From the Journal
The decision by the diocese of Niagara to offer same-sex blessings has drawn mixed reactions from Anglicans in Canada.
Similarly, backlash over the recent decision by the Episcopal Church (TEC) to affirm the openness of “any ordained ministry” to gay and lesbian people and to develop more liturgical resources for same-sex blessings reflects the continuing deep divide over sexuality in the Anglican Communion.
“As a bishop, I cannot recognize the legitimacy of what Niagara is doing,” said Bishop Bill Anderson of the diocese of Caledonia. “I sadly conclude that Niagara has chosen to walk apart, and is therefore in a state of impaired communion.”
In an interview, Bishop Anderson said “bishops simply do not have the spiritual, theological or canonical authority to change the teaching of the church at the local level, however much their diocesan synods may do so.” He added that this point was “clearly articulated” by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, at the 2008 Lambeth Conference, the decennial gathering the world’s Anglican bishops.
The diocesan bishop of Niagara, Michael Bird, has responded by saying, “I understand that it’s a difficult situation for other bishops and I respect those sentiments. I will do everything in my power to reach out to anyone.” Bishop Bird said his diocese’s decision does not contravene the 2007 General Synod resolution that declared blessing rites for gay couples are “not in conflict” with core church doctrine. The authorization of the blessing was “not done out of any lack of respect or sense of importance that we hold for General Synod,” said Bishop Bird.
He noted that a majority of the chancellors (legal advisors) of the ecclesiastical province of Ontario, to which Niagara belongs, are of the opinion that General synod “failed to act in terms of the motions that were passed and that then opened up the ability for dioceses to make their own decisions in terms of how they would act on this matter.”
The bishop of New Westminster, Michael Ingham, whose diocese authorized same-sex blessings in 2002, defended Niagara’s decision, saying “I think the bishop and the diocese have followed a very careful process to ensure that the steps they’re taking are the wishes of their synod and people, and are cognizant of the situation in the Anglican Church of Canada and the worldwide Anglican Communion.”
Canon Charlie Masters, a former priest in the diocese of Niagara and now, executive director of the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC), said he was “not surprised” by the decision. “It’s something that I think most people have been expecting since then,” said Masters, whose group is composed of congregations and individuals that have left the Anglican Church of Canada largely because of their opposition to same-sex blessings. “Having said that, it’s still a shock and it’s disappointing…,” he added.
The decisions in Canada and the U.S. confirm that there is a profound rift in the Anglican Communion, said Mr. Masters. “The fabric has been torn at its deepest level.” Mr. Masters, is also general secretary of Common Cause Partnership, a group that created the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). ACNA wants to be recognized as a separate Anglican province in North America.
Bishop Donald Harvey, a former bishop of the diocese of Eastern Newfoundland who has since left the Canadian church and is now moderator of ANiC, wondered whether Bishop Bird and the Niagara diocese would be censured or disciplined for their action. “I would be very interested to see how the primate reacts to this,” he said in an interview. “When Malcolm Harding (a former bishop in the diocese of Brandon) and I decided that we could no longer stay, the primate and the four metropolitans (senior bishops) wrote a stinging letter…saying that our ministry was invalid…I’m just wondering if the primates and the four metropolitans would be as quick to act now and send out a similar pastoral letter to the church lamenting what Niagara has done. I’m just thinking, ‘what sauce is for the goose is sauce for the gander.’”
(Editor’s Note: Comments from Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, to follow.)
Archbishop Caleb Lawrence, metropolitan (senior bishop) of the ecclesiastical province of Ontario (to which the diocese of Niagara belongs), said the provincial house of bishops has “given strong attention to maintain and develop a space where the bishops, who represent a diversity as wide as is found across the national house, can be open and transparently honest with one another.”
He added that the provincial house has also acknowledged that “we now live in a church in which the presence and active involvement of those of gay and lesbian orientation is a reality.” At its last meeting in October, the Canadian house of bishops said a “large majority” of its members could affirm “a continued commitment to the greatest extent possible” to a moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions. But it acknowledged that this would pose difficulty for some dioceses “that in conscience have made decisions on these matters.”
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has withheld comment on recent developments in the North American churches. However, at the start of the Episcopal Church (TEC) General Convention, Archbishop Williams said in a homily, “I hope and pray that there won’t be decisions in the coming days that could push us further apart.”
Mr. Masters said the decision by TEC “underlines the legitimacy and … the need” for Common Cause Partnership since TEC has taken matters into its own hands.
Bishop Anderson concurred, saying “Niagara has widened the rift within the Anglican Church of Canada that began when the diocese of New Westminster authorized the blessings.” He also referred to a statement made by the Church of England’s Durham bishop, Nicholas Thomas Wright, that declared that by its recent actions, TEC was “rejecting the two things the Archbishop of Canterbury has named as the pathways to the future,” namely, the Windsor Report and proposed Anglican Covenant. (The Windsor Report, published in 2004 by the Lambeth Commission, offers prescriptions for arresting the possible disintegration of the Communion.)
Bishop Ingham, who has represented the Anglican Church of Canada at The Episcopal Church’s governing bodies, disagreed. “There’s hardly a church in our communion that is more sensitive to Anglican Communion feelings [than TEC],” he said. “The decisions that they have taken are a real effort to balance both their autonomy and their interdependence with the rest of the world.”
He also disagreed that TEC’s recent decision meant that it had lifted its moratorium on the consecration of bishops in same-sex partnerships. “It does not mean that consent will immediately be given to any candidate in an episcopal election who is in a same-sex relationship,” he said. “I think it would be truer to say that they will look at each situation on a case-by-case basis and they will neither be an automatic agreement with the diocesan decision, nor will there be an automatic rejection of a diocesan decision based on sexual orientation or agenda.”
As long as the House of Bishops continues to act like an “old boys club” and refuses to call to account apostates within their group the ACoC will continue its freefall into apostasy and irrelevance. It is well past the time for the Primate to remove the smile on his face and live up to his duties. However, I doubt that will happen. I fail to see how the church leadership fell into the conjecture that people are born as homosexuals. There is not one shred of credible medical evidence to show this is true. We must, of course, welcome homosexuals the same way we welcome all sinners – a call to repentance NOT to suggest a “blessing” on sin. We do not “bless” adulterers, pedophiles or thieves and to suggest one can “bless” any sin is nothing less than gross heresy. A purple shirt and white collar does not provide any such authority.
David, do you live at your computer? I was just about to post that… I was going to headline it “Bishop Don Harvey Tells It Like It Is”. Probably best that you got to it first….
Kate, he has 2 Blackberries and an I-phone hooked up to all the rss feeds, you gotta get with the times!
No thanks. I’m saving up for a new spinning wheel. (Really!)
Bill added – “Like Steve should talk”. You who have a basement full of ham radios….
Just as well I can stop using them any time I choose; *twitch* *dribble*.
“Deep divide over sexuality continues”
The title is indicative of the denial/dissemblance of the
real cause of division within ACoC & TEC. There are
those in the pews who still have their heads in the
sand and think so, particularly, since lip service is
paid to the form of our traditional liturgy while not
believing in the substance. Those without a computer
and computer savvy are at a great disadvantage.
Kyrie Eleison
Maya
“Those without a computer and computer savvy” tend to be old people. What you generally see on the pews in Niagara these days. (I’d say ten years before it’s over and they have all died off. It won’t be pretty.)
Maya (#7) and Gawk (#8), I would suggest that only those who rely wholly on others to interpret God’s Word are at a disadvantage. If Paul praised the Bereans (Acts 17:11) in the first century for their enthusiasm in checking the Scriptures to “see if these things are so”, how much more would he expect believers to study God’s Word in our day and age when it is so readily available? I know that sola scriptura and the stress that some evangelicals place on individuality vice community has been criticized on this blog in recent weeks (in some cases rightly so), but the down side of over-reliance on community can be the blind following the blind. It appears to me that this has happened in many parishes and dioceses. Without renewed hearts and a hunger for God’s Word, I doubt that more access to the Internet would have made any difference.
Warren (#9)
Agreed. However, the crux is to be “informed”. Even
those with keen love for and continued searching of
the Word, and with internet connection, need to have
the deep desire to seek out what is transpiring within
the Anglican Communion. I am appalled at the com-
placency and laid back attitude of many active, prime
of life members plus others, who accept what is re-
ported in the Journal as sufficient.
Gawk (#8) You’d be surprised at the number of Octo-
genarians & such, who are alert and on the computer.
Personally, if it were not for the very comprehensive
posting and the illuminating websites referred by the
ANiC newsletter and this Essentials website, we, i.e.
my husband and i would not be as alert about every
current and critical situation as we are.
Lord, please give breath to the dry bones !
Frank at #1 – you’re overstating your case about science. Over at Religious Tolerance is a survey of real science on the subject, including a classic twin study. Given that one of a pair of identical twins is gay, the probability that the other is also is 52%. For non-identical twins, it’s 22%. That strongly indicates a biological component but not biological determinism. That’s considerably more than “one shred”.
This said, does an argument from biology matter in a theological discussion?
No, it is completely irrelevant. We are all born broken, that’s why we need Jesus.
#11 Henry Troup: A superficial glance at the Religious Tolerance site tells me that they are hardly impartial. Not sure why you would want to quote them here.
And I always wince at the expression ‘real science’.
Nonetheless you are correct: Even if (big if) homosexuality were explained by a biological component, it would not justify homosexual practice anymore than a man’s angry temperament would make it OK to punch out his neighbour.
I was just reading a letter published on the Anglican Mainstream site from JONAH-Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality. They’d published a book I mentioned some weeks back about understanding homosexual attraction and it ‘s place within the Jewish writings. They’ve now published a letter from a father within the organization which speaks to the issue of gender discordance and free will, as well as providing resource links. I’d commend your reading of this.
Here’s the link: http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=13378#more-13378
Also, Frances Collins, the lead person on the Human Genome Project considered same-sex attraction in the appendix to his book, The Language of God. Another good read.
I should also mention– it’s referred to in their article, about a recent research study released by NARTH–the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality– that looked at 125 years of studies relating to primary causes of SSA, and the possibility of change.
-Jim Thanks a million. The reference you gave is absolutely the most helpful tool I have seen to offset the homosexual agenda. If anyone can add Canadian Links (as I will be trying to do) these too would be most helpful.
The beauty of this letter is that by no stretch of the imagination of rational thinking can this possibly be construed as “Homophobic”.
To God be the glory and to you His continued Blessing.
Here are two that I am familiar with, which you might already know about: Zacchaeus Fellowship:www.zacchaeus.ca and Living Waters (Vancouver) http://www.livingwaterscanada.org
Stand Firm has just posted the relaunch of a website by True freedom Trust (UK). The site is http://www.truefreedomtrust.co.uk/
TfT describes its mission as:
They have a list of resources at http://www.truefreedomtrust.co.uk/resources.html
Today July 27 from the ABC
I doubt Bps Bird & Ingham will heed the ABC.