Essentials Network Statement
Jun 25th, 2007 by Peter
Below is the official Essentials Network statement at the close of General Synod. When Essentials Federation add their statement I will post it here.
Side door open for same sex blessings
25 June 2007
Despite the news headlines, the Anglican Church of Canada did not close the door on same sex blessings at the Church’s General Synod in Winnipeg this past week. Nor did the Church take the steps specifically requested by the leaders of the global Anglican Communion – known as Primates.
By General Synod declaring that same sex blessings are compatible with Anglican core doctrine, nothing now stands in the way of these blessings continuing in the Diocese of New Westminster (in the Vancouver area) and being introduced into dioceses throughout Canada.
The Primates have called for a clear, unambiguous endorsement of traditional Church teaching on sexuality and an end to same sex blessings, as has been practiced in the Diocese of New Westminster since 2002. This General Synod has created confusion and ambiguity. By its action – and lack of action – the Church has clearly signaled that it does not value walking with the global Anglican Communion.
Members of Network are deeply grieved by the decisions of General Synod. We will now await the response of the Primates and will be consulting with our membership.
The Network represents and supports Canadian Anglicans and parishes whose orthodox, biblically-faithful views put them at odds with their church authorities. The Network is also committed to ensuring that orthodox Canadian Anglicans are able to remain in full communion with their spiritual brothers and sisters around the world – even if the Anglican Church of Canada permanently “walks apart”.
Anglican Network in Canada members are in the mainstream of historic and global Anglicanism. We remain faithful to Holy Scripture, committed to traditional Anglican teaching and in full Communion with the vast majority of global Anglicans. Well over 70 per cent of the 77 million Anglicans worldwide share our commitment to historic, biblically-faithful Anglicanism.
I simply wish Essentials were as strongly opposed to the other detrimental innovations in the Church, including the ordination of women. Ordination is also an import “less sacrament” of the Church, holy Matrimony notwithstanding. I would like to have seen Essentials mount a strong opposition over the years to all of the liberal agenda, not simply one aspect and symptom of it.
Wow. The official Essentials statement seems a little strong to me. I suspect that one could interpret the resolution in any number of ways, depending on your point of view. However, the next resolution states that no diocese may introduce SSB’s. Or, am I adding to the already confused understanding out there?!
Has anyone actually defined “core doctrine” anywhere? What are our core doctrines?
Regarding the Ordination of women (msg1): in my theological studies, I discovered that there were women in positions of ministry in the early days, including bishops, for which grave markers have been found in North Africa. So, while I am in favour of female ordination, I have not heard of any first century gay bishop burials….
Chris, forget liberal seminaries. You are falling into the trap of liberal pseudo-hermeneutics without realizing your inconsistency. The Biblical witness is opposed to women’s ordination, so is the Catholic Church Universal to this present day, and so is the Tradition of the Christian Church.
The rapid succession of passing motions on the last day (albeit I can understand the fatigue in the front trenches) enabled such things as referring the mess to 2010, exempting Ingham from anything he doesn’t agree with and opening the door to liturgical re-writes to reflect positions not yet passed. I was surprised that people opposed to the s/s issues ended up in the unanimous camp on them more so than Garth Bulmer voting against positions he had been demanding on his shopping list as things were swept on to the a glorious inconclusivity.
One thing is clear: the only walking together will be with the US Episcopal Church…lead thou me on…and on…and on for the next three years of never-ending pressure tactics, lobbying, brinkmanships and bulldozing the conservatives out of the door.
[…] GS07 +1 RESPONSIO– Essentials Network Statement […]
Well, three alternative-minded points.
Three: See number Two. What is the point? Are the same queer folks who know themselves welcome and competent at work are suddenly supposed to get all wonky and weak at the knees when it comes to dating, let alone managing committed love for a lifetime? Is a highly trained neurologist who participates in gut-wrenching, heart-wrenching family decisions about the life or brain death of a family’s loved one is suddenly supposed to be definitively incompetent when it comes to kissing the man or woman he/she loves? Parenting the children he/she loves?
Is the point to drive away and exclude? Is the point to bear false witness against queer folks exhibiting these obvious, common sense competencies?
Given that alternatively perceived dilemma – which apparently just does not register on any conservative realignment Anglican radar screens – one cannot avoid wondering whether they know any Out queer folks as competent? - what is the proper pastoral response to Canadian couples who are legally married, Out, parenting? Give the children back to the adoption agencies? Replace tender warmth and vulnerability towards one’s life partner with cool suspicion and frigidity and fearful condemnation?
Alternatively perceived inside various prog-lib frameworks (which are frequently based on competency facts that have disconfirmed the legacy condemnations?), modern queer life is not consistent with any of these flat earth models, presumed in so much of conservative realignment Anglican belief; and certainly not consistent with the flat earth model for human nature, mistakenly preaching to us that everybody is straight, or that being straight is innately competent and good in ways that not being straight cannot similarly think through among us, really, really, really. Or that rule-bound celibacies are innately more ethical and more functional than lifelong, committed caring.
It is refreshing to see the clear-headedness of the interpretation of events. As things now stand, all that has come to pass is that things in New Westminster can continue as they are; nothing has been enacted to forbid or limit these activities (although an opportunity to “affirm” them was declined); and it is no longer possible to credibly object to them on doctrinal grounds, since the activities do not offend “core doctrine” (undefined though that term is).
Michael Ingham may be miffed, but were I him I would not weep.
drdanfee (#6),
I wonder if you wouldn’t mind reposting that again, in English this time.
Thanks
re:#6 drdanfee
You speak of competance as the defining factor in these matters. I don’t believe competance is pertinent here. Is anyone truly competent to make life and death decisions? Is anyone truly compentent with regard to decisions concerning sexual behaviour? How do we define right and wrong, especially considering that our human nature is fallen?
The question really is “What standard shall I choose?” The advantage of taking Holy Scripture as our standard in matters of faith and morals is that it does not change, and is not subject to the back and forth of personal, social or cultural opinion. In a world of confusion and brokeness, we need a standard that will not change, and is therefore always reliable.
I have had enough experience in my own life of following my own inclinations or the inclinations of a group to know that they can land me in big trouble. I need to be accountable, and Holy Scripture is the primary, unchanging instrument that helps me to achieve accountability. With regard to our sexual practice, we need to look not only at certain particular cases and texts of scripture, but at the broad Scriptural view of God’s intention for sexuality, beginning with Genesis. And in so doing we need to act with compassion towards ourselves and others in the midst of our common broken condition.
Again, thank-you Peter for your invaluable service with this blog. God bless you.
The statement doesn’t seem too strong to me . Is there any way to find out which Bishops voted yeh o neh . I am still trying to find out where my Bishop stands on this . on the fense , I think !
Where are you, Joyce? Who is your Bishop?
Jude:
I’m not Joyce, but I would sure like to know which way my Bishop voted….I’m in the Diocese of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador..
In reference to #6. I cannot understand the arrogance and boldness that spews forth unless is is from lack of understanding of Scripture. At least Bp Ingham has nerve enough to speak out his irrational attitudes in plain english even when he doesn’t appear to understand the Holy Scriptures either. How did he ever get elected as a Bishop??
Is Torraville your bishop? He voted for “not in conflict with doctrine” but against “affirming”. The article below identifies him as bishop of Central NFLD - do know how many you have out there…
this is from globeandmail.com
… “To say that the blessing of same-sex unions is not in conflict with doctrine is a hugely significant thing,” Bishop Ingham said. “But to say at the same time there’s no doctrinal conflict but we’re not going to [do] anything about it is inertia - it’s institutional inertia rooted in homophobia.”
The two bishops who voted for the no-conflict resolution but against the blessings were David Torraville of the diocese of Central Newfoundland and James Cowan of the Vancouver Island diocese.
Bishop Cowan said after the vote that, while he favoured same-sex unions, he was still “asking for the theological rationale.” Bishop Torraville is known to have faced strong opposition from among his clergy to the blessings.
It was noted that Victoria Matthews of Edmonton also voted for no-conflict and against the blessings. that would seem to indicate that someone else then went the other way.
There is nothing about tax evasion in the creed, even though Jesus talks about paying taxes. So tax evasion is not in conflict with the core doctrine (in the sense of being creedal), although it remains a sin (as noted in red letters in my bible).
I suppose in that case one might have to agree with A186 without agreeing with affirmation of blessing ssu.
…I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of GOD into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and LORD.
Jude
(ps. The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 1tim4.1)
(ps. Take heed therefore how ye hear.
Jesus
Lu8.18)
I think that women’s ordination is an area where Christians can agree to disagree. I have seen clear, consice arguments from scripture in favour of it; the same cannot be said of same sex blessings.
drdanfee eludes to “driving away and excluding” homosexuals. “Liberals” accuse the church and orthodox members of seeking to bar gays. This is incorrect, as I am yet to see a single member of the “conservative” side of this issue do or even hint at throwing anyone out. I will state that it is clearly the case that the “liberals” are dogmatically saying that if you don’t like it, leave. I see no sense of compromise in their positions. If you don’t agree with them you aren’t listening, or are a hate monger. They are the ones that are blind to any position but their own.
Meanwhile the quiet departure of what’s left of the conservative remainder in the ACC will be using another side door, never to return. They will be joining the great host of people who still call themselves Anglican* but can’t abide what has happened to their former church.
* check out David Virtue’s article re the diocese of Niagara for the story. www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6155
Finally found out where our Bishop stands-maybe! Percy Coffin voted “No” but does not say on which motion, but says that on a personal level he has no problem with the issue. Now we know. He also gives the impression that he is going to “work” on the diocese to get a discussion going. I do know that I do not wish to be a part of that discussion, and now we have to think long and hard and pray fervently about our placce in the ACC.
May God help us all.
I have been to meetings (of sort) and the word that you always hear is, “there must be a listening process.” Please! I also hear the same people, when they don’t like what they hear, well that is not the voice of the Holy Spirit, they say it is the voice of hurt, the voice of hate.
Listening means for these people that “we” (Orthodox Anglicans) are the ones who have to sit in our little chair and listen, to take everything that Mr. Robinson or Mrs. Jefferts-Schori or Mr Ingram and the members of their prophetic groopies, as “divinely inspired”.
There comes a time when you know the ship (that was suppose to bring you to safe harbour) is sinking, the getting to that safe harbour means leaving that ship. I know that means for many leaving what they feel and think as being comfortable, even though the storm is raging and fear is gripping at every side.
Truth that is mixed with lies is not wholesome even when you may see some truth, but truth that is not pure is not truth at all. The truth that has been handed to us in Holy Scripture, the Gospel, is our beacon, it shows the way, (the way, the truth, and the life) that is only found in Jesus Christ, and not in todays popular culture.
But hay, there I go again all hurtful and hateful, again!
May God help us, may the Holy Spirit be our guide, and may Jesus be our way, truth and life.
Blessings
Rob
An after thought
You that know the Anglican Church of Canada is headed in the wrong direction. Ask yourself, (you that may be willing to stay even though you know the state of the ACC is wrong) how can you ask some of your fellow Christian Brothers or Sisters, to accept the direction of the Anglican Church of Canada when you yourself know it is wrong and that you yourself can not accept it? To stay and to work for change, to a certain extent, means to accept that direction.
I love the words, “the Anglican Church has always been able to stay together even with a wide divergence of opinion and practice.” These words are poison, they are words that will lead many to eternal damnation. They are words, employed by the liberal groups and those who would call themselves Orthodox or conservative (who have given up the work for change), to try and to keep the conservative QUIET, it is a cop out.
Just look at the whole idea of women’s ordination. It is a very unpopular position today in the Anglican Church of Canada, to say women’s ordinations are not valid. They have no scriptural basis, Paul tells us what a Bishop, Priest or Deacon should be, that they are to be a husband of one wife and that he should govern his home, that if he could not govern his own home how could he be expected to govern the flock entrusted to them.
Scripture does speak about one position held by women and that is the position of the Deaconess, but it is generally accepted that this order was a lay order and not an ordained order. With the issue of women’s ordination, we must get away from the word ministry when we talk about the several roles we all have within the Church. Ministry was given to the Church as a whole, and we all have a part to play in that ministry.
A Bishop by himself can not constitute the ministry of the Church, neither does the roles the Priests or Deacons, Sub-Deacons, Deaconesses, Monks, Nuns and other Religious, and the roles we play as lay folk in the Church. It is the whole working together that constitutes ministry and that ministry, is the Ministry given to the Church, AS A WHOLE.
To say this today in an Anglican Church of Canada meeting synod or what have you, you would be not only be black balled but you would be shouted down. The argument of women’s ordinations, is over, it is a done deal.
Today the issue of same sex blessings has no scriptural basis, it is basically the wind of the popular culture of our day. The way things have proceeded in the Anglican Church of Canada, it is the same road that women’s ordinations had gone. Right from the Windsor Report (Windsor Report #1 [Emmaus], women’s ordinations, and Windsor Report #2 [Emmaus] Blessings of Same Sex Couples and Ordination of practicing Homosexual individuals) the Anglican Consultative Council to the very actions of Forward in Faith (Women’s Ordinations) and Anglican Essentials, and Essentials Federation (same sex blessings and ordinations of practicing homosexual individuals). It is all the same. Hay don’t take my word for it go look it up for yourself.
With today’s issues same sex blessings and practicing homosexual clergy and ordinations, the argument is over the mind of General Synod has been made up. The ground that these liberal groups in the Church today gained, and they know they have gained, they know that they have gained, and a lot of ground in these last 50 years. They will just organize themselves the more while the conservative groups will be inhibited at every attempt that they will try to organize. Conservatives in the Church are themselves divided on many issues for example women’s ordinations and the liberal groups know this, they have and will continue to use it against them, to divide and to conquer.
The Anglican Church of Canada can no longer claim to be apart of the ONE, HOLY CATHOLIC, AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH. I even question weather that the Anglican Church of Canada, may be even called a Church anymore.
May God help us, may the Holy Spirit be our guide, and may Jesus be our way, truth and life.
Blessings
Rob
May The Lord our God forgive.
What happened to keeping our focus on Jesus and the words of our Heavenly Father.
Romans 1 and 8 is very clear on the way we should take.
Shame on our Clergy, etc.