“The time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
(2 Timothy 4:3-4)

Why is it so hard to understand this? There is no ambiguity there. As far as context, go ahead and read the rest of it. The whole Bible for that matter! It is perfectly clear what is being said there. Even to a pitiful, foolish sinner like me.

Bp Ingham; “If one were to interpret it strictly, it seems to state that all men and all women should get married, which Jesus himself did not do.”

LOL! How does one interpret this loosely!? Not only that, but what “Markan” passage is he reading? He seems to have substituted a different passage that suits his answer better. It’s a common legal tactic; if you don’t like the answer, change the question. It seems Ingham is a marginally better lawyer than theologian… Also, by deliberately and knowingly misinterpreting scripture, he allows himself a cheap shot at the Saviour Christ in order to sustain his heresy. Astonishing hubris!

Forgive my zeal. This is the version derived from prayer. The original will cost me.

“Whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed or secret is meant to be brought out into the open.” (Matthew 4:22)

Having shot himself in the foot with his New Year’s sermon delivered sanctimoniously from the pulpit in Ottawa, he continues in the same vein with another bunch of pastoral nonsense from the Anglican throne. Headlines in the Anglican Journal, which are usually reserved to beg for even more money for the Anglican hierarchy to waste indiscriminately, trump: “Archbishop Hiltz clarifies Canadian situation for fellow primates.” Ho-hum!

Saying that he hoped to, “dispel rumour or misunderstanding,” Hiltz, has written to his fellow leaders of the worldwide Anglican Communion explaining the developments around the blessing of same-sex unions, which has embroiled Canadian Anglicans in conflict. Sadly, rumours and misunderstanding are long gone and there’s nothing left to explain; on top of this, every Anglican that counts [with the exception of the usual fence-sitters] has already decided upon which side of the gaping schism they will stand. All that remains is to secure their personal niche or power-base in the new left or right wing bureaucracy, and to make sure that stipend, benefits and pension plan flow on without interruption!

In a pathetic attempt to shift the blame, Hiltz who is silent on the issue of his own sexual orientation, but an open supporter of Same Sex Blessings says, Canadian Anglicans, “Do live in a country where the federal government in 2005 approved legislation that allows the marriage of same-gender couples.” So what? Any move to reduce the persecution of minorities is good; however, this has sweet Fanny Adams to do with the Anglican Church of Canada.

The primate whimpers that it was “regrettable” that some Canadian Anglicans have chosen to leave the church despite the fact that the house of bishops had made “adequate and appropriate provision for the pastoral care and episcopal support of all members of our church, including those who find themselves in conscientious disagreement with the view of their bishop and synod” What a joke! Did you ever try to have an intellectual conversation with an Anglican bishop? What follows is a one-way script, entitled: “My way, or the highway!” And, never mind that the Anglican ‘faithful’ have been bailing out for close to fifty years now, and of the few who are left they are now choosing which Anglican church they will support in Canada.

Hiltz’s main rival for the leadership of the left wing church is New Westminster, BC Archbishop Michael Ingham. Ingham, backed up by his longtime associate and faithful sidekick, the insidious Dean Peter Elliot [who publicly burned his bridges by coming out in England at the General Synod and thus can now only obtain the coveted crosier in a left wing church] have been working a group called The Chicago Consultation. This is an international group of about 50 Anglican leaders who met in Chicago in December 2007 to “build international coalitions and develop a strategy for the full inclusion of gay and lesbian Christians in the life of the church.” This group have recently, called upon the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, to invite Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire [who lives with a male partner] as a full participant to the 2008 Lambeth Conference. Participants, including the devious Ingham, also voiced opposition to the concept of an Anglican covenant that would create a centralized governing body with authority over member churches for the first time in the Anglican Communion’s history.

Right Rev Gene Robinson, who is divorced [from a heterosexual partner, who like so many Anglican priests he presumably married as a smoke screen ‘back then,’] now lives openly in partnership with a gay man. Robinson said, somewhat hypocritically, that he found it mystifying that the mother Church of the Anglican Communion was unable to be honest about the number of gay clergy in its ranks.
He added that many of the Anglican Church’s clergy lived openly in their rectories with gay partners, with the full knowledge of their bishops. But he criticized the stance of bishops who threaten the clergy with enmity should their relationships become public. Robinson indicated that if the gay and lesbian priests were to leave, then the church would be virtually shut down.

Fascinating stuff, and of course while all this is taking place the rabid right wing is not sitting on its hands either here in Canada, or worldwide.

Well, Taffy Williams of “The Reversible Chasuble and the Closet at Lambeth Palace” fame is not going to be happy with any of this: he’s got enough problems with his own rather tragic flip-flop image, caused by the usual hypocrisy and lack of personal honesty one might reasonably surmise.

The underlying issues and the absolute hypocrisy that surrounds this schism are quite tragic. Firstly, the Anglican Church has always had a predominance of gay [and lately] lesbian priests, albeit that the great majority of them are way in the back of the dark recesses of the proverbial closet; to the point where many continue vainly to attempt to cloak their sexual orientation by adopting the appearances of a heterosexual lifestyle.

The foregoing is bad enough: can we not just be honest about who we are, but what is even worse, and in my opinion unforgivable, is the utter waste of millions and millions of charitable dollars on the gay blessings issue and the resulting schism. Of course, this schism is only marginally about gay and lesbian people: the main issue is power, control, property, ecclesiastical position and the personal lifestyle of the princes and princesses of the church like Hiltz and Ingham. These vain, egotistical and hypocritical men, and now women, continue to gouge huge amounts of charitable dollars from the Anglican faithful, and then proceed to splurge it on themselves and to waste it on an institution [the ACC] that has moved so far in practice from the program of Jesus of Nazareth that it is no longer a Christian church.

I wonder what Jesus thinks? Just for the record, Jesus said many things; however, the foundation of his program was actually very simple: “Love God with all of your heart and love your neighbour as yourself.”

Actually he’s been married to the same woman for 30 years. Lots of heterosexuals support same sex marriage.

The question is whether the Church is obligated to follow the social trends of secular society. That is where Hiltz and I disagree. And it is a fundamental disagreement.

I know about married bishops and clergymen: I do not want to burst your bubble, or to offer harm to any individual, but 30 plus years ago it was normal to cloak one’s true sexual orientation within a heterosexual marriage and to have children too.

Take the case of the Right Rev Gene Robinson for example!

I agree that lots of heterosexuals support same sex marriage; however, the continued hypocrisy [Robinson speaks to this issue too] is a pathetic sham.

Did you read my post I wonder?