Comments on: Day 7 – ANiC Parishes v Diocese of New Westminster – June 3 09

By: Ellie M.

Ellie M. — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:35:34 +0000

“It was exciting and liberating to be among those who took their faith seriously”

Does this mean Mr MacAdams does not?

By: Susan

Susan — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:39:59 +0000

Good point Ellie! I too am a ‘cradle Anglican’ but had most of my Spiritual ‘upbringing’ from that same parish for the last 30+ years.

By: Sandra

Sandra — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:58:27 +0000

Does anyone know if Edith Humphrey is going to be one of the witnesses?

By: James

James — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 05:59:44 +0000

Ms. Chang’s account of Day 7 accurately reflects most of what was said by the witnesses although, speaking as someone who was in the courtroom and heard the testimony, I’m a little mystified by her reporting on Rev. Dixon’s references to the Bible. As I recall, he didn’t say there are some passages in the Old Testament to which “supporters” of SSBs refer; I heard him say passages to which some “opponents” refer (presumably Lev. 18:22 and 20:13). The balance of Ms. Chang’s reporting on that part of the testimony, the part that made reference to the Ten Commandments then to Jesus’ Summary of the Law, is equally disjointed as I recall it. Even if one disagrees with Dixon’s interpretation, shouldn’t every effort be made to ensure that references to Holy Scripture are accurately reported on?

By: Kate

Kate — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:37:04 +0000

You know, she is exceedingly busy, and errors can happen. I am grateful that she is writing these reports at all - it is an extra task that she didn’t need to take on.

By: Edith Humphrey

Edith Humphrey — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:45:28 +0000

I am not being called as a witness in the flesh.
They have 2 affidavits from me, which the judge is reading. The first sets forth the case that ANiC parishes are truly Anglican, and the second refutes points made in 4 of the affidavits of expert witnesses from the Diocese.

I am praying for the process, and following it when I can.

By: Irena

Irena — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:02:19 +0000

#4 James: I have been to quite a few of the sessions (though not the one you refer to) and have found Cheryl Chang’s digest of the proceedings to be spot on. Readers should be encouraged that they are reading a generally accurate report.

With regard to the issue you raised, did you know that the Diocese of New Westminster also details the proceedings? In fact the ANiC site here links to their updates if you are interested (Day 7 in this case). Interestingly the Diocesan writer didn’t seem to get much more clarity than Cheryl from Rev. Dixon’s argument from Scripture. One could conclude from this that the fault is not with Cheryl’s reporting but with Rev. Dixon himself.

By: Frank Wirrell

Frank Wirrell — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:27:40 +0000

In response to Ellie #1. The issue is not whether a person takes his/her faith seriously but what are the tenants of that faith. To be a true Anglican one must first be a believer in Jesus Christ and accept the Scriptures as divinely inspired. Sad to say the Diocese of New Westminster under Michael Ingham has lost its way and is one of the leaders in taking the ACoC into the abyss of apostasy and irrelevance. Being a so-called bishop or a QC does not make one a Christian.

By: Cheryl Chang

Cheryl Chang — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 01:49:10 +0000

James #4
Re: As I recall, he didn’t say there are some passages in the Old Testament to which “supporters” of SSBs refer; I heard him say passages to which some “opponents” refer

First, let me say that what I wrote was a number of quotes and a summary of the evidence given. I do not claim to have written a verbatim account. I have now reviewed the transcript and he did say there are a number of passages that ‘opponents’ refer to before the line about the OT, but he was answering the question “Is there a biblical context in which you’d put same-sex blessings?” I was trying to capture that the diocese was attempting to make the point that both sides use scripture to justify their position. He refers to the OT - 10 commandments (re: conservatives) and then to the NT - love commandment (re: liberals), which I felt was trying to show both sides quote scripture. I do not think I have misrepresented his position, although having seen the transcript, I have now asked Kate to amend the final quote in that paragraph - when she has time.

What I found of particular interest that I thought should be shared, was his actual quote:
“. . .the Jewish people summarize those 613 religious laws into the 10 commandments..”

I thought God wrote the 10 commandments - at least for those who believe scripture is the inspired Word of God - that is what we’re supposed to believe.
Peace.

By: Margo

Margo — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 02:45:49 +0000

“What I found of particular interest that I thought should be shared, was his actual quote:
‘. . .the Jewish people summarize those 613 religious laws into the 10 commandments..’
I thought God wrote the 10 commandments - at least for those who believe scripture is the inspired Word of God - that is what we’re supposed to believe.”

Yes Cheryl (#9) - he has it backwards. First the 10, then the rest -