protection.

One would think that Eric Beresford,  the Anglican Church of Canada’s co-ordinator of ethics and interfaith relations, could provide some answers.  He can’t; he admits in this article that he has no idea whether abortion is right or wrong. Anyway, marginalization, poverty, and powerlessness are what matter – except when applied to unborn babies:

At this point it is interesting that the positions adopted by the Anglican Church of Canada have insisted on the moral significance and dignity of fetal life and on the importance of the rights and needs of women who are clearly recognized as the primary decision makers.

How can these be held together? Only by recognizing the social context in which the needs of each are brought into conflict. Abortion is not a private tragedy but, at least in part, a social issue in which women’s experience of marginalization, poverty, and powerlessness are all central factors which need to be addressed in any adequate response to abortion.

All of this goes to show that, in spite of all the breast-beating about justice, standing up for the oppressed and prophetic discernment, the leaders of the Anglican Church of Canada do not have the guts to take a clear stand on one of the most important ethical issues of the 21st Century.

What does the Resurrection really mean to Fred Hiltz?

Posted on by
3

The God-Man, Jesus was nailed to some pieces of wood and left to hang there until he was dead. During that time, he absorbed all the sins of the entire human race – including mine, which on their own are bad enough – and received the just punishment for them from his Father. Including being removed from his Father’s presence, a presence that he had experienced for an eternity before time even existed. He did this because he loves us and he didn’t want us to have to bear the punishment that we deserve, but he didn’t.

He died and was buried. Our sins died with him and he offers us redemption; as proof of this, he rose from death to life 3 days later. This had never happened before; it is evidence that we too will rise from death.

This article from the Anglican Journal by Fred Hiltz, Primate of Canada doesn’t mention sin; this is not particularly surprising, since the Anglican Church of Canada doesn’t much like to acknowledge that man is sinful, much less that real justice would demand that we be punished for our sin. The notion that Jesus was punished for our sin instead of us is complete anathema to the ACoC, since it flies in the face of the central tenet of the new religiosity experientially discerned by the wrinkled shamans of what used to be a Christian Church: All You Need is Love

In the Anglicans in Mission campaign in the early 1980s, we used prayers and messages about mission from partner churches. I shall never forget the message from the Church in Korea. It read, “The church should light the sacred candle of the resurrection, not merely through its preaching within its walls, but also through actions outside the walls of the church.  We should dedicate ourselves to the task of reviving conscience and justice which will bless us with a brighter, more just society.” That was wise counsel then and now.

For Fred, Easter means a more just society. Why do you think your churches are empty, Fred?

Anglican Luddites

Posted on by
7

Earth day is approaching and we are being urged to turn off our electric lights for an hour and light candles.Add an Image

The Connelly-Miller family light their candles at last year’s KAIROS Earth Hour worship service at the Church of the Holy Trinity in downtown Toronto.

What are you doing on March 28 at 8:30 p.m.? Kairos, an ecumenical social justice organization, is calling for Canadians to observe Earth Hour “as a symbolic pause to reflect on our use of fossil fuels, to think about the impact of our activity on people and ecosystems around the world, and most importantly, to pledge to make a difference – as individuals, communities, and as a nation.”

In 2008, 50 million people in 370 cities and towns, in more than 35 countries worldwide switched off their lights for Earth Hour.

This makes as much sense as most of the Anglican Church’s quixotic justice endeavours.

To make a candle, paraffin wax is melted to 190C by a man rubbing two sticks together to generate heat – well, actually the heat is generated by electricity. If we assume a 500W heater can heat enough paraffin wax to make 100 candles in 1 hour, each candle has consumed 5 Watt hours to manufacture. To light 20 candles in a church for one hour consumes 100 Watt hours. Not only that, the burning of the candle produces  water vapour and carbon dioxide. So the candles are increasing what latter day hobbits like to call our “carbon footprint”.

Alternatively, you could use the same energy and get more light by turning on five 20W low energy bulbs. But, of course, this is really about an anti-technology zeitgeist, not saving the planet.

How do Anglicans and Lutherans share office space?

Posted on by
Reply

The Anglican Church of Canada is proposing to share office space with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada:

Anglicans and Lutherans plan joint gathering, consider sharing office space

Sharing space for national offices in the future would result in a “huge cost saving,” said Archbishop Hiltz. But “this is not something that is simply driven by our current financial circumstances,” he added. “There’s no question that has some impact, but I really think that what’s driving it is the commitment that we made as churches in 2001.”

Possible scenarios for sharing office space haven’t been worked out yet, said Archbishop Hiltz. “A shared office might be that one office moves into the other or together we move into a brand new location and open a new office together. Or certain areas of ministry are centred out of the ELCIC office, and other areas of ministry of centered out of the Anglican office,” he said. “Who knows what could come of this? There could be an ecumenical office that could represent more than Anglicans and Lutherans.”

I am sure that the sweetness and harmony that exists between the Diocese of Niagara and ANiC in sharing parish buildings can be used as an archetype for sharing office space with Lutherans. One could ask for no more than the dissilient magnanimity displayed by the diocesan lawyer in this message of  inclusiveness and tolerance:

“that the Incumbents, Church Wardens and congregants now associated with the ANiC not attend or be present at the properties on Sunday, May 11, 2008 from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and each Sunday thereafter.”

In addition, the lawyer specifically asked us to post this “timely and direct communication” on the Anglican Essentials website, “requesting that members of the three ANiC congregations not attend or be present on the properties from 7:00 a.m. To 10:00 a.m. this Sunday and on subsequent Sundays.”

Lutherans, watch your back.

The connected Anglican

Posted on by
1

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who talk in restaurants in loud voices and those who don’t. Rev. Ian Dingwall is in the former category: I know – I’ve heard him.Add an Image

He also is someone who is offended by those in ANiC who have left the Anglican Church of Canada because they can no longer countenance being associated with an organisation that is going in the wrong direction. In the Niagara synod when this was plainly stated, Ian loudly declared, “that means you are saying I am not a Christian.” Very astute.

Being Connected is Ian’s latest article in the Niagara Anglican:

Begin with yourself. How well are you connected with your inner and outer self?

I have to admit, over the years, my outer self has expanded somewhat and consequently, so has the distance between the inner and outer selves. The connection, although more tenuous, is undoubtedly still there, since the outer self visibly wobbles in concert with the agitations of the inner self.

Connect with our Environment. No need to say more really but, if you wish to find direction, all you need is a newspaper or magazine to find out what we are suffering from its evil potential and, perhaps, what we can do about it: if only we’d connect with the problem and others who are concerned.

I am so connected with our Environment. Really. Although I have no idea what you mean by the environment’s evil potential. Are you referring to poison ivy?

Surely “to connect” is an invitation for us to critique our own lives as well as our fellow journeyers in Inter-Connectedness

Now this I understand. You obviously are referring to the Internet and blogs. I will do my best to critique my “fellow journeyers in Inter-Connectedness”. This article is proof.

Choose two people to engage with in a profoundly different way than simply being casual.

OK. So far I have my wife and my dog.

In both cases there will be much that you can do together as you search for some answers to the world’s dilemmas as well as how you can deepen your personal connection with each other.

My dog’s dilemmas consist mainly of selecting a pooping spot in the Environment that we are all so connected with. He tells me it does deepen his personal connection.

Ian, in the spirit of critiquing “fellow journeyers in Inter-Connectedness“ , next time you are in a restaurant, disconnect and shut up.

The Cuddly Christianity of the Anglican Church of Canada

Posted on by
7

In the latest Niagara Anglican, Michael Burslem has written an article which contends that every person is saved through Jesus atoning death whether he wants to be or not:

But even those of more ‘orthodox’ persuasion, I also believe, are wearing blinkers; both Catholics and Evangelicals. Catholics see no salvation outside the church; but means of salvation seems to be some pious action around the Eucharistic elements, which have some atoning value of their own, quite apart from the death of the Lord Jesus and His resurrection. Also Evangelicals, who see no salvation without a personal faith in Jesus, tend to make the act of believing a ritual to earn their personal salvation. Neither, I feel, see the total picture, and neither of them “get it.”

To defend a universal atonement I would have to say from the start that there is no other way to God than through Jesus, and His atoning death and resurrection. Nobody can claim to be saved by any other means. The work of salvation is done, finished and complete, not by us, nor by any other deity but the one and true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Apostles boldly proclaimed the Good News, “You have been saved by the precious blood of Jesus Christ.” Whether we acknowledge that fact by believing it, or not, is up to us, but I think it does not change our state of salvation, which is a gift from God. This indeed is Good News.

[…..]

We may have to rethink our cherished, entrenched positions, going right back to the Sermon on the Mount. Lent is that time of year when we assess, and re-assess, what we really and truly believe. I don’t claim now to see the picture any more clearly than I did forty years ago, but I shall never, ever, again tell anyone that they’ll go to hell unless they believe in Jesus as saviour.

At least the author, to his credit, does hold to the orthodox Christian idea that salvation comes through Jesus alone – but it comes to everyone: this is a Universalist position. It is one that fits conveniently with the ACoC’s preoccupation with other faiths: after all, if everyone is saved, following Jesus in this life isn’t a very compelling or necessary calling, particularly once it becomes a little inconvenient.

Universalism seems on the face of it to be appealing – it is nice, Canadian, even; but is it true? There seem to me to be a number of problems:

Jesus spent quite a lot of time discussing Hell: verses like this would be needless scaremongering if no-one is going to end up there:

“If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. [30] And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.” Matt 5:29ff

I had a long discussion with a theology student – who is a Universalist – on this subject. His main arguments were: God is too loving to consign people to Hell and, once confronted by God after death, no person would be able to reject Him. On the first point, Clark Pinnock, a Canadian theologian who is not a Universalist, opts for the final destruction of the wicked rather than their eternal torment. I’m not sure he is entirely convinced of this, but either way, I personally don’t wish to be snuffed out or tormented. On the second, if when a person finally meets his maker he has little choice but to accept the gift of salvation – it is thrust upon him – God will have removed his free will, one of the main characteristics of being made in His image. He might just as well have done this in the first place and not allowed us to sin at all. Whether we will all be given one last chance to accept or reject God is arguable; if we are, we will still be free to reject Him – and, after a lifetime of practice, I think some will. For it to be otherwise would render all that went before meaningless. God is loving; is removing a person’s ability to turn God down – to expunge that part of God’s image within us – a loving thing to do? I believe not.

The willingness of members of the early church to endure a gruesome death for the sake of holding fast to the Gospel makes little sense if all are saved. They were not Universalists, they believed that decisions made in this life effect one’s predicament in the next; this is why they had to tell others the Good News. If all are to receive the benefits of the Gospel, why did they have the urge to enlighten others in this life when there is an eternity for all to ponder it in the next?

Although Universalism may be a comforting idea, in the end it won’t be much comfort if it isn’t true – and I fear it isn’t.

Canadian Primate, Fred Hiltz, immanentising the eschaton

Posted on by
1

There are a couple of significant things about this clip from Fred Hiltz:

[youtube= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv_EdJRZge0]

First, he tells us that mission for Anglicans is not just about personal salvation. Having been a Canadian Anglican for over 30 years, were it not for the fact that I am a member of an evangelical parish, I could easily have missed the point that the Anglican mission is about personal salvation in any way whatsoever.

Second, Fred goes on to tell us that the Anglican mission is about much more than personal salvation and a relationship with Jesus: it is about transforming society to come under the just reign of God – a similar kind of theocratic utopianism to which Islam aspires.

I think Fred has neatly summed up one of the quintessential errors of the Anglican Church of Canada: for years the church has been focussing most of its energy on the “much more than that” rather than the apparently lesser issue of a person’s salvation. The perfect, just reign of God is going to come when Jesus returns but not before; it is a Christian’s duty to try to do what is right and to work justly in society, but placing this above salvation means setting the temporal above the eternal and making an idol of it.

As C. S. Lewis said in his wonderful essay, The Weight of Glory:

It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilization-these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit-immortal horrors or everlasting splendours.

There isn’t much more than that.

Train up a child in the way he should go

Posted on by
1

The Diocese of Montreal has just had a youth synod; some of the youth were interviewed for Vision 2019 and asked what they would like to see in the Anglican Church of Canada.

Recurring themes were peace, love and an absence and of conflict. Acceptance was a dominant motif with emphasis on acceptance of homosexuals. There seemed to be little understanding of the concept of accepting a person while encouraging a change of behaviour; the thinking appears to be that a person is what he does and therefore, accepting him includes accepting his behaviour.

This is an existential rather than a biblical view, and is one that has probably been absorbed by the children as a result of being immersed in the meandering relativistic ideology of the ACoC where inclusion and tolerance are idolatrously placed above God’s revelation of himself.

Sadly, the parishes that have left the ACoC are thought of as unwelcoming to those with same-sex attractions; it seems unlikely that the youth have ever been exposed to ministries such as the Zacchaeus Fellowship.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnWxMI8cHIA&eurl=http://www.anglican.ca/v2019/yourstory/stories/]