Below is some additional information on Montreal from this Journal article. The Bishop has some things to say about being prophetic, nothing directly from Matthew 7v15, which might be more appropriate to the course the diocese is taking. I note too that there’s no ‘might’ about it, they will proceed. Also buried in the article is a confirmation of the SEM rejection, which seems to me to deserve a little more prominence. Here, after all, is a diocese going ahead with SSB’s and at the same time rejecting the Church’s own plan for conscientious objectors. Deserving of more than a footnote in an article, yes?
Montreal bishop will work out rite for same-sex blessing
Harvey Shepherd
Oct 28, 2008
Marites N. Sison
Barry Clarke, bishop of the diocese of Montreal.After this week’s discussions with bishops of the Anglican church from across Canada, Bishop Barry Clarke of Montreal plans to launch a process to work out a rite for blessing same-sex couples in the diocese who have been married in civil ceremonies.In an opening statement Oct. 24 to the annual synod of the diocese of Montreal, the bishop said he believes that in the current debate about same-sex issues some are being called to speak with a prophetic voice, others with a voice of caution.
“For reasons, perhaps known only to God, I believe we, in the diocese of Montreal, are among those who have been called by God to speak with a prophetic voice,” he said. “It is our voice that is called to affirm that all people are loved, valued and precious before God and the Church. It is our voice that is called to affirm that all unions of faithful love and life-long commitment are worthy of God’s blessing and a means of God’s grace. In time our voice will either be affirmed by the body, or stand corrected.”
About a year ago, the 2007 Montreal synod adopted a resolution calling on the bishop to grant permission for clergy, under certain conditions, to bless duly solemnized civil marriages, including same-sex marriages. Bishop Clarke, like the bishops of two other dioceses where such motions were passed around the same time, has not yet implemented it by authorizing such blessings.
Speaking at this year’s synod, the bishop described his decision as one that “does constitute an incremental step forward, which is consistent with the wishes of synod, all the while observing the cautious posture voiced and upheld in other parts of the Anglican Communion” and expressed at the Lambeth Conference of the world’s Anglican bishops this summer.
Delegates to this year’s Montreal synod took no further action on the issue except to debate and vote down, by clear although not overwhelming majorities, two resolutions presented by people opposed to same-sex blessings.
One resolution asked the bishop to refrain from implementing same-sex blessings until there had been extensive consultation with the Anglican Communion worldwide, until the diocese had established a process for consulting its members, until the General Synod of Canada changed the marriage canon, and in any event not before the 2010 Montreal synod.
The other resolution asked that, if the bishop did authorize the blessings, a process called shared episcopal ministry be made available parishes and clergy requesting it. (Basically, this could mean that, with Bishop Clarke’s assent, a bishop opposed to the blessings would provide certain services, probably including confirmations, in similarly minded parishes. Last May, Eddie Marsh, retired bishop of Central Newfoundland, carried out a confirmation service for candidates from two parishes in the Montreal suburban area known as the West Island. Bishop Clarke authorized this, at least with regard to one of the parishes, and the experiment was considered by some to be a trial run for shared episcopal ministry.)
The two motions were rejected, although their sponsors used conciliatory language in presenting them.
David Johnstone, rector’s warden of the evangelical St. Stephen’s Church in Westmount, said the motion on consultation would not reverse the 2007 decision but would help to preserve Anglican unity in a situation where “the diversity once cherished by Anglicanism has been stretched beyond limits.”
Rev. Timothy Wiebe of two churches in the Eastern Townships described the motion on shared episcopal ministry as “creative, generous and fully inclusive of all points of view” and “an Anglican solution, a via media.”
In his opening address Bishop Clarke said that, shortly after the meeting of the House of Bishops (Oct. 27-31), he would establish a commission with the responsibility of drafting an appropriate rite for the blessing and guidelines for implementation.
“In this process, I am committed to an open dialogue, and to this end, I will provide opportunities on a formal basis for listening, dialogue and further discernment,” he said. He added that the diocese would work alongside the faith, worship and ministry committee, which had been charged by General Synod, the Anglican Church of Canada’s governing body, to develop a process to engage dioceses and parishes in study of the Christian perspective on human sexuality in light of scripture, reason, tradition and current scientific understanding.
“Let me make it absolutely clear that in this process, no cleric and no congregation will be required to participate in any future blessing of same-sex civil marriages,” said Bishop Clarke.
Pray for the diocese of Montreal, and that the diocese will indeed stand corrected.
SEM, even if it was implemented, means nothing. The original bishops still keep the power to appoint and fire priests, and I can’t imagine that they would be too eager to hire a priest who would want SEM.
Yup, agreed, but it says something that Montreal rejected even this, presented as it was in a very conciliar way.
Since this so called “Bishop” from Montreal wanted to consult with other so called “Bishops” before proceeding. Seems to me that he had already made up his mind. Perhaps he was looking for some suggestions on how to drive out even more of the truly Faithful.
Interesting to note that the only other “Bishops” he consulted with were from only the Anglican Church of Canada. Perhaps he realized that if he approached ABC that ABC would have said “but what about my three part moratorium?” Or if he had consulted with Bishops from anywhere other the the US he would have been told that he was committing a grave sin.
People with an agenda are not interested in the truth. They look only for confirmation of their predetermined decisions.
May God have mercy Barry Clarke
“For reasons, perhaps known only to God, I believe we, in the diocese of Montreal, are among those who have been called by God to speak with a prophetic voice,” he said.
What a load of tripe that statement is: since when was a prophetic voice one that affirms the decadence of the secular culture.
[4]
David,
I agree. Furthermore, God may know the reason, but I doubt very much whether He was consulted.
It occurs to me that for two thousand years Christians have been called to establish God’s Kingdom on earth. Whereas today the liberal thrust seems to be to remake the Kingdom in society’s image.
Peace,
Jim
Peace,
Jim
Please, please, enough, enough, you have made your decision to leave the ACoC, why should you care about what it does anymore. After all don’t you have enough to do now to run your own church. If you are the “real spirit of Anglicanism”, lets see it in action with some kind words and Christian love, instead of using all your energy and resources badmouthing a church you no longer belong to. It seems that members of the ACoC are being much kinder to you in this regard. Best wishes in your new ministry in your new church.
Randy
“It seems that members of the ACoC are being much kinder to you in this regard. Best wishes in your new ministry in your new church.”
Hardly: ANiC Churches are being actively persecuted in some areas.
Randy [#6],
If we simply could realign with the rest of the world’s Anglicans and be left in peace, we would. As it is the ACoC, being the essence of kindness that it is, is suing our pants off in a desperate bid to seize our buildings and sell them in order to shore up their morally and fiscally bankrupt oligarchy.
#6 Randy: It could be that some of us are concerned for the well-being of the faithful in the Diocese of Montreal. Maybe we are saddened by those who are besmirching the name of Christ by blessing unholiness in his name. Your suggested ‘kindness’ is not kindness at all to those who need the Gospel, and it is certainly not the ‘real spirit of Anglicanism’ except in liberal circles where the Gospel is hidden and the Spirit is quenched.
Irena: I suppose if you have the key to what is truth you must be right. I understood that the ANiC did not base its existence solely on the possible blessing of same gender unions in the ACoC. Am I correct? If so, I have yet to hear what the other issues are. Make no mistake there are a lot of faithful people in the ACoC, both lay and ordained (including bishops), laboring everyday in the Lord’s work. Don’t be as judgmental as to condemn the entire Anglican Church of Canada. Bless you.
Randy
Randy [#10]
I suppose if you have the key to what is truth you must be right.
A comment that is designed to shut down further discussion without having taken the effort to say anything pertinent.
If you are really interested in finding out why churches are joining ANiC, why 70% of the world’s Anglicans support and are praying for us, then open your mind a little and do some research.
Randy (#6), as someone who is currently attending a large evangelical church (there is no ANiC, or conservative ACoC, choice where I live), I would suggest that it is most appropriate for believers of all stripes to be concerned about false teaching anywhere in the body of Christ. When one part of the body suffers, we all suffer. Christians from different denominations often find it difficult to agree on doctrinal matters of secondary importance, but, were they more willing to lay aside those differences when it came to defending the fundamental doctrines of the faith, I believe that western Christianity would be much healthier. I suspect that what has been happening in the ACoC is almost invisible to most evangelical Christians in Canada, but they should be concerned. Their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ are being deceived and their souls are being put in jeopardy.
Rather than see Anglicans show up at the door of my church hoping to find true teaching from God’s Word, (as occasionally happens), I would far rather see them being fed the pure milk of Word within their own tradition. I wish that more people in my church would spend time on their knees praying for both the ACoC and ANiC.
Randy
You are correct – SSBs are not the reason for the break down of the Anglican Church – that issue is a symptom of the greater problem. The issue is the authority of scripture and the uniqueness of Christ. Jesus said that He is the way, the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except by Him. The ACoC has stated that they no longer believe that to be true – there are many ways to the Father. I have heard the creed questioned publicly. Our former diocese (Niagara) is considering taking it out of the liturgy as they question the virgin birth, the death on the cross and the resurrection. These are the tenets of our faith. If we don’t believe in them or the Deity of Christ, then why bother. I would rather spend Sunday morning at the gym – at least that is good for me physically. The new belief system that is being expressed under the guise of being all loving and all inclusive, is not Christian. If we are not following the teachings of Jesus and not believing that the bible is the Word of God, then we are no longer Christian. It is all of these things, SSBs just being the final straw that has caused the rest of the global Anglican communion to declare the ACoC and TEC in impaired communion with the faithful worldwide and have stated that these two bodies have “torn the fabric of communion at the deepest level”. On a closer level – having been a member of ACoC for more years than I care to count and having many close connections there, I was taken very much by surprise at the lies and mistreatment that the diocese has handed out and continue to do. The heavy handedness has been an eye opener to many – not just those of us who have decided to stay in the Anglican worldwide church by joining ANiC. I know this is rambling Randy, but I hope it explains in part what the rift is all about – it is all about the gospel.
Randy #6, not everybody who reads this blog has made that decision. I believe there are a number of Federation churches in Montreal who were looking to take advantage of SEM, hence the discussion as hand is pertinent.
#10 Randy: I’m not sure how you got from my post #9 that a) I was condemning everyone in the ACoC or that b) same-sex blessings was the only reason for the ANiC split from the ACoC. Neither of these statements represent what I was saying. If I alluded to the SSB issue, it was due to the fact that the article we were commenting on was about that issue. It has occurred to me that you are wanting to stir believer against believer, but then perhaps I can be accused of reading that into your post. Gesundheit!
I still have not heard from anyone of the ANiC as to any concerns that you might have about belonging to the province of the southern cone, a province that does not ordain women and has not one single female priest serving in it. Is that of concern to anyone? Especially female clergy of the ANiC, knowing that archbishop venerables would not have ordained you? Just a question I have and I believe might be of interest to many. I have raised these kinds of concerns before but rather than a straightforward answer I seem to just get attacked. Thank you for addressing this concern.
Rev. Randy Lockyer
The arrangement with Southern Cone is a temporary, emergency arrangement, and Bishop Venables hasn’t hesitated to license female clergy. The Common Cause partnership has agreed that the ordination of women is an issue on which we can “agree to disagree”.
Now, would you please answer the questions that Jim posed to you in comment number 11 on this thread?
Hello Randy (16)
For some of us the issue of woman ordination is an issue, for some of us it is not. For me personally, I am mindful of 1 Timothy 3:1-16, which indicates to me that only a man can be an “Overseer” (aka Bishop) or a Deacon. Of course there are numerous additional qualities that an Overseer or a Deacon must also be gifted with, and thus just being a man is in itself not enough. But for me, based on what I have personally read within the Holy Scriptures, I think that a Priest must fulfill all of the requirements as given in 1 Timothy 3: 1-16, including being a man. Being a layman, with comparatively little formal religious education, I am willing to admit that I may be incorrect in this thought, and am interested to hear why some people believe that woman ordination is ok.
Consequently, I personally do not have any problem with being under the temporary Episcopal oversight of Bishop Venables.
For me, there is a big difference between the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) and the Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC). ANiC is making an effort to be Faithful to God even if this means changing ourselves. ACoC is allowing itself to be changed to conform to secular society, even if this means disregarding 2,000 years of Church Doctrine, and ignoring the concerned pleas of the rest of the Global Anglican Communion (GAC). For example, the ink had not yet dried on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s three part moratorium request, and several Dioceses within ACoC had moved onward with their plans for SSBs. The actions of ACoC indicate that the leadership of ACoC has very little concern for maintaining Communion within the GAC, despite what they say. Actions do speak louder than words.
Finally, I would be interested to know where you. No need for an exact address, even just which Diocese would be fine. Also, would you be willing to share with us what is going on in your area. What is ACoC telling your Congregation? Is your Congregation receiving any information about ANiC from anyone other than ACoC? What are the feelings within you Congregation about what is happening?
Respectfully, and may God Bless you,
Allan
Allan, there is a female deacon refered to in the NT. I am a bit queasy about the idea of women bishops because of the passage you reference, but I believe that women deacons (and I think, by extention, priests) are justifiable scripturally.
Anyway, as I said, I think it is really a non issue. There are members of common cause who don’t ordain women, and there are those who do, and it doesn’t seem to have created much of a problem. It is truly a second order issue.
Allan: I thank you for a honest and sincere answer. I respect where you are on the ordination of women, though it is not my belief. You have that right to your opinion on it. I believe you have put it very well as a member of ANiC. I thought that view of the ordination of women was put behind us in Canada nearly 30 years ago. I see it is still very much alive in the southern cone province. I can only assume that female priests that left the ACoC to join the Southern Cone must feel quite offended to be affiliated with a province that does not acknowledge their God given right to be a priest in the church.
Allan, I serve in the diocese of Central Newfoundland, and I don’t propose to speak for the diocese, I will leave that to our bishop. Except to say that this diocese has every intention of respecting the motion of the General Synod of 2007. Thank you Allan for your sincere response to my question. I appreciate it and wish you well in your faith journey.
Randy
Why would you assume that? Obviously Southern Cone province believes it to be a second order issue as well, or Bishop Venables wouldn’t have been willing to extend episcopal oversight in the first place. The women priests of my acquaintance have expressed no such offense in my hearing.
Now, could you please answer the questions I referenced in my previous comment?
Randy – we have many female priests that have left the ACoC and joined ANiC and have been received and licensed by Greg Venables. They were less offended by the stand that the Southern Cone has taken than the one by ACoC. That is not to say that all members of ACoC are believing false teachings but, sadly, many in leadership are and are being allowed to lead their congregations down a very slippery slope. I would be curious to know if this apostacy is as offensive to you as you feel the question of female ordination should be to others. We are praying for orthodox leaders to have the courage to stand up against the tide and perhaps you are called to be one of those brave people Randy.
Hello Kate (19)
Would you be able to direct me to the New Testament Passage that you reference. I have not been able to find it on my own, and would like to read it.
Regards,
Allan
Paula, in #13 you mentioned that that Diocese of Niagara is contemplating removing the Creeds, can you point me to any official document or web site from Niagara where this is discussed? I have heard about this move a couple times, second or third hand, but have been unable to verify it from any official Niagara source.
Kate: The question you ask i assume is what is referenced in #11 First of all, it would be a false assumption to make, I am very familiar with what is going on in the wider church, and it is not accurate to say that %70 are supporting the ANiC, I believe it is accurate to say 70% are praying for you, the two are not the same. I do not believe that 70% of the Anglican Communion support the interference of the Province of the Southern Cone into the affairs of another region, namely the ACoC. I think that was clear from Lambeth. Thanks for listening.
Randy
Hi Alan:
From the TNIV
Romans 16;1-3:
1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon [a] of the church in Cenchreae. 2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me.
Footnotes:
1. Romans 16:1 Or servant
2. Romans 16:3 Greek Prisca, a variant of Priscilla
Some translations say “servant”, but the Greek word is diaconos. (I know I didn’t transliterate that word properly…)
Randy, I didn’t mean comment 11 on this thread, I meant comment 11 on the thread that I linked to.
In Greek:
Συνίστημι δὲ ὑμῖν Φοίβην τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἡμῶν, οὖσαν διάκονον τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν Κενχρεαῖς,
διάκονον = diakonon = deacon (of)
Sorry I mis spelled your name, Allan. One of my sons has the middle name Alan, and I got confused….
Wow, Ellie. I can read three of those words — must drag out “Teach yourself NT Greek” again…
Cathy (25)
It was brought up at their last synod (I believe by Stephen Hopkins) I have also been at synod when the table discussion group have discussed the irrelevance of the creed as long as 13 years ago.
Randy – I disagree with you. 70% of the global communion agree with our stand and have declared themselves to be in broken communion with the ACoC and TEC, while in full communion with the Common Cause groups – of which ANiC is part. We are grateful for their support and prayers.
Hello Randy (20)
With your Diocese supporting the motion of General Synod 2007, the situation where you are may be quite different from the situation where I am, that being the Diocese of Huron. Here, the ACoC march away from God’s Holy Word is painfully obvious.
We hear our Priests openly question the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and say things like “Jesus is a way to salvation” and no longer say “Jesus is the way to salvation”, teach that we no longer need to pay attention to certain passages of Holy Scripture, that “times have changed and therefore how we interpret Holy Scripture must also change”, and that we no longer need to mean everything we say when we recite the Creeds. These Priests are not disciplined by the Bishop. In fact some of the Bishops are saying these things also! How can I remain a member of such a Church? How can I, as a responsible parent, have my children being taught their Sunday school lessons by people who preach such things?
I found myself in a very difficult situation. Either I would compromise my Faith and remain in the Anglican Church of Canada, or would have to find another Church. But as a devoted Anglican, I have extreme difficulty leaving my Anglican heritage. I very much want to continue Worshiping God via the Anglican Liturgy. Consequently (and thankfully) for me, and apparently many others like me, there is the Anglican Network in Canada.
May the Diocese of Central Newfoundland be now, and always, acceptable in the sight of God.
Allan
Randy [#26]
Where do you get your numbers?
If you look here, the estimate is 88%
Here, it’s 75%
I am sure I could dig up some more references if you are really interested.
Hello David (35)
The specific level of Support for ANiC within the Global Anglican Communion can be debated endlessly. Until someone conducts something of a census of all Bishops (and perhaps even include Clergy) we cannot know the exact number with any degree of certainty.
That being said, there are several things that we can be absolutely certain of:
Approximately 25% of the Bishops that were invited to Lambeth 2008 did not attend. This was a direct result of actions taken by the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church in the United States. Furthermore, these Bishops are responsible for approximately 50% of all the Anglicans in this world.
An online petition asking Anglicans in the UK to support the Vancouver area ANiC Parishes now has over 1,000 signatures from Anglicans all over the world, including numerous Clergy and some Bishops.
There were many Bishops who considered themselves to be “Anglican” (i.e. the Traditional Anglican Communion Bishops) who were not invited to Lambeth, not even in an “observer” capacity.
The three part moratorium requested by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the conclusion of Lambeth 2008 has been disregarded by several ACoC Diocese (New Westminster, Huron, Niagara, Ottawa, and Montreal).
ACoC Diocese continue to pursue legal action against ANiC Parishes.
Regards,
Allan
Paula: I have looked over the information the Diocese of Niagara has on their web site regarding their 2007 Synod and the mins of 2006 and I can find no reference to the creeds. Before I get accused of being overly skeptical or doubting your word, I have a reason for being particular about documenting the sources of information. To start with eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable and needs to be backed up by more than one witness. Also, I can’t take you by the hand and introduce you to every person whom I’m having a conversation with. I need to be able to hand somebody a piece of paper or point them to a web site otherwise I am just repeating hearsay.
David: I got the numbers from you earlier. You did say 70%
Randy
I think he was trying to ask you on what basis do you disbelieve his (David’s) numbers.
Randy (#16), as I see it, even though I may not agree 100% with the theological position of the Southern Cone, I see a Province that desires to subordinate the wisdom of man to the wisdom of God. With the ACoC, I see a Province that wants to subordinate the wisdom of God to the wisdom of man. For me, this difference completely outweighs individual issues such as WO.
I would be interested in hearing from some of the female priests that are now members of ANiC. Though they have the right to continue their functions as priests in the ANiC, they could not do so in the Southern Cone as they are not considered to be legitimately ordained priests. I know that the ordination of women was one that Bishop Harvey struggled with also. I do not know how he feels about it now, though I have a feeling about how he might. Anyhow, all you female priests out there in the ANiC, how do you reconcile all of this with your own convictions on the ordination of women? Thanks
Randy
Randy [#41]
You seem to be a little fixated on the issue of women priests and I’m not sure why; are you considering joining ANiC and the only thing holding you back is the Southern Cone’s position on women priests?
I know an ANiC woman priest and she is far less bothered by this than you appear to be.
David: I am just trying to figure out why people aren’t considering the dichotomy in all of this. No I am not considering the ANiC, I love the ACoC, though flawed and imperfect as it might be. I have a sneaky feeling that the ANiC is also far from perfect as well. Though they say otherwise, the ANiC is fixated on one issue and that is same gender blessing. That is the only thing I see being addressed by the ANiC. Please don’t assume that God’s spirit is not at work in parishes of the ACoC all over this nation. I assure you it is. Thanks for responding
Randy
Randy #26 and #38
!
“I think that was clear from Lambeth”
Wow!! Out here in BC, NOTHING was clear from Lambeth! Perhaps you NFLDers are skilled at seeing through dense fog
Regarding the number supporting ANIC (#11), I think that you made the mistake of counting Bishops instead of Anglicans. Many of these Bishops that attended Lambeth are the ones who, ignoring their ordination vows to “defend the faith”, have worked tirelessly to undermine it! I tried but was unable to locate a chart that I saw a few months ago showing average number of anglicans per bishop in the various world regions: in the South it was something like 150,000 anglicans per bishop, but in North America, is was 15,000 anglicans per bishop. It is little wonder that the NA bishops (TEC and ACoC) declare “Cross Border Interventions” a vastly more serious sin than heresy.
Randy [#43],
I am just trying to figure out why people aren’t considering the dichotomy in all of this
There is no dichotomy: women priests are a secondary issue.
I love the ACoC
Why?
I have a sneaky feeling that the ANiC is also far from perfect as well.
No, it isn’t perfect; it’s also not heretical. I would agree with you that not all ACoC parishes are heretical, but I think the organisation is, as are its leaders.
ANiC is fixated on one issue and that is same gender blessing
That is one issue; the others were addressed by Paula in #13.
Please don’t assume that God’s spirit is not at work in parishes of the ACoC
I don’t. Some have already joined ANiC and I am sure many others are considering it.
I think I can somewhat understand Randy’s comment about Essentials seeming to be a one issue movement. You hear a lot in Essentials about the undermining of the authority of scripture in the ACoC, but the only real concrete example that is really addressed is Same Sex Blessing. Evidence needs to be presented to support the charge of ‘teaching another gospel’ which meets the following criteria.
1. The evidence must be independently verifiable. A book somebody wrote, a web site, pamphlet, audio recording or at the very least eye witness statements by multiple people who are willing to have other people contact them directly to hear their testimony.
2. The teaching in error must be coming from somebody who is in a position of authority or leadership within the ACoC.
3. It must be simple and easy to understand. Imagine somebody who has not had any Christian education beyond what they learned 30 years ago in Sunday School, and they are only going to give you 3 minuets of their time.
4. Finally it can not, in any way shape or form mention Same Sex Blessing because once SSB is mentioned, that’s all people will hear.
I have been trying to create a document which contains such examples but I’m finding it very difficult. I can find things which meet 2 or 3 of the criteria but not all 4. For example, I found a letter to the editor in the Calgary Sower where somebody was advocating dropping the creeds, this met 1, 3 & 4, but not #2, she was not in a position leadership.
Cathy (#46), I would suggest that the exercise you are attempting will not be conclusive. Have you considered that what is not said may be as or more important than what is said? If the gospel is not being faithfully proclaimed from Anglican pulpits, ACoC or ANiC, on a regular basis, then everything else, as nice and truthful as it may be, has little eternal value.
I agree, what is not said is very important, however it is also very difficult to prove a negative.
For example, a church does not say the creed one Sunday, is that because it was cut that Sunday because the sermon went especially long, they are trying a different service format, somebody simply forgot, or does the church have a policy not to say the creed because nobody believes it?
It’s a difficult thing to prove in that way Cathy, though I think what has come out of NW (Mansions of the Spirit, anybody?) and now from some other dioceses might help. The fact that the same language is used but a different meaning is implied does not help either.
It’s this kind of vagueness that in the past lead to (say) the emphasis on Jesus coming in the flesh – to conteract those who said that Jesus had come, and then who made something very different of that belief.
The reason SSB is raised so often now is that it is the tip of the iceberg that is easy to see, verifiable, and linked back to a ‘different gospel’ (e.g. http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm).
Of course, this then leads to charges that we are obsessed with SSB, which I always think is a little rich. It seems to me a bit like an adulterer/ess accusing their spouse of being obsessed with fidelity.
It is the usual tactic of ACoC to paint ANiC as a one or two issue Church, and to accuse ANiC of being “obsessed with sex”. However tempting it may be for the popular press to portray things this way, it is simply not true. If ANiC can be accurately accused of being obsessed with anything, than that would be with being Faithful to the Word of God. The truth is that it is ACoC that is obsessed with sex, for it is ACoC that continues to push its agenda of moving forward with SSB regardless of the concerns expressed by Anglicans from around the world.
ANiC has as its spiritual guide the Holy Word of God, and it is in this that we are steadfast and unyielding. Simply put, if the Holy Word of God says something is a sin, than it is a sin no matter how many people have a problem with it.
Alternatively, ACoC seems to keep raising the issue of SSB, even though it has been told many times over the years that it is wrong. ANiC saying no to SSB everytime ACoC raises the issue is not ANiC obsessing. It is ACoC obsessing and refusing to accept God’s truth.