Read it all here
The Primate said to us:
“I come to this meeting of the House of Bishops mindful of our Canadian context and the call for authorization of public rites for the blessings of same sex-unions in a number of our dioceses. I am also mindful of the place of the Anglican Church of Canada in our worldwide Communion.
“I trust the House of Bishops will support my call for respect for due process through the General Synod in this matter. In 2007, General Synod concurred with the opinion of the St. Michael Report (produced by the Primate’s Theological Commission) that the blessing of same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine. It is not creedal in nature but nonetheless it is doctrine. The same General Synod called for further work by the Primate’s Theological Commission in assisting the Church to determine if this matter of blessings is a Spirit-led development of doctrine. I believe that these deliberations across the church will have a significant impact on discussion at General Synod in 2010 and on the subsequent authority of dioceses through due synodical process to proceed with blessings.
“Please know that I am mindful of the continuing havoc created in several of our dioceses through cross-border interventions on the part of Primates and bishops from other jurisdictions. I believe we must call them to account. They too must honour the Lambeth call for ‘gracious restraint.’ I remain committed to addressing this issue within the Communion. ”
We spent several hours in conversation on the implications of the appeal from the Primate.
As a result of these conversations a large majority of the House can affirm the following:
A continued commitment to the greatest extent possible to the three moratoria — on the blessing of same-sex unions, on the ordination to the episcopate of people in same-sex relationships and on cross-border interventions — until General Synod 2010. Members of this House, while recognizing the difficulty that this commitment represents for dioceses that in conscience have made decisions on these matters, commit themselves to continue walking together and to hold each other in prayer.
The House also affirms:
A commitment to establishing diocesan commissions to discuss the matter of same-sex blessings in preparation for conversations at General Synod 2010.
Continued commitment to exercise the greatest level of pastoral generosity in keeping with provisions approved by this House in Spring, 2007 and continued commitment to the Shared Episcopal Ministry document approved in Fall, 2004.
We ask for your continuing prayers as we steadfastly seek to discern the mind and heart of Christ for the wholesome care of all members of his Body, the Church. We share a deep hope that though we may never come to consensus over this matter of the blessing of same-sex unions, we will live with differences in a manner that is marked by grace and generosity of spirit, one toward another.
A few initial observations:
The ‘continuing havoc’ mentioned above is actually being caused by the ACoC itself by precipitating this crisis in the first place and by taking numerous parishes to court in order to seize their buildings.
The tone is clearly one of reluctantly adhering to the moratorium on SSBs ‘to the greatest extent possible’ (whatever that means), not the repentance that most of the rest of the world’s Anglicans are looking for.
Whether the dioceses that are currently on the brink of performing SSBs actually do hold off until 2010 still remains to be seen; and will New Westminster stop? It will be instructive to see what individual statements these dioceses make.
Interestingly, this is perspective of Reuters Africa:
OTTAWA, Oct 31 (Reuters) – Canada’s Anglican bishops sidestepped a request from the worldwide Anglican Communion to stop blessing gay marriages for now, despite warnings that failure to do so would imperil Anglican unity.
The bishops issued a statement on Friday saying “a large majority” of them could affirm “a continued commitment to the greatest extent possible” to a moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions until the Canadian church’s general synod in 2010.
But the statement did not commit the entire Anglican Church of Canada to agreeing to the request made in August by the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference of global Anglican leaders.
Kate [#47]
Can we assume, then, that you do not agree with Article XVII of the 39 Articles?
#30, 32, 38 and 39! Jonathan: Thanks for posting your problem on this blog. As you know, good information doesn’t usually elicit comments and therefore is not great blog material. With your criticism of the ANiC organization, you have encouraged members of ANiC congregations to tell of some of the good Gospel things happening in our churches. To add to the others: our church, St. John’s Shaughnessy, is working flat out but joyfully for the gospel with many Bible Studies, regular evangelistic outreach, huge youth outreach, and caring for missionaries around the world for example. During the morning services this Sunday (Nov. 2) our choir is putting on a Bach Cantata with orchestra. The community is invited to hear the cantata as an act of the worship of God as Bach intended it. [End of shameless advertising!]
I may add also that our church here in Vancouver rarely mentions the court stuff and over many years has kept the theological strife out of the pulpit. I’m so glad this is the case as the evil one would love to distract from the gospel.
However, I am very, very grateful to ANiC as an organization because it has freed us from the worry that our lively gospel witness might be extinguished by an antagonistic Diocese. And I’m so grateful to Archbishop Venables for his loving, godly and wise pastoring. Through his faithfulness we have been moved to green pastures and –despite court stuff– by still waters. (I’m also very grateful for Bishops Harvey and Harding, who have given up an easy retirement for persecution on our behalf.)
#51
Yes, I wondered about that myself. What about Article XVII (of Predestination and Election)?
XXI (General Councils only valid if mandated by civil authority) and XXXVI (the King’s majesty hath ecclesiastical authority), might perhaps be validly dismissed as political accidents of church order that we can now freely re-arrange. However, Article XVII is clearly doctrinal. So if the 39 Articles are to be our litmus text of orthodoxy, then we really DO have to buy into predestination in order to be Anglican. Or don’t we?
Kate (#47), I think you deliberately read more into my comment than is actually there.
I do not believe that one must hold to a certain position on predestination in order to be saved. I do believe that one can worship God in spirit and in truth in an Anglican church without believing in predestination. Can one reject predestination and claim to fully hold to historic and orthodox Anglicanism? That’s another question.
The vast majority of Christians never worry about these sorts of things (or even understand them) and seem to get along fine. That doesn’t mean they aren’t important, though. For example, circumstances may lead you to worship in a Pentecostal or Baptist church, and you may feel comfortable in doing so for an extended period of time. When you inquire about membership, however, and are told that baptism is a prerequisite and that infant baptism is not a valid form of baptism, then you have to start taking stock of what you really believe and how important it is. (This example, by the way, points out the impracticality of Jonathan’s earlier suggestion.)
Warren, it wouldn’t be the first time, would it?
Here is the article in question:
Does this teach that every single thing we do and choose has been written in stone since before we were born? That is how some see predestination, and if that’s what Noli means by it then I would say no, I don’t buy into that. That would mean that we would not be free, and that God arbitrarily chose who would be saved and who would not, and that goes against what is revealed of our loving God in the bible. This is how I wrap my mind around the concept (I am not declaring to the world that I am right, I am just saying how I think of it). We are bound by time; God isn’t. Because of this, he already knows which people will freely choose Him, and which people will not, and He already knows all the choices we will make. He hasn’t determined our choices for us, but He knows what they will be, because He isn’t bound by time.
Anyway, I am not a scholar, and may well be completely out to lunch on this (No Comments From The Cheap Seats Please, Warren – and yes, I know Warren in “real life”, I am not trying to insult him),but that is how, so far, I have wrapped my mind around the concept.
I do not know what the ministry of the ANiC might be in the various places where it now exists, so I shall not speak to it. However, I do know a fair bit about the many Anglican Church of Canada parishes all across this country that are actively proclaiming Jesus, promoting the gospel, and are driven first and foremost by love for God and neighbour, both lay and ordained. To paint the ACoC with the brush of abomination and to indicate (if not be word than by implication) that it exists in opposition to the gospel, and God’s blessing is missing from it, is extremely judgmental and wrong. The spirit of God is in the ACoC, a lot of good work is being done in the spirit of faithfulness every day all over this country. I think of things like the PWRDF and the ministry to the North, just to name two. I don’t always agree with everything in the church, and from what I have read here, not everyone in the ANiC agrees with everything done there. Jonathan, I believe made some good points in his remarks. I shall continue in my ministry where I am, trying as best I can to reflect the love of God in the people I serve. What I write here is not an attack on anyone, its just that I see more to the ACoC than one issue. Others have tried to tell me that there is more than one, but it always comes down to the same one every time. Wherever you worship tomorrow may God’s spirit be present and may we all be blessed by it. God bless.
Randy
Randy, did you watch the video suggested in #29? Also, since I see that you are back, maybe you wouldn’t mind hopping over to this thread and answering the question posed in comment #69?
Of course God’s blessing isn’t completely absent from parts of the ACoC. It is, however, as an institution, drifting into apostacy.
Kate: I did indeed and I never once said I agreed with everything Michael Ingham wrote or even believed. I believe that the ACoC is more than a single bishop in isolation. Many bishops in the ACoC will not agree with everything a single bishop may write or believe. The Anglican church throughout much of the entire communion has tolerated differing views, perhaps through history has been one of its strong traits.
Randy
But Ingham hasn’t been disciplined for preaching things that go counter to basic Christianity. That is what tells me that the ACoC is in trouble.
Do you still think we are a one issue organization even after viewing the video?
Randy [#59],
The ACoC’s toleration of views which are blatantly non-Christian can scarcely be something that strengthens it; and in this case it obviously hasn’t, since the worldwide Anglican communion is in the process of dividing over the actions of the North American church.
Kate: Definitely. As it always boils down to SSB in one form or other. But again, that is simply my view and others will take exception to it no doubt. On another note can anyone tell me what liturgies the ANiC use other than the BCP? Thanks
Randy
The SSB issue is only a symptom – the deeper issue is biblical interpretation.
Randy [#62],
On another note can anyone tell me what liturgies the ANiC use other than the BCP?
Be honest, you are thinking of joining ANiC aren’t you: that is the only possible explanation for your intense interest.
We use a Kenyan liturgies and we quite enjoy it.
Jonathan [#50],
I was hoping for more
Yes, and I was hoping for a Unified Field Theory from ANiC by now.
As bishop Don said: “This time last year, we had two parishes. When we launched we had two bishops, two parishes, two priests, two deacons. Now, less than a year later, we have 23 parishes, we have over 60 clergy,”
I suppose that will just have to do.
David: That would be hopeful thinking . I assure you that is not the case. I have not given up on the ACoC, I am surrounded by faithful lay people, clergy and bishops, whose only real desire is to serve Christ and one another, and we are all members of the ACoC. This is my home and nobody in the ACoC will tell me to do anything I cannot accept in good conscience. I understand that even some of the people who left ACoC have made their way back, at least I am told that is the case in St. John’s, NL. One elderly lady who walked out from one of the churches was very apologetic after. Apparently she was a little hearing impaired and left with the others as she thought the fire alarm must have gone off. She did not leave the church that has nurtured her faith all these years, namely the ACoC.
Randy
[67]
Randy,
I used to work in Health and Safety at Stelco. It occurs to me that your comfort level in the ACoC is similar to our testing for toxic exposures. Everyone’s reaction is different but the central commonality is the toxic source.
You are in an organization, that in our view, has creeping toxins. That does not take away from the fine work that the ACoC has done in the past, or the fine work that many are still doing. (Our own Essentials people are still working hard from within.) Ultimately the presence of the toxins overwhelms everyone, regardless of individual tolerance levels.
Peace,
Jim
Randy [#67],
That would be hopeful thinking . I assure you that is not the case.
I was being sarcastic; I should have provided fair warning, but it slipped out when I wasn’t looking.
This is my home and nobody in the ACoC will tell me to do anything I cannot accept in good conscience.
Now that is hopeful thinking.