Fred Hiltz’s presidential address at General Synod

Posted on by
4

Unsurprisingly, changes to the marriage canon occupy a significant portion of the address.

Also unsurprising is that there is a clear undercurrent that Hiltz favours the change. Hiltz would have us think that the important thing is not so much whether same-sex activity aligns with how God expects us to behave as revealed in the Bible, but whether the two sides can hold together and disagree with charity. Truth must be subservient to a satisfactory outcome of ecclesiastical transactional analysis: the disagreement must be good disagreement, then we will all be OK together as diversity prayers waft heavenward in clouds of smudging smoke. No-one will leave and clergy pensions will be secure.

Needless to say, that is all nonsense: both sides can’t be right and, since this time the issue is marriage itself not just blessings, there will be less “core doctrine” wiggle room. The disagreement will be vigorous, divisive and probably bitter. Perhaps that is “good disagreement” in that it would at least be honest..

The whole address can be found here:

With you, I am aware that for many throughout the Church, the issue of this Synod is the proposed amendment of the Marriage Canon to make provision for the solemnizing of same-sex marriages in our church. This matter is before us as a result of deliberations on Resolution C003 at General Synod 2013, passed in our accustomed way of voting as bishops and as clergy and laity voting together; and then by request of each of the Orders voting separately – bishops, clergy, and laity. This resolution directed the Council of General Synod (COGS) to bring forward the necessary amendments to the Marriage Canon. As you will hear in some depth this evening, COGS appointed a Commission on the Marriage Canon to address the request. The commission honoured in full the amendments to the original Resolution C003, including broad consultation across our church, with the Anglican Communion and within ecumenical circles in the Church Catholic.

The commission produced a report entitled, “This Holy Estate” which included substantial reflection on the subject of Covenantal Love in a marriage relationship and an invitation to consider some models for understanding same sex marriage. The Report was presented at the September 2015 meeting of the Council of General Synod and commended for study throughout the Church. At the special meeting of the House of Bishops in February, I did a cross-country check as to how the Church was engaging the report diocese by diocese. It appeared that the level of engagement had been nowhere near what had been hoped. I regret that and to be honest it has left me wondering what that says about our Church.

I am grateful that over the course of the next couple of days, members of Synod will have opportunity in Neighbourhood Groups to talk about the report.

I want to make an appeal to Synod that in these conversations and then in debate, we be especially and gently mindful of all those whose lives and loves and longings we are discussing – all those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and questioning. They are members of our families and extended families; they are our neighbours and our friends. They are members of our parishes. They are our clergy. They bear on their brow the same cross all the rest of us do. They pray with us. They hear the Word of God with us. They break bread with us. They are sent like the rest of us to live by that ancient call, that great commission, “You are my witnesses”.

I hope we will all enter into these conversations in the spirit in which they have been designed. I trust they will draw us together in a good way, preparing us for the consideration of the Resolution on Monday, July 11. I take this opportunity on behalf of Synod to thank our Chancellor for the time and care he gave in preparing a memo for all members of Synod with respect to “Issues in Dealing with Resolution A051”. Drawing on the Declaration of Principles in the Handbook of the General Synod and the Rules of Order and Procedure with which we carry out our work, the Chancellor helps us understand all that can happen to a resolution once it is before the Synod. The memo speaks not only to how the Synod handles the resolution, but also to things we need to bear in mind should the resolution pass or not. The Chancellor will speak to his memo at the outset of our legislative session on Monday. I am convinced as I am sure many of you are that it will be enormously helpful with respect to our need for clarity in order and procedure.

The companion absolutely necessary to clarity in this matter before Synod is charity, charity one toward another. I recognize that much is at stake in our deliberations, including how we understand the authority of the word of God, the nature of tradition and the defining of doctrine. How we understand what constitutes responsible pastoral care of LGBTQ persons. What is at stake for some is our Church’s commitment to dignity, inclusion and fair treatment of LGBTQ persons in our midst, inclusion meaning full and equal access to all ministrations of the Church including the solemnizing of their marriages.

For some, an issue at stake is our capacity to remain in communion with one another in the face of deeply held differences of conviction over this matter. “How big is our Church?” was a question posed to me in recent days. It was quickly followed by two more. “How committed are we to making room for one another? Can there be in the spirit of pastoral generosity a place for us all?”

For some an issue at stake is the catholicity of the Church and the impact of decisions we make on our relationships with other churches within the Anglican Communion and with churches with whom we are in ongoing or emerging dialogue.

For some what remains at stake is a continued wrestling with the conclusion of the 2005 St. Michael Report that “the blessing of same sex unions is a matter of doctrine” (para 42), but “not a matter of what is often referred to as core doctrine in the sense of being creedal, it is a matter of doctrine that does not hinder or impair our common affirmations of the three historic creeds” (para 42). The commission concluded also that such blessings are not “a communion breaking issue”. For some what is at stake is their continued wrestling with the significant dilemma named in the St. Michael Report and within which the Church is deeply immersed (nationally and internationally). The dilemma is articulated in the following questions;

Is it theologically and doctrinally responsible for one member church of the Communion to approve a course of action which it has reason to believe may be destructive of the unity of the Communion?

Is it theologically and doctrinally responsible to accept unity as the value which transcends all others, and therefore for a member church of the Communion to refrain from making a decision when it believes it has an urgent gospel mandate to proceed?

In our deliberations about this matter which is clearly divisive, I hope we can embrace the principle of what the Archbishop of Canterbury calls “good disagreement”—that is, disagreement in which we will not dismiss, despise, or demonize the other, but rather turn to one another with a commitment to speak graciously, listen intently and learn of the perspective from which another thinks. While we acknowledge the strain in our relationships, let us not get to a point where any of us says to another “I have no need of you” (1 Corinthians 12:21). On the contrary, let us never forget our call “to make every effort, to maintain the unity of the Spirit to the bonds of peace”. (Ephesians 4:3)

My appeal to the members of this Synod is that we exercise holy manners, conducting ourselves in such a way that reflects that ancient call, that great commission “You are my witnesses”.

Fred Hiltz speaks at the opening of General Synod

Posted on by
8

For Hiltz, whether the church should marry or not marry same-sex couples all comes down to inclusion. Not, I hasten to add, the inclusion in the church of the just the person but also the inclusion of what the person does. In Hitz’s mind Christianity must affirm, accept, condone and, naturally, include not only the person – his essence – but the expression of his essence, how, in the vain little pantomime of his three score and ten years he acts out his essential nature. At least, when it comes to sex; in particular, homoerotic sex.

That is because the Anglican Church of Canada has largely abandoned the idea that, because of the Fall, man is inherently sinful and all creation is subject to the bondage of corruption under the weight of that sin. Thus, we are led to the inescapable conclusion that the urges of the church’s homosexual clergy are there because God put them there.

A lusty young heterosexual could make use of the same principle to explain his unfettered promiscuity, too, of course. But, then, there aren’t many lusty young heterosexual clergy in the ACoC.

From here:

This is the body that through its history has also wrestled with numerous issues within the Church and in the world at large over which we have often found ourselves in deep disagreement. Many of the issues have centred around inclusion—the place of women in the councils of the Church, the place of women as priests and bishops, the place of young people and their voice and vote, the place of children at the Eucharistic table, the place of those married and divorced and wanting to marry again, the place of religious communities whose life transcends diocesan boundaries, the place of Indigenous Peoples from status as observers, to guests, to partners, to members in Synod, and the place of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and questioning people within the Church and their equality of access to all the ministrations of the Church including the solemnizing of their marriages.

For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me

Posted on by
4

And that which I was afraid of is come unto me. Job 3:25.

What do Anglican Church of Canada clergy fear most? Losing their stipend.

General Synod 2016 has begun and a vote to change the marriage canon is scheduled for Monday. In the unlikely event it passes, the few remaining conservatives will have yet more incentive to leave. If it fails to pass, many dioceses are determined to proceed with same-sex marriages without the approval of synod. For the national church this would be ideal, since it accomplishes what their leaders want while allowing them to protest that no official approval has been granted. Either result signals further division resulting in more people leaving and less revenue for clergy salaries; a tragedy of biblical proportions. That which the bishops fear most is about to come upon them.

Hence, hot off the press from the synod ostrich farm, we have the quote of the day:

Fear

Diocese of BC has a Pride Eucharist

Posted on by
Reply

Christ Church Cathedral had a Eucharist to celebrate the “rich diversity of sexual and gender identity” – because that, after all, is what Christianity has really always been about – and the “inclusion, welcome and celebration for all people” – except for the recalcitrant remnant who are still not convinced that God is subject to the cultural whimsy of the moment.

From here:

This week, Pride week, the Anglican Churches in the Diocese of British Columbia have been taking an active part in celebrating the rich diversity of sexual and gender identity which is so much a part of the Pride ethos.  On Tuesday 5th July there was held, in Christ Church Cathedral on Quadra, a Pride Eucharist – where candles were lit in hope of inclusion, welcome and celebration for all people.

When is a church not a church?

Posted on by
5

According to Canada Revenue, when it is non-creedal and more interested social justice than divine justice.

The CRA is concentrating on Unitarianism at the moment but the Anglican Church of Canada easily slides into the same category. For example, St. John’s Shaughnessy rather than state what its members believe, advertises that it embraces doubt. Most dioceses concentrate on social justice and advocacy – couched in pieties from a Bible in which they have long ceased to believe – and the national church promotes  political agendas while its bishops boast that they will accomplish something that the church’s founder said would never happen: eliminate poverty.

Come to think of it, since most clergy are, at best, fuzzy on the divinity of Jesus, the ACoC is, itself, effectively Unitarian.

From here:

It is not easy to get indignant over the Canada Revenue Agency’s audit of the Canadian Unitarian Council (CUC) — indignant, that is, either for or against. Unitarians are not supposed to inspire any strong feelings. They are, famously, only sort of a church; more of a disposition than a denomination, really.

Unitarianism is explicitly “non-credal,” ecumenical and receptive to “humanism;” the international statement of Unitarian “principles” mentions God’s love (with a capital G), but identifies “the guidance of reason and the results of science” as a source for what it is hard to call a “faith.”

[….]

The Unitarian council is angry, as the CBC reported Sunday, about a “political activities” investigation by the taxman. The CRA, it seems, is uncomfortable with the mentions of “justice,” particularly “social justice,” in the council’s bylaws. (The council is, organizationally, a close approximation to a national “Unitarian church,” although some small-u unitarian congregations are non-members.) Much, perhaps most, of what the CUC actually does has political implications and dimensions. The Canadian state has no objection to that sort of thing being done by a tax-exempt church, as long as the activity is “charitable.”

But auditors appear to be raising the obvious truth about the notion of “social justice:” that it is essentially politics; a metaphor imposed on religious scripture. The Bible, not that the Bible is of much use to Unitarians, does not promise social justice, but something like its opposite — perpetual inequality and suffering.

Michael Coren to preach at queer Eucharist

Posted on by
Reply

As part of the final convulsion accompanying his metamorphosis from conservative Christian to liberal substitute with a homosexuality obsession, Michael Coren will be preaching at a queer Eucharist this week. I imagine there will be tears and maudlin apologies for his pre-Epiphany benightedness for those interested in such things,

MC Queer

Rule Britannia

Posted on by
6

I phoned an old friend living in the UK today to offer my congratulations on Britain’s vote to exit the European Union. He agreed that the vote was largely an expression of ordinary people rejecting the political and media elite’s vision of how Britain should be ruled.

We can add to that the religious establishment elite, well represented by Justin Welby and John Sentamu, whose disappointment in the result, having robbed them of any faculties required to come up with a sensible response, prompted them to resort to the well-worn bridge building cliché and an appeal to the ephemeral commodity enshrined high on the totem of liberal Anglican pieties: diversity:

As citizens of the United Kingdom, whatever our views during the referendum campaign, we must now unite in a common task to build a generous and forward looking country, contributing to human flourishing around the world. We must remain hospitable and compassionate, builders of bridges and not barriers. Many of those living among us and alongside us as neighbours, friends and work colleagues come from overseas and some will feel a deep sense of insecurity. We must respond by offering reassurance, by cherishing our wonderfully diverse society, and by affirming the unique contribution of each and every one.

From a Canadian perspective, Rex Murphy has it right:

The often-ignored, sometimes quite rudely deplored British people have spoken and, to the horror of enlightened opinion, respectable party leaders, the ever-guiding liberal intelligentsia, have decided they don’t want “in” the European Union. The vote comes as a mighty shock to broad-minded continentalists and supranationalists everywhere, but particularly the high elites of British politics. The Guardian’s readership will need special help — grief counsellors are already overwhelmed.

The EU vote is the most dramatic illustration to date of how the “guiding elites” of many Western countries have lost the fealty and trust of their populations. Of the gap between ordinary citizens, facing the challenges of daily life, and the swaddled, well-off and pious tribes of those who govern them, and increasingly govern them with a mixture of moralistic superiority and witless condescension.

And so does Tim Stanley in the UK:

This was the day the British people defied their jailers.
People wanted to have their say and they did. Up and down the country they defied the experts and went with their conscience. Labour voters most of all: the northeast rebelled against a century of Labour leadership. I am astonished. Staggered. Humbled. I should never have lost faith in my countrymen. Those bold, brave, beautiful British voters.
Why did they do it? That, we’ll pick apart in the next few weeks. I think that Leave genuinely ran the better campaign, more hopeful and upbeat. Immigration mattered a great deal – although one YouGov poll ranked it third behind democracy and the economy. It’s possible that voters grasped the essential point about this referendum better than we the commentators did. It was a vote of confidence in Britain. Should we run our affairs or should we delegate it to foreign bureaucrats? When I was leaving my polling station, I said to a chap: “I found voting quite emotional.” He replied that this was the day we got our freedom back. That’s how it feels for millions of Britons.

Diocese of New Westminster blesses a petrochemical

Posted on by
2

The demon fossil fuel – oil – is being blessed by Bishop Melissa Skelton; but only if it is to be used on a bicycle chain. If only I lived in Vancouver: I would have a can of oil blessed and pour it into my SUV – well, I don’t actually have an SUV but I would be sorely tempted to go out and buy one.

From here:

Praying a blessing over a canister of bicycle chain oil may seem unorthodox, but the Anglican Bishop of New Westminster assured Metro her ritual, conducted Wednesday, was doctrinally sound.

“Yes, it’s something I’m allowed to do,” Rt. Rev. Melissa Skelton said with a laugh, as she stood on the lawn of the Diocesan offices in Shaughnessy. “It’s the every day and the useful where God shows up.

“In this case, we’re blessing things … that lead to better stewardship of the environment. It starts with the small and goes bigger.”

[…..]

Adapting the ritual for chain lubricant may seem unusual, but the ideas of community and being anointed for action in the world is related to environmental commitments, Skelton said.

“This is also the oil used in vehicles that would be the implements of action — protecting the climate and finding other ways to get around that don’t depend so much on large amounts of fossil fuels,” she explained.

Decaffeinated Indaba

Posted on by
Reply

Apparently, indabas have been replaced by sankofas – and you can tell what that reminds me of by the title.

But I jest. Sankofa actually means: “It is not a taboo to fetch what is at risk of being left behind”. It is a catchphrase taught to English bus drivers to be used as they watch old ladies in their rear view mirrors running after the bus. If that isn’t clear enough, the definition goes on to say: “the narrative of the past is a dynamic reality that cannot be separated from consideration of the present and future”. In other words, the past is dynamic, or changeable by the present, a concept made popular in the ‘70s by those consuming an excessive quantity of magic mushrooms. Since Canadian bishops seem to fall into that category, many of them – Hiltz, Bird, Ingham and Alexander – were present at the latest salacious sankofa  exercise to ponder together homoerotic sexuality under the pretext of conjuring a prior dynamic reality that conforms ancient perversions to 21st century delusions of normalcy.

A pusillanimous church – and that’s what Western Anglicanism has become – grovels and trembles before the culture in which it finds itself. Hence, as Ingham notes below, the church is content to let the culture determine its theology. A church can sink no lower than that.

From here:

Introduced by the Most Rev. Prof. Emmanuel Asante as an ecumenical contribution from the Methodist Church of Ghana, the Akan concept of sankofa served as a guiding framework for the Seventh Consultation of Anglican Bishops in Dialogue, which took place from May 25-29 in Accra, Ghana. The gathering brought together bishops from Canada, Ghana, Swaziland, Tanzania, Kenya, South Africa, Burundi, Zambia, England, and the United States.

Sankofa—literally, ‘It is not a taboo to fetch what is at risk of being left behind’—refers broadly to the unity of past and present, where the narrative of the past is a dynamic reality that cannot be separated from consideration of the present and future.

[….]

Bishop Ingham noted that despite the bishops present holding many different theologies on marriage, sexuality and biblical interpretation, “we’re not divided by these differences. Rather, we’re spurred to be curious with each other and to hear how these matters play out in our different parts of the world.”

“We’re all very aware that mission is contextual,” he added. “And I think most of the African bishops who attend understand that social and legislative challenges have taken place around homosexuality in Western countries.