Tag Archives: Anglican Church of Canada

The Anglican Church of Canada should check its own shtreimel

Posted on by
7

The Anglican Church of Canada delights in excoriating Israel – the only free and civilised democracy in the Middle East – while turning a blind eye to Palestinian villainy: Palestinian foibles such as its support of terrorism, its unrepentant refusal to recognise Israel’s right to exist and the calls for Israel’s annihilation by its more extreme elements.

Israel is not perfect but then, neither is the Anglican Church of Canada as the last five years of punitive law-suits against orthodox Christians, the financially motivated snatching of buildings for which it has little use, and the inhibiting of recalcitrant clergy will attest.

Incidentally, since Intel manufactures the core i-series computer processor chips – both Ivy Bridge and Haswell – in Kiryat Gat, Israel, I am looking forward to the day when Canadian Anglican clergy divest themselves of their tainted computers, all of which depend on these chips to run.

As this article notes, the ACoC should check its own shtreimel:

First the good news: The just concluded General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) did not call for a boycott of companies doing business with Israel, as did the United Church of Canada a few weeks before.

Now the bad news: Instead, the ACC urged members to “explore,” “educate,” and “enable awareness” about all the terrible ways in which Israel behaves.

We guess Jews should be grateful. And we’re all for exploration and education. So in the spirit of cooperation, we would like to aid this church to achieve its goals.

● The Anglicans are urging their faithful to “educate the church about the impact of illegal settlements” on the West Bank. We politely urge their faithful to “educate the church” on the illegal occupation of territory now called Canada. Today, the Indigenous people – the original inhabitants of the land – reside on a mere 0.2 percent of Canadian territory. As ACC members become “educated,” they will learn that very few of the Indigenous spoke French or English. They should heed the call of Bishop David Parsons, during the floor debate: “Are we prepared now to call upon all of Canada and all of the provinces to move off of aboriginal land which they have legal entitlement to?” We will applaud the ACC as it deeds back the land on which its churches stand and its members cede their houses to some “refugee” Indigenous. To be practical, they should aim to do it all in a single day. Soon.

● ACC resolution A172 calls for “deeper church-wide awareness of and response to the call of the Kairos Palestine document” which casts the creation of a Jewish state as a theological sin. May we urge “deeper church-wide awareness” that Kairos refuses to condemn Palestinian terror? It strips the Jewish people of any connection to the Holy Land. It rewrites history to place all blame for the Middle East quagmire on Israel. Speaking of awareness, if the ACC is really serious it will question where Kairos Palestine inexorably leads. It will learn that the American Kairos Palestine group’s last “response to the call” explicitly denied the right of existence of a Jewish state of Israel, and embraced the right of the use of terror.

● The resolution calls on ACC members to “explore and challenge theologies and beliefs, such as Christian Zionism, that support the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories,” as well as “theories and beliefs that deny the right of Israel to exist.” We should all explore complex issues, but we wonder why the pro-Israel arguments are called “theologies” while the anti-Israel ones are called “theories.” Will there be ACC members who will have the courage to challenge those who have taken up once again Replacement Theology; who in the zeal to deny Jews any stake at all in the Holy Land – and to counteract the Christian Zionism they hate – are once more preaching that the Jews of the Hebrew Bible have been tossed out and rejected, replaced by the New Jews?

And who among the ACC will educate Rev. Naim Ateek of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center (a Kairos Palestine partner) who calls the Palestinians the new Jesus on the Cross, with Jews once again crucifying the innocent – reviving the theological doctrine of deicide which motivated the murder of untold numbers Jews though the centuries?

Memo to the explorers: Why do Palestinians serially deny the 3,500-year connection of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel? Did Jeremiah preach in Gibraltar? Did Isaiah prophesy in Ireland? Did not Jesus, himself a Jew, walk the length and breadth of the Holy Land?

● Anglicans, according to the resolution, are supposed to unravel “the complexities of economic advocacy measures.” We respectfully urge the ACC to explore and challenge the punitive anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns that help not a single Palestinian; they hurt them and their Jewish neighbors economically. Churches, do you want to help? Reflect on positive investment in the Palestinian economy and in joint Israeli-Palestinian ventures that will not only improve living conditions for Palestinians but also create momentum toward genuine reconciliation and peace

As rabbis, we would be out of character in trying to help our Anglican friends if we did not tell a story. A couple of chassidic newlyweds spent their first Passover with the bride’s family, which was not as well to do as that of the groom. The husband was horrified when he saw, in the soup bowl placed before him, pieces of grain swimming in the hot liquid, apparently turning into forbidden chametz. He screamed about what kind of terrible family this must be and threatened to dissolve the marriage. His wife could not calm him; in time, he agreed to take his grievance to the town rabbi.

After the rabbi heard his tale of woe, the sage asked the newlywed to remove his shtreimel, the round fur hat worn on important occasions by chassidim. The rabbi took it and shook it vigorously. This dislodged many more pieces of grain, left from those the congregation had showered upon him as a blessing for a bountiful future when he had been called up to the Torah before his wedding a week before.

The great Maggid of Jerusalem, Rabbi Shalom Schwadron, wonderfully distilled the moral of the story. Before you criticize others, check your own shtreimel first.

Even if you are Anglican.

 

Fred Hiltz thinks marrying same-sex couples is going to be controversial

Posted on by
2

Very astute.

From here:

The primate said he was not surprised that the resolution asking the Council of General Synod to prepare a resolution for 2016 that would change the marriage canon to allow same-sex marriage “sparked some difficult moments.”

Asked to comment on opinions expressed by some members that there wasn’t enough time to debate on the merits of the resolution, Hiltz said, “It doesn’t matter what kind of resolution you have on the floor that’s going to change the marriage canon of the church so that same-sex couples can be married. It’s going to be controversial.”

Reacting to statements made by some members that allowing same-sex marriage is a big leap from the blessing of same-sex unions, the primate said, “None of that surprises me. There’s nothing new in that perspective; that’s been there in the life of the church for many years.”

Saying “[t]here’s nothing new in that perspective” is evading the point.   For years, the Anglican Church of Canada has been boring everyone – well, Anglicans, most of whom already have one foot in the grave – to death with explanations of why blessing same-sex couples is not the same as marrying them. The former, supposedly, is not against “core doctrine”; no-one is suggesting that the church is going to embark on the latter, we were assured, so there is really nothing to worry about.

Now the ACoC is going to vote on performing same sex-marriages in spite of all protestations to the contrary; naturally no priests would be compelled to perform same-sex marriages. Given the church’s duplicitous performance thus far, does anyone believe that?

Reaction to resolution C003, changing the marriage canon to include same-sex marriage

Posted on by
11

The Anglican Journal conducted interviews after the vote.

Predictably, Peter Elliott, a partnered homosexual from the Diocese of New Westminster, was “happy”:

“very happy to see this small step, an important step being taken.” Elliott acknowledged that the resolution could reopen wounds over the issue of same-sex blessings that have daunted the church in the last decade. But, “it is also continuing in the healing process for some of the wounds that have been there for a long time,” said Elliott. “Nobody has the monopoly on pain. Gay and lesbian people in the life of the church have for some decades been second-class citizens…I think it is a word of healing for those of us who are gay.”

As Elliott says, “Nobody has the monopoly on pain’. What he doesn’t say is that Anglicans who are resisting the temptations of same-sex attraction because they believe succumbing to them would be wrong, will be hurt by this resolution. It seems that their pain doesn’t count because, presumably, in Elliot’s world, they don’t count.

Gene Packwood noticed what, to the un-blinkered, was apparent all along: no matter how strenuous the denials, same-sex blessings in the ACoC were always intended to be a prelude to same-sex marriage, making the liberal Anglican hierocracy little better than a coterie of con artists:

Canon Gene Packwood, a clergy delegate from the diocese of Calgary, said same-sex marriage “was the intent all along. I think folks who are in favour of this were using same-sex blessings to try in the interim to gain ground. I’m not accusing them of being devious, but that was what the strategy was.”

Sue Moxley pointed out another obvious inconsistency in the ACoC’s willingness to bless what it is unwilling to do:

Bishop Sue Moxley, diocese of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, expressed support for the motion. “There’s an interesting dynamic: that people can get their head around blessing a couple but not get their head around marriage,” she said. “For me, that doesn’t make sense because for me a blessing is what a wedding in a church is about.”

Gene Packwood went on to point out that changing the marriage canon in this way will further alienate most of the world’s Anglicans, drive yet more people out of the ACoC, decrease the church’s revenues and further hasten its demise – demonstrating once again the old saw: those whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes mad:

Packwood, who believes that same-sex marriage is “manifestly contrary to the teaching of scripture and the liturgy of the church,” also expressed concern about the resolution’s effect on the Anglican Church of Canada’s standing in the Anglican Communion worldwide. “We’re not in communion with the majority of Anglicans…because they think we’ve gone so far and that’s even without making a decision,” he said. “If we go and change the marriage canon, then that’s really going to draw the line and that won’t be helpful to our spiritual health or our finances.”

 

Joint Assembly: Resolution to vote on same-sex in marriage 2016 passed

Posted on by
20

Resolution C003 proposes to introduce a resolution in 2016 to the Synod/Joint Assembly – or whatever it is called by 2016 – to change “Canon XXI on Marriage to allow the marriage of same sex couples in the same way as opposite sex couples”.

The 2013 resolution passed by a substantial majority. Is there any doubt that the resolution to change the canon will pass in 2016?

From here:

General Synod on July 6 approved a resolution that will bring the issue of same-sex marriage to a vote at the meeting of the Anglican Church of Canada’s governing body in 2016.

At its triennial meeting here, General Synod passed Resolution C003, asking the Council of General Synod to prepare and present a motion to change the church’s Canon 21 on marriage “to allow the marriage of same-sex couples in the same way as opposite sex couples.”

Moved by the diocese of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island members Michelle Bull and Jennifer Warren, the motion was approved by a two-thirds majority of the orders of bishop, clergy and laity. Using clickers—a handheld electronic device—25 bishops, 72 clergy and 101 laity voted in favour of the resolution; 11 bishops, 30 clergy and 27 laity were opposed.

The Anglican Church of Canada identifies “the critical justice issue of our time”

Posted on by
1

No, it’s not the unrestricted killing of 65,000 unborn Canadian babies every year, it’s  – wait for it: mining. I expect you already guessed that, though.

From the eco-babbling borborygmus of the Anglican Joint Assembly:

For Canadian especially, resource extraction is “the critical justice issue of our time,” said Jennifer Henry, executive director of the Canadian ecumenical justice group, KAIROS, who addressed the assembly. “We have a tremendous impact on earth and all that’s in it.”

Canada is home to 75 per cent of the world’s mining and mineral exploration companies, and its stock exchanges trade 40 per cent of the world’s mineral exploration capital, Sara Stratton, KAIROS education and campaigns co-ordinator, also told the assembly. In 2011, resource extraction accounted for 11 per cent of Canadian GDP, up from six per cent in 2001, said Stratton.

[…..]

Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, and ELCIC National Bishop Susan Johnson both spoke of the need to act on the issue.

“We are all in this together,” said Johnson, adding that the challenge before members is “how to reduce consumption and help generate solutions.”

This must mean that all the delegates are going to walk home.

The Anglican Church of Canada continues to promote a false gospel

Posted on by
Reply

According to the Most Rev Dr Eliud Wabukala, Primate of Kenya:

While we give thanks for much that has been achieved, especially in the emergence of the Anglican Church of North America and our Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, we are painfully aware that the Episcopal Church of the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada continue to promote a false gospel and yet both are still received as in good standing by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Not to worry, though, Resolution A170 R1 (supporting creation care across the church) before the Anglican Joint Assembly currently in session, should banish any lingering doubts that Rev Wabukala may have about whether the ACoC has a firm grip on the Gospel message or not.

As we all know, Jesus devoted much of his ministry to raising awareness of ecological issues and promoting green audits through partnering with Greening Sacred Synagogue Spaces, in order to participate in the Green-Up Database in partnership with the Jerusalem Green Building Council.

I am so excited by all this partnering.

The Anglican and Lutheran Joint Assembly begins

Posted on by
10

And it’s all about commonplace leftist preoccupations that have little to do with Christianity – like resource extraction – and diminishing membership; could there be connection?

From here:

Hundreds of members of the Anglican Church of Canada and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada are converging on Ottawa for an unprecedented joint national gathering of the two churches, where they will tackle issues like resource extraction, homelessness, and how to live out their mission in a time of diminishing church membership.

The Anglican Church of Canada is claiming “545,000 members”, a grossly inflated number I suspect. After all, my wife and I are still on the membership roll of the Diocese of Niagara even after the bishop sued me. I wonder if that’s a first, a bishop suing one of his own parishioners?

The Anglican Church of Canada (anglican.ca) has been a self-governing member of the worldwide Anglican Communion since 1893 and has 545,000 members in nearly 2,800 congregations across the country.

The ELCIC claims even fewer members – 145,000 – and has joined with the ACoC in the hope, perhaps, of padding its denomination with disaffected Anglicans; another example of resource extraction.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (elcic.ca), established in 1986, has 145,000 members across Canada in nearly 600 congregations and is a member of the Lutheran World Federation.

Membership decline is to be addressed by restructuring rather than examining the reason that people are leaving:

Delegates from both churches will also discuss proposals to restructure the way in which the Anglican Church of Canada and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada function, since both churches have experienced the same decline in membership as many other mainline Canadian churches.

Not all mainline churches have lost members: the Roman Catholic Church has experienced membership growth while standing resolutely against same-sex marriage, abortion and euthanasia – could there be a connection?

Anglican Church of Canada Resolution C003: change the marriage canon to allow the marriage of same-sex couples

Posted on by
16

The Anglican Church of Canada holds its general synod every three years.

Resolution C003 is a motion for the 2016 synod requesting a change to the marriage canon to include the marrying of same-sex couples. Eleven dioceses – New Westminster, Ottawa, Huron, Niagara, Toronto, Montreal, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, Edmonton, Rupert’s Land, Quebec and British Columbia – already offer the blessing of same-sex unions. All offer liturgies for this blessing and all are careful to point out that the liturgies are for the purpose of blessing not marriage itself.

The cynical among us might question whether there is any significant difference between the two and wonder at the depths of hypocrisy to which these dioceses are prepared to stoop in order to deceive gullible congregants: after all, if a church is willing to bless a same sex-marriage why would it refuse to conduct the marriage? The answer lies in how Anglicans effect change: gradually. A rector who wishes to move a piano from one side of the church to the other does it an inch at a time; it may take a year but no one notices.

There can be little doubt that the Anglican Anglican Church of Canada will end up marrying same sex couples. I for one will welcome it; at least it will be a forthright and undeniable capitulation to the Zeitgeist – stupid and flagitious, perhaps, but with less circuitous guile.

Take note, conservative Anglican frogs determined to remain in the Anglican Church of Canada come what may: the water is almost boiling.

From here:

Resolution C003

Subject: Preparation of motion to change Canon XXI on Marriage; Direction to COGS

Moved by: Ms. Michelle Bull, Diocese of Nova Scotia and PEI

Seconded by: Ms. Jennifer Warren, Diocese of Nova Scotia and PEI

Be it resolved that this General Synod

direct the Council of General Synod to prepare and present a motion at General Synod 2016 to change Canon XXI on Marriage to allow the marriage of same sex couples in the same way as opposite sex couples, and that this motion should include a conscience clause so that no member of the clergy, bishop, congregation or diocese should be constrained to participate in such marriages against the dictates of their conscience.

Source: Member

Submitted by: Ms. Michelle Bull, Diocese of Nova Scotia and PEI

Does this motion contain within it any financial implications? Yes No X

If yes, has the General Synod Expenditures Committee considered the implications? Yes No

EXPLANATORY NOTE/BACKGROUND

It has been 6 years since General synod last debated this issue. Since then, some dioceses have proceeded in a manner they deemed necessary to meet the local pastoral and other needs with respect to the blessing of same sex civil marriages. It has been over 10 years since such civil marriages were legal in Canada. The general public has become much more accepting of same sex unions since we last discussed it. This is also true of the church, though not, of course, universally so.

It seems like a good idea to ask COGS to draft this motion, so that it will be done correctly and with the benefit of appropriate legal and theological advice as to wording, so that the motion will do all and only what we wish it to.

We believe that it is necessary that there be a conscience clause so that anyone who is not in favour of same sex marriages will not be constrained to participate in them. It is not our intention to force everyone to conform in this matter, but only to allow those who wish to allow same sex marriage in the church to go ahead.

PROCEDURE FOR ADOPTION (G)

In the normal course, an ordinary motion must be passed by a majority of the Order of Bishops, and by a majority of the Orders of Clergy and Laity voting together.

Six members of General Synod may, prior to the question being put, require a vote by Orders, with a majority of each Order being necessary to pass.

If a question passes on a Vote by Orders, any six members (two from each of three different dioceses) may require a vote to be taken by dioceses. A motion passes if a majority of dioceses (or a tie) vote in favour.

Source: Section 5 of the Declaration of Principles and sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Rules of Order and Procedure

Note: If Resolution A030 is given second reading, the required majority will be all Orders voting together.

What will the Anglican Church of Canada do if polyamorists have their way?

Posted on by
1

Canada’s polyamorists are seeking legal recognition of their unions. Now that “marriage” has been redefined in Canada to include same-sex couples, why should it not be further redefined to include more than two people? I can’t think of a convincing reason.

And since many dioceses in the Anglican Church of Canada are eager to bless “committed same gender relationships” why should they not also bless committed multiple person relationships, particularly if they attain the same legal status as married same-sex couples. I can’t think of a convincing reason. If there is nothing sacrosanct about man-woman marriage, then there is certainly nothing sacrosanct about the number “two.”

From here:

While Canada’s polyamorists — people with multiple partners outside a religious context — do not face criminalization as do polygamists, it is not enough for them to be considered “just not illegal,” they said on Sunday.

As the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association wrapped up its three-day convention, the first of it’s kind to be held in Canada, the association’s director and conference chair Zoe Duff said polyamorists hope to one day gain the same legal recognition as other couples.

“It would be nice…to have households where our spouses are equal under the law, and moving forward in terms of pensions, and inheritances and property division,” she said.

Unlike polygamy, there is no law in Canada that specifically bans polyamory. Polyamorists also distinguish themselves from polygamists, saying that while polygamy consists of men taking multiple wives usually within a religious context, polyamory is consensual, secular and egalitarian.