A list of Anglican Church of Canada clergy who support same-sex blessings

Posted on by
3

In January 2007 a number of ACoC bishops, clergy and lay people signed an open letter exhorting general synod to approve same sex blessings. Take a look at the list of people who signed it to see if your rector is there.

Here is the letter:

Living God’s Blessing

Anglicans of homosexual orientation have formally, by episcopal decision, been accepted as equal members of the Anglican Church of Canada since 1979. However, that acceptance did not include accepting any form of sexual expression for homosexual persons, who therefore have never been treated as equal, embodied persons. Though celibacy is understood in scripture to be a vocation (Matt. 19:12), it has been imposed on gays and lesbians, making it not vocation but compulsion, and denying them any sanctioned form of sexual intimacy.

The affirmation in 2004 by General Synod, the church’s highest governing body, of “the sanctity and integrity of committed, adult same-sex relationships” was a step towards real equality. However, since then, there has been a moratorium on further use of blessings outside New Westminster. In the face of the growing split in the Anglican Communion, General Synod 2004 referred the question of blessing same-sex relationships to the Primate’s Theological Commission. Its St. Michael Report has recommended that such blessings are a question of doctrine, but not of core doctrine. This means that General Synod will be able, in 2007, to affirm the blessing of same-sex relationships.

We believe that:

1. Silence contributes to the injustices experienced by gays and lesbians.

2. Truth, love and justice are biblical imperatives not to be jeopardized by clamours for unanimity disguised as “unity”. Unity in Christ, proclaimed as Lord, requires truth and justice for all.

3. We have the obligation to use reason to interpret scripture in the light of new knowledge and understandings.

4. It is unbiblical, unjust, ethically wrong, and morally unsound to impose celibacy on gay and lesbian clergy.

5. Because the core of the gospel message is covenant with God, with family, and with community, the covenants between same-sex couples should be affirmed and blessed by the church, as is the case for heterosexual couples.

The church has acknowledged the sanctity and integrity of adult committed same-sex relationships. Civil marriage for same-sex couples is now the norm in Canada. Thus it is time for the church to accept as valid all marriages performed in Canada, and to bless the marriages and unions of all who request such a blessing. This can happen while the discussion continues about the possibility of the solemnization of same-sex marriages in the church.

For anyone who doubts that the the Anglican church has abdicated its role of setting moral standards for society, pay attention to the last paragraph: the church defers to culture for ethical inspiration.

Here is a chart of the number of clergy who signed this by diocese:

Add an Image

The next chart is probably more interesting, since it show the percentage of clergy in each diocese that signed the letter. I had to estimate the total number of clergy in some dioceses, so, although it paints an interesting picture,  it isn’t 100% accurate:

Add an Image

As a coincidental twist of irony, Steve Hopkins from Niagara is a signatory of this missive; he is also introducing an Essentials event next Saturday where I am leading the worship. Delicious.

The murder of an abortionist

Posted on by
17

From the National Post

A Kansas doctor who was a controversial provider of so-called “late-term” abortions was shot and killed at his church on Sunday, local media reported.

The Wichita Eagle newspaper reported that 67-year-old George Tiller, a longtime target of anti-abortion activists, was shot to death as he walked into services at at Reformation Lutheran Church.

Police are searching for a white male who fled the scene after shooting Tiller with a handgun, local media reported.

Local television station KAKE said on its website that sources close to the investigation and the doctor confirmed that Tiller was pronounced dead at the scene shortly after emergency crews arrived.

Police Captain Brent Allred did not name the victim, but he classified the case as high-profile and said the victim has been the target of violence in the past, the station said.

Tiller’s clinic in Wichita has been the site of mass protests by anti-abortion groups and was bombed in 1985. Tiller was shot and wounded by an abortion opponent in 1993.

Abortions are generally considered late-term when they are performed after the 20th week of gestation on fetuses potentially old enough to survive outside the womb.

Since I believe life starts at conception, I also believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent human and is, therefore, wrong; a late term abortion is the most grisly and evil variety of abortion, since the baby is sometimes born alive and then killed or left to die and – even for those who do not believe that life starts at conception – is very clearly a baby.

So when a supposed doctor who performs late term abortions is murdered, how should Christians react?

From the perspective of executing temporal justice it is necessary to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s: it seems clear that only the state should mete out justice – particularly lethal justice. So the killer of George Tiller will have to face the penalty for doing what he probably believed the state should have done for him.

From a Christian perspective, even though Tiller’s killer will have to face state justice, could his action still be ethically justified? Some Christian pro-life advocates would claim that no life can legitimately be taken so their answer would be “no”; they see this as a mark of consistency. First, I think this view is faulty in that it fails to acknowledge the state’s legitimate role in punishing the guilty – a role that has biblical support (Rom 13:3 ff) – in order to restrain evil and maintain order. Even though countries like Canada do not have the death penalty, all countries at the very least incarcerate criminals and are prepared to use lethal force to protect their citizens: a person with a pro-life view that refuses to take a life ever would not be able to live in any earthly society without hypocrisy.

Second, if it is legitimate for the state to take a life in some circumstances, can it ever be for an individual? A convincing case was made by a Christian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, for murdering Hitler on the grounds that it would ultimately save lives and be a lesser evil than allowing him to live. Could the same argument be used here for George Tiller? The murderer might have thought so, but I think not for the simple reason that others will take Tiller’s place to continue his gruesome work; were that not the case, the lesser evil argument might apply.

A Roman Catholic Priest is Welcomed into TEC

Posted on by
1

Father Alberto Cutié has been enjoying a little slap and tickle more than his call to celibacy it seems:

Father Alberto Cutié, the Roman Catholic priest who has been a cause of some international scandal since captured on film cuddling his girlfriend, now his fiancé, on a beach, has been accepted into The Episcopal Church in the US. It is likely he will go on to become an Episcopal priest. As The Lead reports, Father Cutié and his fiance were received into the worldwide Anglican Communion by the Bishop of Southeast Florida, the Right Rev Leo Frade, a fellow Cuban.

It is worth noting that when an Anglican priest moves to Rome it is on principle: one may not necessarily agree with the principle, but at least it is not merely self-serving and usually such a priest represents the best Anglicanism has to offer. When TEC welcomes a Roman Catholic priest into its midst it is because he has disgraced himself in his own church.

Damian Thompson reckons this will damage relations between Roman Catholics and Anglicans.

It’s difficult to damage something that has already been systematically pulverised into small pieces by the likes of the ACoC and TEC, though.

What is the difference between Jesus Christ and Superman?

Posted on by
1

When I was but a callow youth I went to see the original “Jesus Christ Superstar” in London. I enjoyed it immensely; but, then, I also went to see “Hair” and enjoyed it just as much – I was not a Christian at the time.

The association of Jesus with a super-something is a beguiling notion but, actually, he is 100% human, 100% God and 0% Superman. As God he could have chosen to bring down fire from heaven, decimate his enemies and vindicate his followers. I confess there is a part of me that would like to see that but, instead, he knew his calling was to be that of the suffering servant, the Redeemer of mankind. By accepting the path that was laid before him he has shaped history and civilisation in a way that he could not have as Superman –  and  he has redeemed those of us that choose to accept him.

And so it is has been for the last 2000 years: those who have truly influenced the course of history have not been celebrities, winners of Britain’s Got Talent or even people who have been apparently successful; the real shapers of history have been people who have been prepared to sacrifice themselves for what they believe.

Interestingly, an evolutionary anthropologist has noticed this:

WHAT is the difference between Jesus Christ and Superman? The content of religions and popular tales is often similar, but only religions have martyrs, according to an analysis of behavioural evolution published this week.

When religious leaders make costly sacrifices for their beliefs, the argument goes, these acts add credibility to their professions of faith and help their beliefs to spread. If, on the other hand, no one is willing to make a significant sacrifice for a belief then observers – even young children – quickly pick up on this and withhold their own commitment. “Nobody takes a day off to worship Superman or gives money to the Superman Foundation,” points out Joseph Henrich, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.

Although I would not place the aggravation that ANiC parishes have been subject to at the hands of the ACoC in the same category as martyrs who have died or otherwise suffered for their faith, nevertheless, it is instructive to note the difference in ANiC and ACoC supporters. Those who support ANiC are often not paid and do so because they are passionately convinced of the rightness of its cause; those who are paid have placed their conviction above financial security. In contrast, ACoC bishops support their employer rather than the truth because their career, salary and pension are at stake; the moribund Federation are at home in the comfort of a familiar institution and the rest just follow like sheep.

And therein lies the difference that I believe will determine the final outcome of the current struggle.

Well, what exactly would Jesus do?

Posted on by
2

A popular 21st Century mantra for Christians attempting to construct a workable ethical framework for living is to ask “What Would Jesus Do?”

Tony Campolo illustrates the technique in this exchange:

“My problem is I want to do what Jesus would do.” “Could you get in a plane, fly over an enemy village and drop bombs?”

I said, “I could get in the plane. I could fly over the enemy village. But when I was about to release the bomb, at that moment I would have to say, ‘Jesus, if you were in my place, would you drop the bombs?'”

And I remember the colonel yelling back to me, “That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Everybody knows Jesus wouldn’t drop bombs?”

The problem is, this is the wrong question to ask. I have spent more than 40 years earning a living by programming computers – an essentially worthless endeavour other than its fortunate side effect of providing me with an income to support myself and my family. I fell into what passes for a career accidentally; had I said to myself 43 years ago, would Jesus spend most of his waking hours writing obscure digital code that would result in millions of people banging their heads on computer screens in frustration, I would have to have answered, “no”. That would have left me with another childhood ambition: being a train driver. Obviously, Jesus would not be a train driver, so I would be left with my only other ambition – to be a tramp.

In the context it is used, WWJD is a stupid question. So when someone like Campolo uses it to justify or condemn a particular action, I am immediately suspicious and inclined to do the opposite. And that is exactly my reaction to the BNP when they answer the question by  saying Jesus would vote for the BNP; if I did not already have enough reasons for not voting for the BNP, that would be the clincher – although it’s academic, since I live in Canada.

Michael Nazir-Ali has been unable to resist the temptation to wade into the BNP WWJD idiocy:

When we talk of a society built on Christian values, it is often misunderstood as a reference to intolerance, of exclusivity. The ultimate expression of this tendency comes in a campaign billboard, unveiled in March, which quoted scripture out of context, then posed the question: “What would Jesus do?” The answer given was simple: “Vote BNP.”

This was a clear example of using Christian-sounding words to promote a profoundly anti-Christian agenda. No one should be taken in by it. The policies advocated by the BNP are contrary to our belief that all human beings, regardless of race or colour, have a common origin and are made in God’s image.

Michael Nazir-Ali is right, of course, but if Jesus would not vote for the BNP, who would he vote for? I remember, many years ago, Malcolm Muggeridge was asked for his opinion on the abysmally low voter turnout at general elections. He gave a typical Muggeridge response: he said that people who don’t vote are the flower of the population. Although I can sympathise with his answer and understand why he gave it, I would not be prepared to defend it. Nevertheless, it gives us a clue as to whom Jesus would vote for: I think he would forget to vote altogether because he wouldn’t think of it as something sufficiently important to warrant his attention.

Couple Ordered to Stop Holding Bible Study at Home Without Permit

Posted on by
4

This is not in Communist China, it’s in San Diego:

Pastor David Jones and his wife Mary have been told that they cannot invite friends to their San Diego, Calif. home for a bible study — unless they are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to San Diego County.

“On Good Friday we had an employee from San Diego County come to our house, and inform us that the bible study that we were having was a religious assembly, and in violation of the code in the county.” David Jones told FOX News.

“We told them this is not really a religious assembly — this is just a bible study with friends. We have a meal, we pray, that was all,” Jones said.

A few days later, the couple received a written warning that cited “unlawful use of land,” ordering them to either “stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit,” the couple’s attorney Dean Broyles told San Diego news station 10News.

But the major use permit could cost the Jones’ thousands of dollars just to have a few friends over.

For David and Mary Jones, it’s about more than a question of money.

“The government may not prohibit the free exercise of religion,” Broyles told FOX News. “I believe that our Founding Fathers would roll over in their grave if they saw that here in the year 2009, a pastor and his wife are being told that they cannot hold a simple bible study in their own home.”

“The implications are great because it’s not only us that’s involved,” Mary Jones said. “There are thousands and thousands of bible studies that are held all across the country. What we’re interested in is setting a precedent here — before it goes any further — and that we have it settled for the future.”

The couple is planning to dispute the county’s order this week.

If San Diego County refuses to allow the pastor and his wife to continue gathering without acquiring a permit, they will consider a lawsuit in federal court.

A salutary wake-up call for Christians: our faith is under attack on all fronts. We are thrown out of our buildings and now we can’t even meet in our own homes.

In spite of being an incorrigable misanthrope, I have an overwhelming urge to hold a large bible study in my home.

Rowan Williams on Philip Pullman

Posted on by
3

Rowan Williams spoke at the Hay Festival in Wales – not far from where I used to live – and had this to say:

Philip Pullman helps understanding of theology, says Archbishop of Canterbury

Citing Pullman as one of his favourite modern writers, Dr Rowan Williams said he liked his work because it took the church “seriously” at a time when theology was “drifting out” of mainstream thought.

Pullman has been castigated by parts of the Roman Catholic church, particularly in North America, as many consider the trilogy His Dark Materials to be a veiled attack on it.

But, speaking at the Hay Festival in Wales, Dr Williams defended Pullman.

He said: “First of all he takes the Christian myth, or a version of it, seriously enough to want to disagree passionately with it.

When Rowan talks about the “Christian myth” one hopes that he means what C. S. Lewis meant in  Myth Become Fact. Since he didn’t actually mention that, though, I have an uneasy feeling he doesn’t.

It’s not just the RC Church that has criticised Pullman: he is a supporter of the British Humanist Association and an Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society, has been described as one of England’s most outspoken atheists and was described by Peter Hitchens as The most dangerous author in Britain. The only odd thing here is why Rowan Williams is so enamoured of him; Rowan goes on to explain:

Although he stressed he disagreed with Pullman’s atheistic view, he commended his “search for some way of talking about human value, human depth and three-dimensionality, that doesn’t depend on God.”

Merely to ask the question was important, he said.

He agreed with the thrust of Pullman’s novels that religious authorities must not silence the “demons” that people carry with them – the essential “internal conversation” between good and evil.

He said: “The threat in Pullman’s novels is the Authority – people like me in his imagination – which wants to divide the human spirit and cut off and silence that demonic voice, that voice of the imagination.

“And so you end up with these unforgettably poignant pictures of children who have had their demons taken away, who are just lifeless automata.

“And that’s evil, that’s the essence of evil.”

Here is a prime slice of Rowan muddle: human imagination, he says, depends on the presence of demonic influence and the essence of evil is the expunging of that influence – a bizarre view for a Christian. God is the author of imagination not a Screwtape-like dialogue; to labour under the illusion that the demonic is an intended part of the human spirit that must remain for a person to be truly human, is a thoroughly sub-Christian view.

He concluded: “I feel that that awareness of the inner conversation, the inner dialogue, that has to be part of a sensible, credible modern dialogue about the soul.”

This little insight does explain Rowan’s preoccupation with “conversation”: he has one running in his head all the time.

Dr Williams made his comments about Pullman after telling the Hay audience that he thought theology had become less relevant to the “intellectual mainstream” since the 19th century.

Well, no wonder.

The New Westminster and Niagara trial updates

Posted on by
3

The diocese of New Westminster is reporting on the trial between it and ANiC to determine ownership of church properties. This update on the Niagara court proceedings was at the end of the day 3 report:

In another legal matter involving the Anglican Network in Canada, in the Superior Court of Ontario, Madam Justice Jane Milanetti awarded leaders of three dissenting congregations to pay $75,600 in court costs after the failure of their attempt to obtain exclusive use of buildings in the Diocese of Niagara in Ontario, until a trial could be held.

The case had been heard in March of 2008. The diocese had offered to share the buildings, Judge Milanetti noted in her judgement, “an offer substantially better…than my ultimate order.”

After the judge ruled in May of 2008 that the buildings must be shared, the Network parishes decided instead to leave. The parishes were St. George’s Lowville, St. Hilda’s Oakville, and the Church of the Good Shepherd, St. Catharines.

“Despite my order that the parties share the properties, the respondents have apparently chosen not to do so. I have learned that they opted to incur additional costs to worship elsewhere. Although that is clearly their prerogative, those additional expenses (despite their argument based on same), cannot and will not be considered by me in this decision,” she wrote in her decision on costs made public Wednesday (May 27).

Not entirely accurate. In St. Hilda’s case, we did not decide to leave: we worship at a school on Sundays since the diocese was given the building at the time we hold our services. During the week we are still in the building and run ministries out of it.

Initially the diocese offered to relieve us of the keys to our building, not to share it; once they realised they weren’t going to get them, as a second best option, they did offer to share it. Considering that we believe the diocese to be heretical, sharing the building with them made little sense; if we could amicably share the building, we would not have had to leave the diocese in the first place. The first trial judge, Ramsay recognised this and gave us exclusive use of the building.

The subsequent “sharing” has been little more than a ploy by the diocese to create a perceived need for the buildings to house their congregation; in actual fact they only have around 5 people – imported from another church in St. Hilda’s case – attending Sunday worship in the Niagara churches; their true interest is the value of the properties.

Repentance-lite from the WCC

Posted on by
2

The World Council of Churches calls for repentance at Pentecost

Repentance in today’s world will involve:

·Corporate managers recognizing their errors, publicly confessing them and making reparation.

·All of us who are responsible for the degradation of the ecosystem mending our ways and making efforts to reduce all forms of pollution.

·Those who instigate violence being encouraged to become gentle and tolerant, consistent with our prayer that the ecumenical “Decade to Overcome Violence” which is drawing to a close will not have taken place without having some impact upon us.

The repentance proclaimed by Christ and strongly restated at Pentecost is a force for spiritual transformation, for change and for renewal. Human beings must seek to be reconciled with themselves, with one another, and with their environment, and churches too must go on seeking reconciliation. This is the challenge of our gospel of reconciliation, and it is raised again this year in the United Nation’s International Year of Reconciliation, 2009.

May we all find the strength and the will to give new meaning to the claim, “Yes, we can!” Anything is possible for those who believe.

This Obama inspired “yes we can” repentance is easy on those of us who are not violent, corporate manager eco-system degraders; and I spent 3 minutes reconciling with myself over coffee this morning, so all is well.

Notably absent is any mention of sin, which is a considerable relief since, as far as I am concerned, it is the one thing that actually does give me some trouble; someone should have told St. Paul about this.

But let’s continue giving evil corporate managers a rough ride: public confession and humiliation for trying to make a profit, a show trial at the UN and forced re-education at an Anglican Poverty Justice Camp should straighten them out.