From LC.net:
The Diocese of Huron has overwhelmingly voted to grant permission to clergy “whose conscience permits, to bless…civil marriages between same-sex couples.”
In the house of laity: 227 yeas, 87 noes
In the house of clergy: 97 yeas, 36 noes
With almost 100% of those registered for Huron synod voting.
One priest, whose parish is “Essentials friendly” called the vote “heartbreaking.”
More when we get it.
UPDATE: Michael Daleys report, part 1, is here.
Kate here – a quote from that article above that I found compelling was this:
Don Alcock, founding member of the Zacchaeus Fellowship, a post-gay ministry, and a priest in Huron argued passionately against the motion. Alcock says he was saved from the sin of homosexuality. “You’ve shown me this is a sin, now take it away from me,” is what he said to God. That ultimately led to the repudiation of his previous lifestyle and eventual marriage to a woman he loves. His was, perhaps, the most poignant cry to the floor to vote against Motion 7. He said if the motion passed, he would no longer feel welcome in the Anglican Church of Canada and that he would “have no choice but to leave.”
UPDATE 2: More here. Bishop Howe seems to be waiting for ‘the fall at the earliest’, along with the other Bishops. Personally, I don’t know why they can’t say ‘after Lambeth’ and be done with it…..
UPDATE 3: According to the Journal:
The diocesan bishop, Bruce Howe, said he “gave concurrence” to the motion based on the large percentage in favour, but he added that he intended to consult with other bishops before acting on the vote.
…
Speaking to media after the vote, Bishop Howe said he would likely not announce his decision before the fall.
“The diocese made a very strong decision – over the 70 per cent mark … I’ll be on the phone this week with other bishops, but obviously nobody is going to do anything before the Lambeth Conference.”
and
Bishop Howe said he did not know of any parishes or clergy that planned to leave the Anglican Church of Canada because of synod’s decision. No parishes in Huron are members of the Anglican Network in Canada, a breakaway group. “One of our conservative parishes said to me, ‘We don’t like this, but we are not leaving the Anglican Church in the diocese of Huron,’” he said.
It’d be interesting to know a bit more regarding the makeup of conservative parishes in the Diocese of Huron.
I believe Don Alcock, a member of the Zacchaeus Fellowship is in that Diocese – I believe the rapidity with which the Church is destroying itself gives chance for the rapid increase of blessing for God’s new initiative of the ANiC. Some Bishops are hanging on for Lambeth – ours included – and then after that shambles, with GAFCON on its way – the Holy Spirit will really let loose!
And another one bites the dust.
Hey, Bishop Howe wanted it now he’s got it……nothing new here.
This is just another diocese that is shooting itself in the foot and will reap the discord of what it is sowing….. I feel so bad for the people that are “essentials friendly”…..BUT, you know what….
The Lord’s people will rise up out of this mess that is called the ACoC and we should be and must remain in prayer for all of them…
1 Pauline
Could you, or anyone else, lay out the likely number of parishes that may remain faithful? It may be imprudent to identify either priests or parishes by name by putting a bulls eye on thier backs. After all, we all know how open and accepting the liberals are to any that disagree with them -when they are in power.
It seems to me that contacts need to be made with those parishes that are feeling betrayed by their synod.
Peace,
Jim
Heartbreaking indeed, but a harbinger, I’m afraid, of the future. Even those in ‘conservative’ dioceses will have to face this eventually. My prayer is for a solidly established Network, because the need for it will only grow, not diminish in years to come.
I think I will quit posting here because when people reply to my posts I have no idea what they talking about. Jim – I am sorry – I am totally confused at your comment.
I think Jim was wondering whether you have any idea as to how many parishes are going to disagree with this motion?
Bad news indeed (as one currently living in Huron). Not quite sure what’s going to happen here. I must say, though, that I’m uncomfortable with statements like “the Holy Spirit will really let loose”; it suggests that God is simply biding his time and waiting for our church to entirely disintegrate before doing anything. Let us not rejoice in the wreckage.
Yes, it was heartbreaking to watch as one after one people rejected the word of God and chose a lie. Huron is not without its faithful and there were many who stood and witnessed to the truth. Don Alcock gave a very moving testimony and really bared his heart. Sadly he was followed by someone who told a joke and everyone laughed. My heart is truly heavy tonight and I grieve for my diocese, but God has preserved a remnant and he is not defeated.
Pauline. I am sorry. I contributed to that feeling you have. Please dont quit posting. I think we would be not only disappointed but the community the Network is trying to establish would be weakened. I think we all need to talk more not less but for those of us that post less frequently it is harder for the rest to understand what our starting point is. We tend to start with the comment we want to make rather than setting the framework.
I personally would like you to explain what you meant here:
“some Bishops are hanging on for Lambeth”…… but it sounds like you are expecting it to be a shambles? Why would you hang on for something you dont expect to be helpful? I dont understand but I would like to.
Jim – I too would love to know how many Anglicans actually think the ACoC is wrong but keep faithfully going and waiting for someone to do something, in thier area. Yes I would love to have all of us know every other one. It just might be that there are enough for small churches within driving distance of each other and yet each one feels alone. For all I know there are 10 close to me and I feel very much alone.
6 Pauline
Hang in there! We value your input.
Rev Ken Harding in Athabaska was just dumped by his bishop for writing an article critical of the ACoC.(see the thread). Raising either a parish or minister’s profile is very likely to cause them problems in this climate.
Peace,
Jim
#11 It certainly does seem to cause them problems, Jim, but a benefit of this is that the revisionist bishops are actually forcing faithful priests and laity to stand up for their beliefs. It sounds harsh, but as hurtful as it would be to be punished for no reason, it makes those who think SSBs aren’t enough to drive them from the church take heed of what’s going on. I think that harsh actions like Absp Clarke’s may well backfire if they happen to force more people to leave the ACC than originally intended.
I wonder if anyone in Huron will be marking The Feast of the Martyrs of Uganda on June 3rd? If you don’t know what that day is about, look it up. Rather poignant.
I am sorry if I come over too strongly, but this has been a long journey of abuse by the leadership in our particular Diocese. Although the Bishop we have now is OK but will be retiring and who knows what’s next. Indeed I did leave once about 10 years ago, and returned in obedience to the Lord and was able to support two wonderful young priests, one of which now leads our Parish. I watch the wonderful videos of the Network Meeting and am anxious for the day when the Lord says (if He does) you too Pauline. Just very sad but so glad that it is coming to a head because we do have to choose to stand and great blessings will come when we are free of the apostate Church.
12 Charles
It seems that the middle ground is fast disappearing. I am saddened at the approaching fight. It is also a fight we must make to remain faithful.
I am also cognisant of scripture which says my coming does not bring peace but a sword.
Peace,
Jim
I too am saddened by it, Jim, but if it must happen, at least the faithful will know that they are not wanted in ACC and that they’d better leave before they’re kicked out. I think that amending the marriage canon will be the line for me, after which I shall have to join Network.
Comment from Stand Firm regarding the solid majority in favour of the motion:
Recall, the majority also voted for Barrabas.
Part One of my report is here: http://www.lambethconference.net/canada/?p=324
MGD
I thought dioceses were not permitted to pass blessings as per the decision by the national synod last year?
19 David
The left rarely plays by the rules. There was an article a couple of months ago aboput a parish in Toronto that has been doing SSB’s for years. New Westminister has never stopped. Don’t believe what Hiltz says.
We’re facing the choice with no excuses in sight.
Peace,
Jim
To be fair, Jim, neither does ‘the right’, or the Network parishes would have kept trying to make Alternate Episcopal Oversight work, rather than leaving altogether.
#13 Obituary; Thank you for bringing the Uganda Martyrs to our attention. I just found a very moving article about them by Grant LeMarquand from Trinity Episcopal in Ambidge PA Ironically, this article had been published in the Niagara Anglican in June 1995.
One difficulty with Alternate Episcopal Oversight is that it is meaningless if trust has been lost in the relationship with one’s bishop. The alternative oversight is still under the jurisdiction and control of the bishop who’s been causing the pain.
Janice – if you go to the Network webpage and click on Leadership, the Ven. Desiree Stedman looks after the “Orphans” in the Church. She may be able to help you contact someone in your area so you won’t feel so alone.
“#16 Charles on 26 May 2008 at 8:16 pm
I too am saddened by it, Jim, but if it must happen, at least the faithful will know that they are not wanted in ACC and that they’d better leave before they’re kicked out. I think that amending the marriage canon will be the line for me, after which I shall have to join Network.
#21 Charles on 26 May 2008 at 10:49 pm
To be fair, Jim, neither does ‘the right’, or the Network parishes would have kept trying to make Alternate Episcopal Oversight work, rather than leaving altogether.”
Charles: Your statement in #16 is right on, but why wait for the amendment of the marriage canon…..kinda like waiting to die…it’s going to happen, period. The same applies to those Bishops and Priests waiting to see what Lambeth will accomplish….like waiting to die….all over again. If one cannot see where +++Rowan and his cohorts are headed, then it’s time to visit the eye doctor!!
Alterate Episcopal Oversight would not have worked, simply because it had to be done abiding to the rules of the presiding Diocesan Bishop (ie: Ingham/Bird/others) who would have made sure that it (the episcopal oversight) fit their particular agendas.
“Waste of time.
#16 Charles
Jim(23) and Gerry have covered most of the ground on EO.
I have no trouble ignoring authority (I’m one of the original practitioners of “Question Authority”).
For me the crux is staying in an organization that calls itself Christian, that patently is not. No amount of Episcopal Oversight glad handing can change that.
With respect to playing by the rules, I’ve watched synods for twenty years accomodate the pleading cries of the left when the orthodox position was in control. In virtually every synod compromises were made to appease the left. Now that the left is in control, they aren’t interested in compromise.
Now that we’re down to core doctrine, there is nothing left to give.
The other point about alternate episcopal oversight is that the original bishop still has the power to appoint priests. So, when one’s orthodox priest retires or moves, one can be sure that a revisionist priest will be appointed (because orthodox candidates are being turned down for ordination). How do I know that? Because at least half of the candidates for ordination in the past ten to fifteen years in Ottawa have been from my parish; then, suddenly, about three or four years ago, if you were associated with St. Alban’s, and felt you had a call to ordination, the answer was no.
“The alternative oversight is still under the jurisdiction and control of the bishop who’s been causing the pain.”
Or in other words, when the hens complain that the fox is in charge of the henhouse, the fox gets to choose another fox to take over his duties.
I certainly agree that were there is no trust between bishop and people, AEO can never work. I think that you’ve hit the nail on the head, Kate, when you mention the situation of the retirement of the orthodox priest– which puts the Christian parishes that still remain in New West in a dangerous situation. I only wanted to point out, Jim, that no one is following the ‘rules’ (i.e. church rules), but I would certainly argue that Network is following rules of a higher authority, the commands of God. AEO, as I see it, is an interim solution with the even goal being the acquiescence of the parish to the ‘new age’ of spirit-led (I refuse to use a large S) revelation. AEO creates a situation that makes a mockery of the meaning of church, and of the scriptures which demand we address false teaching.
#25 Gerry, don’t get too harsh! I am not a fool; I realise that it is highly unlikely that the Canon will not be amended, and that currently the church leadership is barely Christian, if that. I am not ready to leave yet for many reasons. My main one is that I have only recently become a Christian (the fall of 2006). I was baptised last June, and have yet to be confirmed. It has been a confusing year for me, as I have watched the leaders of this church disregard the Bible for their own devices and designs. I am in no danger from this decision as both my home diocese and my university diocese, where I am a layreader are among the most conservative in Canada. In short, I need time to think things through and make plans accordingly. Also, if I wait till 2010, I can take a stand in such a way that Anglicans who have not followed the utterances of Spongs, Inghams and Schoris will clearly see the dichotomy between Scriptural truth and the relativistic ‘truths’ of the ‘new church’.
#26 Why do you always call the revisionists, the ‘left’, Jim? (please don’t say– because they are) They certainly may be oriented that way politically, but why create a dichotomy that is wholely imaginary, as I’m sure some of these people may well be conservative on other issues. Using words like that alienates those, like myself who agree with you on SSBs, and who support the ordination of women (which is surely of the so-called ‘left). Also, Christians should not ally themselves with particular parties or civic factions since our issues cut across these lines (check http://www.evangelicalmanifesto.com). We should oppose abortion, since it is paramount to murder, and we should welcome care of the poor and those who need our help, such as single mothers. I have joking called myself “socially conservative and fiscally socialist” to some of my evangelical friends, and it’s true! I think that Christians are called to respond to particular issues, not to polictical factions, and that seems to put me in “the left’ on most issues.
I have joking called myself “socially conservative and fiscally socialist” to some of my evangelical friends, and it’s true!
LOL, me too! A square peg in a round hole where ever I go!!
31 Charles
In the US they have devolved into calling each other “reassessors”, “reasserters”, orthodox, liberal, revisionist, traditionalist.
In the context of this Blog, it is pretty clear that you understood the clear connection to the descriptor. So “left” worked just fine.
I’m not raising politics, why are you?
Charles (#31), do some research into the liberal theology movement of the early 20th century which subsequently had great influence on “mainline” protestant churches (I’m sure it will be easy to find a lot of info on the web). Since “liberal” is commonly associated with “left” in political parlance, the terminology being applied within Anglicanism has a certain logic (although I prefer liberal).
Jim, I see Charles’ point, and to be fair, you didn’t really answer his question.
#27 Kate on 27 May 2008 at 6:24 am
The other point about alternate episcopal oversight is that the original bishop still has the power to appoint priests. So, when one’s orthodox priest retires or moves, one can be sure that a revisionist priest will be appointed (because orthodox candidates are being turned down for ordination). How do I know that? Because at least half of the candidates for ordination in the past ten to fifteen years in Ottawa have been from my parish; then, suddenly, about three or four years ago, if you were associated with St. Alban’s, and felt you had a call to ordination, the answer was no.
The same thing has happened in Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador also Kate. I know of several very well qualified candidates who have been turned down because they were “Conservative”. There is presently a Priest way out in Western Canada who could not get a parish in all of Newfoundland and Labrador because he was “conservative” and Born Again and had the courage to say so in this Diocese………result, So sorry, no place here for you”
34, 35 Warren, Kate
You are right Kate. I could have been more clear. Warren, once aagin you’ve got it.
I simply use the term “left” in the context of Anglicanism to denote the faction that is moving the church into apostacy. I do this in the absence of there being consistent terminology used in this Blog to denote the factions. Both T19 and Stand Firm use reasserter/reappraisser. Maybe we could adopt that set.
For some background Charles, I sent over thirty-five years as a labour activist retiring out of the world’s bigest union from a staff position representing injured workers. We all bring unique individual stories before the cross. I value your fresh approach to issues we may have rushed through.
Peace,
Jim
Thanks for all the comments, everyone. I too think it would be good if we had clear terms for the various groups, movements and factions in this church. I often use “revisionists” and “orthodox”, because I dislike the political implications of “liberals” or “leftists” and “conservatives”, which as we seem to agree are not the meanings we intend them to have. It would be helpful for non-Christians or non-Anglicans to use words without a political connotation, so that they won’t misunderstand us.
Charles (#38), I can sympathize with your frustration, but there is no easy answer to the terminology dilemma. While there might be some limited hope for getting agreement on the meaning of “orthodox” within protestant circles, you likely won’t get agreement from the RCC or Eastern Orthodox Church. “Revisionist” shouldn’t automatically be a negative word, because there are things that need revising. Although the gospel must be communicated with words, and we need a proper understanding of language to properly comprehend God’s Word, non-believers won’t be persuaded of the truth of the gospel just because groups in the church use different terms to describe each other. Only the Holy Spirit can open blind eyes. That said, using even more derogatory terminology, as some are likely tempted to do, would probably not be helpful in advancing the gospel.
Mind you Warren, not that I’m advocating this, but the NT is full of extremely derogatory descriptions of apostates. It’s a tricky balance, I’m not sure I’m any more fond of soft descriptions than I am of harder ones.
How about this “Orthodox Right-Thinking Christians” vs “godless heathens”? Heh. OK, perhaps not. I don’t like tautologies either.
Peter (#40), that thought was going through my mind as I was writing my comment. I was thinking more about “terminology” that would cause you to wash out the mouths of your children with soap. Words the average pagan would easily understand. I don’t think we should go there.
What about using the term Biblical Christians? or Biblical Anglicans?
Those terms would denote the importance of the Bible and belief in the truth of the Bible.
I think of Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc. when I hear the word orthodox. I do not think of myself as an orthodox Christian, but a Biblical Christian, or Biblical Anglican.
Maybe Biblical Anglican Christians is the best term. That would indicate to those who are not Christians and those who do not know what Anglican means that we are Christians, not Buddhists or some other religion.
Yes, my final vote is Biblical Anglican Christians.
Biblical indicates we believe the Bible is important and true.
Anglican indicates we belong to the worldwide Anglican Communion and historical Anglicanism.
Christian indicates we believe in Christ belong to Him.
Churchgirl101 (#45), not that I disagree with you (except for your reluctance in using orthodox which I don’t see as “owned” by the Eastern Orthodox Church), but hopefully you are also comfortable with the corollary – non-biblical Anglicans. As soon as you apply the term biblical, you infer that the “others” are non-biblical. I doubt that this would be seen as any less offensive than revisionist, heretic or apostate.
#46 No indeed. But then, heresy is an offensive business
.
Shouldn’t it be “Christian Anglicans”? Don’t really need Biblical in there with that moniker.
22 Irena it just goes to show how much the Niagara Anglican has changed under its new masters.
I just read the term that Bishop Peter Jensen of the Diocese of Sydney, Australia, and chair of the GAFCON (Global Anglican Future Conference) uses:
Biblical Anglican Christian!
See his letter on the Global South website regarding GAFCON.