From the Essentials website:
“The following letter was sent to the College of Bishops of the Diocese of Toronto and signed by 14 clergy. Out intention is to express the deep distress we feel at both the content and the process of the proposal to implement what appears to us to be the local option.
The Rev. Murray Henderson
Chair, Anglican Essentials Toronto13 March 2009
The Rt. Rev’d Colin Johnson and the College of Bishops
Diocese of TorontoRegarding: The Blessing of Same-Sex Unions: Draft Discussion Document for Consultation (January 29, 2009)
It is with grave concern that we write to ask you, the College of Bishops of the Diocese of Toronto, not to proceed with the proposed “Pastoral Response” regarding same-sex blessings. Our first concern is with the response itself: “to offer prayers and blessing to same-sex couples in stable long-term relationships.” It is difficult to distinguish this proposal from the “local option” for same-sex blessings. The objection to the local option has always been – from both liberal and conservative perspectives — that what is at issue here is marriage. The St. Michael’s Report (par. 39) concluded that “any proposed blessing of a same-sex relationship would be analogous to a marriage to such a degree as to require the church to understand it coherently in relation to the doctrine of marriage.”
Therefore any priestly blessing – however designated — on a “long-term committed” sexual relationship belongs within the purview of General Synod and the Canons on marriage.
Further, as the St. Michael Report has made clear, the matter of same-sex blessings, while itself non-core or non-credal, is integral to matters of doctrine, matters of belief that have profound significance for who we are as human beings in relation to God. It touches on the doctrine of the Creator God, and the way in which our human nature is given by God that we may be, by the simple fact of our existence as male and female together, creatures in the image of God. It touches on the doctrine of sin, and the way in which even sexual desire is distorted by the turning away from God, yielding no longer only joy, but shame and pain. It touches finally on the doctrine of redemption and the NT’s vision of Christian marriage as an image (and more than an image: an outward and visible sign) of the restored relationship, the longed-for peace, between God and humanity. In the union, physical and emotional and spiritual, of man and woman in marriage, in the difference there brought into its intended harmony, there is an intimation and a pledge of the communion with God and with each other lost in the garden and restored on the cross (cf. Eph. 5.31-32). Marriage is by the providence of God caught up in the saving purposes of God, even in the hoped-for communion with God that is the goal of creation and for which even now all creation groans as it waits in hope. If creation matters, if we are not simply Gnostic, then the physical difference between man and woman matters too: it is in this real difference that marriage may be a sign, by the grace of God, of God’s redemption.And so, it is not a matter to be treated lightly. It is not a matter to be entered into by subterfuge, as if we were really doing something else. The proposed pastoral response, insofar as it involves the blessing of a sexual relationship, takes us into the realm of marriage and the doctrines and canons of the church. Therefore we continue to ask not only that the bishops of this diocese will respect the polity of the church, its synods and global councils, but that the church will be faithful to its gospel, its own ancient narrative of creation and redemption, of sin and salvation, in which even the marriage of man and woman has its place.
Our second concern has to do with the rationale for the proposed pastoral action.
There are three problems with it. First, it misrepresents the current situation. The letter suggests that we are still engaged as a church in “conversation” toward “consensus.” We are, however, already in schism. Some bishops and some clergy and congregations have resigned from their dioceses in the ACC in order to serve under the bishops of other provinces; others continue to join them. A new province is in the making. We have had the conversation about human sexuality and marriage: we have utterly failed to reach consensus. The ACC now comprises people who hold two opposed and irreconcilable views on marriage and on the morality of same-sex relationships. To proceed now with a local option for same-sex blessings is not to respond in a pastoral way to an unclear situation. The situation is perfectly clear: we are divided. The issue is now this: can we live together in a way that is honest and faithful in the midst of such disagreement?
Second, the rationale suggests that the church needs to adjust its marriage canon in light of the decisions of the civil courts about the nature of marriage. This is to make the vision of the church dependent on a secular vision. The Christian understanding of marriage, however, is based on a scriptural narrative about the world. It is not our task to make Christian marriage fit into secular society’s narrative of individual rights and freedoms and the blessedness of desire. Our calling is to be shaped and formed by the world as it exists in the Bible and in the witness of the church. In this scriptural understanding of the world we form, as Christians, a different society: the church catholic. No change can be “required” of the marriage canon by the civil society. It can be required only by the Word of God and the consensus fidelium, the mind of the universal church.
Likewise, to say that contraception entails a redefinition of marriage is to get it backwards. It is the task of the church to come to an understanding of contraception that is consistent with and furthers the Christian vision of marriage: its rich meaning as a sign of God’s intended restoration of the world, and the mystery of its power to create new life (an image not only of the creative, but of the redeeming purposes of God begun in the birth of Isaac). Marriage matters, in the divine economy, and sex is central to it, not merely as a means of self-fulfillment but as an instrument of God’s grace.
Third, and crucially, the language of the rationale does not encourage the kind of trust that is necessary if we are to co-exist in a divided church. Is it fair to call the decision of some dioceses in favour of same-sex blessings “diversity”? Their decision is in contravention of GS 2007, the St. Michael Report, the Windsor Report, Lambeth 1998 and 2008 and the expressed wishes of our own Primate. From the viewpoint of traditionalists around the world, the independent actions of these dioceses are not “diverse” but “inflammatory.” Or, again, is it fair to propose as a model for same-sex blessings, the blessing of monastic friendships? Just where would the vow of celibacy enter into a same-sex blessing? If it is a sexual relationship the diocese intends to bless, what can it possibly mean to propose a celibate relationship as a model? Or, again, the question about the exact nature of blessing. The question is not whether a blessing is “thanksgiving for signs of God’s presence already discerned” or “adding something to a relationship:” it is both. The question is whether the sign of God’s presence can be discerned in a same-sex relationship, and whether it is theologically and morally appropriate to ask God to bless as a marriage a relationship that contradicts (as traditionalists argue) the God-given nature of marriage.
For all these reasons we would ask you to reconsider the proposal and its rationale. We would ask you to find a way forward that takes account honestly of the divided state of our diocese (and the ACC) and the gospel call, which we feel keenly, both to faithful witness and to unity. We are at an impasse. We hold, as a church, not a “diversity” of opinion, but two opposed and irreconcilable visions. A truly pastoral response would be, we suggest, to recognize the impasse and to ask how we might live together in the midst of profound disagreement.
Yours in Christ,
The Rev. Catherine Sider Hamilton
The Rev. Brian McVitty
The Rev. Canon Kim Beard
The Rev. Peter Mills
The Rev. Dr. Murray Henderson
The Rev. Canon Bruce McCallum
The Rev. Peter Blundell
The Rev. Jim Seagram
The Rev. Dr. Dean Mercer
The Rev. Andre Leroux
The Rev. Canon Matthias Der
The Rev. Simon Li
Dr. Roseanne Kydd
The Rev. Dr. Ron Kydd
Stuck (#199), no problem with the “oops”. I think it has allowed me to lay claim to comment #200.
I may not have a lot of patience with people who drop by to make snide comments (usually annonymously) and then are never heard from again, but I enjoy interacting with people who are genuinely interested in discussion – even if I disagree with them. I may hold strong opinions, but I’m smart enough to realize that I don’t have it all figured out and I can learn from people with whom I disagree. In many cases I also try to convince people that my opinion is correct, and sometimes use leading questions in doing so.
It may be hard to understand, but it happens all the time. Of course, those who claim to be Christians, may not actually be so – although it is not normally for us to judge. I hold to a view of both the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. Although this view is line with much of historic Christianity, it is one that would be rejected by many ACoC clergy and academics. It would also likely be poo-pooed in ACoC-approved seminaries as being old fashioned and uninformed, and some would even consider it to be dangerously fundamental.
If you aren’t familiar with the term inerrancy, the best summary of it (that I am aware of) can be found in the Chicago Statement of 1978:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
The statement was signed by many evangelical leaders at the time, including J.I. Packer (I don’t know if any other Anglican leaders were signatories). I suspect that any member of the clergy within the ACoC holding unashamedly to this statement would likely be viewed with derision by many of his peers.
I understand your feeling that the Toronto 14 should be fully supported. I can also understand those who feel it is too little, too late. It is not as though a sudden problem has arisen within the ACoC. Although many may not have had eyes to see it, the “problem” (which I define as the rejection of the authority of Scripture) has been developing for decades. In my opinion, it likely goes back over 100 years to when liberal theology began seriously challenging the authority of God’s Word.
Although some of your comments have been hard to decipher, I sense that you are orthodox in your perspective, hold God’s Word in high regard, and desire to be obedient to Him. To use an expression from my past, stay in the Word. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. May God bless you as you seek to follow Him.
Rats, Peter beat me to #200 while I was busy typing.
Warren – I am familiar with the chicago statement. I have always held that there was a lot of high priced help that ended up declaring things I learned in Sunday school. For instance the infallability (Warren, that’s a Roman Catholic word usually ascribed to the Pope) of scripture was described as “Jesus loves me this I know. For the Bible tells me so.” Do not think for one second that I do not hold these persons in very high esteem Dr. Packer especially who I have been blessed to hear speak several times now. We all have different schools. I believe the Chicago Statement was directed at those who missed Sunday School but did all their homework – got degrees believed in free love supported by their drugs and came to the “inspired” conclusion, that it wasn’t Father but they who new best.
“I can also understand those who feel it is too little, too late. It is not as though a sudden problem has arisen within the ACoC. Although many may not have had eyes to see it, the “problem” (which I define as the rejection of the authority of Scripture) has been”
Hey Warren; are you pulling my leg. In the world it’s the squeaky wheel that get’s the grease. In the Kingdom we find that patience is not just a virtue but a delicious fruit of the Spirit. I am sorry you have trouble deciphering. Here read it again.
“I believe the lost of our tribe has become part of the great commission and I feel that Anglican Essentials and the 14 see it that way. ANiC, correctly so (still in association) has moved in another direction to prepare a new house for us all. the old one is crumbling.”
As I said earlier hmm much earlier I am concerned at this moment more about Anglicans than the ism.
Brother mine, consider yourself admonished…this is a word usually found in scripture to descri………….
With LOVE in Christ
Stuck (#203),
Apart from upholding the Toronto 14 in prayer, which I hope all who have commented here could agree on, what other presecriptions do you have for helping Anglicans? No leading questions – I think you likely have some worthwhile things to say.
I don’t mind being admonished, but would you care to share a little more? I can probably take a reasonable guess at where you are going, but Paul was never cryptic. You might even persuade me to mend my ways.
Warren; I am the least of all to to think myself qualified as an admonisher. However I don’t think that should stop anyone from stepping up so long as the motivation is love alone. Admonishment to put it another way is holding each other accountable in the spirit of Christian Relationship. This is were unity gets its beginnings. The success of human relationship joined with the Christ Has to be unconditionalism or unconditionality. “Unconditional” happens to Christians when they are dead to self, this supernaturally morphs love and trust into a fear destroying power that allows the breakdown of restrictions to relationship that has been built up by the Evil one since, well….day one I guess.
In recent posts I have not intended to be cryptic If that is so it is either in the way words are sent or they are received. (no sarcasm here) I suspect knowing me that it is in my choice of words and their placement. In my defence I can only say that I have not, as Paul was, interrupted on a Damascus road with a Holy 2×4 upside my head. (I pray for this daily)
Consider “Holy Relationship” in comparison with typical Anglican Parish life I believe you will find it wanting.
Stuck (#205), I’m heading off on a work-related trip for a few days and won’t be connected to the Internet. Nor will I be making any further posts to this thread.
I wanted to say, however, that I’ve enjoyed interacting with you and have found your posts to be the most thought provoking of any on this thread (even though I didn’t fully understand everything you said). Hopefully you’ve had opportunity to thank your Sunday School teachers – it sounds like you had some great ones. God bless, and perhaps we will bump into each other on another thread.
Amen. Now to try and collect from this thread all the excellent relevant material for lay readership as they try to sort through the matter of ACoC, ANiC or another option when the decision comes to their parish doorstep! Oh for a secretary!! Peace
Spent over an hour last night trying to read through all the submissions. The one thing that struck me most was how we each try to rationalize why I stay/go, but more than that, why the other person should do as I have done. And it seems to me that as long as other people, who seem to be likeminded, do not do as I have done, then that must cast doubt on my decision, and something I was so sure about gets a little muddied.
Is it not possible that we cut each other a little slack? I can understand and empathize with those who have made the move to ANIC. Can you allow me equal integrity if I say that I must stay?
Warren Just in case you take another look -Thanks
ML greetings!
In my humble opinion it is not whether you stay or go. But why you stay or Go. Care to share?
My thinking follows (to save your scrolling finger)
In the world it’s the squeaky wheel that get’s the grease. In the Kingdom we find that patience is not just a virtue but a delicious fruit of the Spirit. “I believe the lost of our tribe have become part of the great commission and I feel that Anglican Essentials and the 14 see it that way. ANiC, correctly so (still in association) has moved in another direction to prepare a new house for us all. the old one is crumbling.”
Three more unassociated senior students have joined the fray with their own parallel letter. Imagine if the Bishop’s received several hundred? I’m sending one right now!
“Dear Bishop’s
I am in complete agreement with the two letters sent to you that have recently been made public regarding your decisions about implementing SSB’s. Cease and desist, or resign. Repent and reform or destroy, at your peril.
In the Name and Spirit that is our Lord Jesus.
A too small voice who has decided to wait no longer for the pastoral ministry promised – so long ago.
Consider this. When one’s computer has a serious virus that none of the conventional programs can erase, one either gets a new computer or erases the hard drive and starts all over. In either case it is essential to insure that no traces of the original virus exist. Therefore any programs that were infected or created by this virus must be removed. And not reused.
I fear that ANiC and her sister organizations in common cause i.e.; those who are working diligently in the necessary creation of a new N.A. province might fail to completely eradicate those elements in the old and corrupted Anglicanism and consequently and unintentionally infect the New.
I have opinions as to some of those “elements” but my opinions are not verified. However there is a very clear and present clue in identifying these elements. This is where our original state has failed. If a policy or practice creates division than there must be a moratorium applied until consensus is reached and division ceases. To paraphrase; Some of the people can be wrong all the time and all of the people can be wrong some of the time but not all the people can be wrong all the time. Politically it is wrong to consider ourselves “Democratic”. We are monarchists loyal to the Kingship of Jesus, and in subjection to the will of our Father. Democracy cannot measure up to the self governance (the rod of Iron) that we are called to. As the “laws of the land” require enforcement to be effective, the law that Jesus completed has no enforcement save voluntary compliance.
#209
My husband and I have always said we will stay until we are thrown out in keeping with John 16:2 and keep the trumpet sounding true (Ezekiel 33:6). Not too difficult at present since we worship in a “true” church and diocese. But there was a time a few years ago when we were put out of another church and another diocese. A move can sometimes solve such a problem. The heartbreaking part is the people who are left behind without biblical leadership. But even there we must trust our Lord’s assurance in John 10:27-29.
#211
Had all the people who are presently so vocal for truth in our church been as vocal ten to twenty years ago we probably wouldn’t be in the mess we are in now. And quite frankly, I feel somewhat abandoned. If the Essentials situation is hopeless (and only God can decide that) then it has certainly been impacted by the departure of these same people who now no longer attend our synods to vote for what is right.
(And I agree with what you are saying about consensus and viruses.)
ML I have come to believe that in my diocese many Synod Rep’s were stacked. I confess, I have no proof (there put your lawyers away now HOB). I agree that the departure of so many (and I just don’t mean to ANiC) has weakened the orthodox cause in our church. My question – is there an orthodox cause left? Yes, in your Diocese and thank God in your worshipping community. Perhaps yours will be the first diocese in Canada to weigh anchor for the New Province in N/A.
When I hitch my star it will be to the one I think Jesus is on.
Essentials was being vocal ten years ago. (Founded in 1994).
Part of what makes this discussion difficult is that the situation is not uniform across the country. There is no future for a priest in the diocese of Ottawa who is orthodox – and the selection process for candidates for ordination selects for “progressive” views, not necessarily calling. Maybe if I lived where you do, ML, I would not feel so strongly about joining ANiC being the right choice. I do believe, though, that it will only be a matter of time before folks who live in other areas of the country will be faced with the same decision I was.
ML & Kate; Kate you seem to have brought us back to whether or not we should leave the ACoC versus why we should leave. First off none have left their first estate (the Body of Christ.) Secondly, members of AniC have not left their second estate the Anglican Church catholic. Thirdly depending on the “why” many, including members of Anglican Essentials, ML, and many others Have also not left their “second estate”. There is evidence that the ACoC is in fact departing from its “first estate” As God’s people within the ACoC reach their INDIVIDUAL point of no return. They to will abandon the sinking ship or as I put it earlier the collapsing house. The inevitable result will be a “leaner meaner” Anglican church in North America. or as I am want to describe “the AciNA.” and unless it repents, the ACiC will become a dysfunctional, non Christian Canadian institution to serve the
world and its needs.
ML since I currently have no church to attend I included your passages as part of my morning prayer. One of my current daily devotionals required the study of Acts 20, imagine my joy on reading St. Paul’s (departure) message specifically Acts 20:27-31
“There is evidence that the ACoC is in fact departing from its “first estate” As God’s people within the ACoC reach their INDIVIDUAL ”
Please forgive my sloppiness the above line quoted from the my previous input should have read “There is evidence that the ACoC is in fact departing from its “first estate”. As God’s people within the ACoC reach their INDIVIDUAL point of no return, they to
(not a day goes by that I don’t regret my lack of education.)
Dear Stuck, Re #210, Your letter to the bishops was probably either a joke or what you would want to write if the Holy Spirit wasn’t constraining you. Since I understand and share,generally speaking, your real frustration, I would say that you/we are being tested, not on our willingness to speak out to those in authority, but on our humility in relationship to those in authority. This is a huge topic in scripture and we can miss it because of the “rightness” of our cause. Speak we must! Silence is not an option unless commanded by the Holy Spirit. However, Satan is sifting those who will stray outside of the Spirit of Christ and take on attitudinal weapons not found in Phil. 2:5-11. Again, please forgive me for taking your letter seriously if it was not intended that way. On the off chance that you meant every word of it; to me it sounds NOT like the Spirit that is our Lord Jesus Christ that inspired Galatians 6:1, (granted the context is different, but the spirit of it isn’t). Perhaps we really need Esther’s fasting and wisdom when approaching our bishops’ whom we see being highjacked on this issue of what real pastoral generousity is all about! PS. Have you seen the now old movie “The Mission” with Rob DeNiro and Jeremy Irons, re the Jesuit missions in South America. (Gabriel’s Oboe). There is a scene worth reviewing when Deniro stridently speaks out against those in authority and his jesuit leader Irons has to pick up the pieces of DeNiro’s passionate diatribe, which incidentaly gave those in authority a convenient distraction from facing the real issue! Our message is too important to be dismissed because its delivery is wanting! Am I suggesting that our bishops would look for a convenient diversion? No, but our delivery still must be above reproach! Risen Blessings, Lazarus
Lazarus;
Thank you for your council. I read it as loving instruction, and in general recognize the need to re-think my approach. I confess it was my intention to send that letter verbatum to the HOB. Thank the Lord I have not yet done so.
I think you have brought this thread to a place of importance akin to “Words of Wisdom”.. the questions that follow are not intended as debate, but rather that the answers might enlighten me and others perhaps.
My letter repeated
I am in complete agreement with the two letters sent to you that have recently been made public regarding your decisions about implementing SSB’s. Cease and desist, or resign. Repent and reform or destroy, at your peril.
In the Name and Spirit that is our Lord Jesus.
A too small voice who has decided to wait no longer for the pastoral ministry promised – so long ago.
Should I have ended with; this letter does not necessarly reflect the opinions of my Lord and Saviour? Which is obviously true. (or left it out altogether?)
Should I re-write my demands to sound like a request similar to the other two letters. for instance; dear Bishops please reconsider your actions for I fear they may lead to dis-unity.
Or, I pray that the Holy Spirit might lead you to repentence that the church of my Baptism may be saved from further harm.
Or a completely new approach: Dear Bishops I have listened and read, travelled to forums and talked with my Priest and my Bishop. I have yet in the past 10 years to hear one yes, just one, reason for the logic of SSB’s. For Christ’s sake Bishops ….just one.
OK Brother now that I’ve Got that off my chest let’s shift to the other hand. I spoke earlier of patience. Should I do nothing? You know I would feel like Nero. Should I just let things happen? Can I not question my Bishops and if questions fail, can I not make demands? Should I fold up shop, get off this blog, and ask the Holy Spirit to guide me in the will of the Father, in a whole new direction? Believe me that’s in every prayer.
Do I sound angry? If so it is like the disciple who cut off the ear of the soldier who would dare touch his Master, Yes he was wrong. But the time was not complete it was not yet finished, but when our Lord said “It is finished” It was. The gift is complete. There is NOTHING MORE TO ADD. We either stand firm from that moment with all the attendent teachings given or we WILL be lured away. Lazarus I thank God for His Grace that I know the wrongness of my anger. I am incomplete and desire any help from my brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus, whom I declare as Lord of All.
PS – including my Bishops
Stuck re 218: It is late so I’ll be brief and comment further at a later date. What strikes me besides your hurt/sense of betrayal is this idea; Jesus does not need you to defend Him or His gospel. He calls you to obey His ways. I know that I need Grace for that. May you find the grace to obey His ways when you speak sincerely, from the heart to those who need to hear what Christ is saying through you. We are held accountable for our imput, not the outcome, as much as we need His wisdom to guide our imput! I know this doesn’t do justice to your inner circumstance. More later. Peace in the midst!
Laz
“Jesus does not need you to defend Him or His gospel”
I agree, but I believe he wants us to. “Galations Chap 2″. I do not mean to detract from the “how” of our actions. But if the truth is that we are not to defend I need more concrete evidence of that.
Please consider that my limited purpose (ministry) is in defence of the Church. Oh I know “the gates of hell will not prevail against her”. But that does not change the fact that “even the very elect of God would fail, save the time would be shortened.” Oh my Lord help me. It has just now occured to me (for the first time) that this might refer to the Jews. (His chosen) If that is the case than one of the “legs” of my paradygm is cracked and therefore suspect. Again can you (or anyone help me). You are right about accountability. I think I must stop writing for awhile. I will be listening.
Dear Stuck, re #220, “But if the truth is that we are not to defend, i need more evidence of that” I said that Jesus doesn’t NEED us to, not that we are not to. We are to (Gal. 2), in obedience and Grace. My point is to obey Him in the “how” as well as the “what” and to follow not lead, to serve Him as our focus not challenge others as our focus. This avoids SELF being in the centre of the issue and keeps Jesus there, in our hearts, so that it is not about ME having to confront , but JESUS leading me to represent Him when HE wants. We need to be free of what I think is a trap that our nature can fall for re what is driving us on the inside. I can not comment right now re the “cracked leg”. Peace in the midst and “listening” would be a good action for me too.
Lazarus (221):
I don’t know about you, but my opposition to the ACoC does not come from ‘what is driving me inside’ but from the very Word of God itself, objectively and eternally true.
Though the Lord himself was perfect in attending to the Father’s voice, he was quick to say when necessary: “Get thee behind me, Satan!” Sometimes, peace and ‘listening’ is not the appropriate ‘action’.
Irena(222), Sometimes our “flesh” is using the Word. How (attitudinally) we oppose the ACoC was the focus of my statement, not that we use the word to oppose it. God examines our hearts to see if there is any wickedness in us. Listening is a good way to get our HEARTS right with God before we go about taking logs out of ACoC eyes. “This then is the greatest treason, to do the right thing for the wrong reason, {or with a wrong attitude}” That may not be 100% biblical, but it says in a way, one of the things I’m saying to Stuck. Speak the Truth in Love. Risen Blessings.
Hey Laz I’m not sure that I don’t “Speak the truth in Love”. In any event consider that this is not about you or me or any one else participating. This is about the Body of Christ and our place in it.
Risen Greetings! Have any of you heard that The Bishop of Toronto asked the Toronto Anglican to not publish the letter from K. Sider-Hamilton, to keep things from getting more conflicted in the Diocese!!! Is This true? Is this censorship? Selfserving? Worthy of a story in the Toronto Star? A separate entry on this blog? On the Federation site too!