Fred Hiltz has assembled the commission that will seek “broad consultation” for introducing a synod motion to change the marriage canon to include same-sex marriage. They will pay particular attention to:
a) the Solemn Declaration in relation to this matter;
b) the immunity under the civil law and the Human Rights Codes of the various Provinces and Territories within Canada of those bishops, dioceses and priests who refuse to participate in or authorize the marriage of same-sex couples on the basis of conscience; and
c) a biblical and theological rationale for this change in teaching on the nature of Christian marriage.
Notice in particular point c): it does not ask whether there is a “biblical and theological rationale for this change in teaching”, that is taken for granted. The commission is expect to come up with a rationale whether it is there or not. The members of the commission are:
Canon Robert Falby (Chair)
Dr. Patricia Bays
The Very Rev. Kevin Dixon
The Rev. Dr. Paul Friesen
The Rev. Canon Paul Jennings
Dr. Stephen Martin
The Rt. Rev. Linda Nicholls
The Most Rev. John Privett
I don’t see any conservatives in evidence. It seems fairly clear that after a couple of years of nugatory “broad consultation” by the regular morosophs, there will be a motion before Synod 2016 to change the marriage canon.
I note the reference to “conservatives” but as I have stated in previous comments the correct terminology for the situation in the ACoC and in most of the Anglican Communion is “orthodoxy” or “apostasy” and the latter definitely describes what is happening within the ACoC. Many so-called bishops, including the primate fall within the apostasy catagory. One can only pray for a sincere conversion and repentance but with the arrogance of many that would virtually require our Lord to “hit them over the head with a 2X4”.
I’m not sure that your terms are appropriate either. When I looked up the term orthodoxy, the first definition on several sites said “adherence to accepted norms.” Since norms within Christianity even change, orthodoxy could then be applied to the ACoC as well. I do agree that conservative/liberal terminology is also not appropriate.
I also think your either/or classification is not useful. We know that there is as broad spectrum of Christians that have varying beliefs and opinions that cannot be classified into only two camps. For example, let’s look at the “authority of the Bible.” Some Christians say that the Bible has authority on all matters of faith. Some say that it has authority on all matters including topics such as science. Others see “authority” with a softer lens and see it as providing influence on life. Others give it authority in the same way as a witness is given authority/credibility in a court case. I am fairly confident that if people responded to which views are orthodox, we would have many different opinions on this. Painting all differing opinions as “apostate” is sometimes not helpful.
I don’t remember God calling them the 10 suggestions or if you love you will keep my recommendations. He said commandments, taken from the word command, an order given by one in authority and who is more in authority then the author of all things
The “theological rationale” is The Biblical one because “It is written.” -Jesus’ thrice-fold pre-Baptism reply to the devil.
Everything else is heterodoxy – the vestibule to apostasy.
Too many already have entered in and crossed it with old Nick’s ready assistance.
At the risk of sounding picky, I think the term should be “marriage canon”, as in “canon law”, not “cannon”, as in heavy artillery. Unless the commission had a lot of ‘big guns ‘involved, of course.
For Edmonton Anglican:-
I will clarify my definition of orthodoxy which is mandatory for anyone who claims to be Christian whether that be Anglican or whatever. Two things are mandatory:-
1. full acceptance of the authority of Scripture; and
2. full recognition of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.
Many of what has been referred to as “liberals” deny either one or both and as such can only be described as “apostates”. If you deny the virgin birth, for example, you basically deny the doctrine of original sin as we are all infected by that old nature from our birth. If you deny the uniquess of Jesus Christ as many so-called bishops do today, you make a mockery of the eucharist and make God the Father totally and completely unjust as you are then stating the death of Christ was really not necessary.
Hi Frank.
I agree with you on your two tenants. The problem is that Christians understand the meaning of each phrase differently. For example, I fully accept the Bible as the authority on matters of faith but not on matters of topics like science. For example, I don’t believe that the world has four corners as the Bible states in several passages (Num 15:38, Eze 7:2, Isa 11:12, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Rev 7:1). While I consider myself orthdox in my view of the authority of the Bible, others may not. It comes down to your perspective on what “authority” means. So what am I? Am I orthodox or am I an apostate Christan?
The Bible was not made as primarily a science book but Hugh Ross (astrophysicist professor) was lead to search Christianity further when he came across a lot of scientific theories in the bible.As for “four corners of the earth” that is an idiom that is used and understood throughout the bible as is skin of your teeth or apple or the hills clapped their hands of your eye.They weren’t meant to be taken literally.
Christians have different understandings of the authority of the Bible. Our human knowledge of God is partial and limited. It is limited by His disclosure in Jesus and in the Bible. There is always more to God than we apprehend.
Christians have different convictions about the Bible. To some of us the Bible is a series of propositions of truth. Others believe that the Bible is a series of divine deeds. Still others believe that the deeds plus the inspired interpretation make the revelation of God.
Even we agree on the divine origin and nature of the Bible, there are different opinions over the essential purpose of the Bible. Some insist that the primary purpose of the Bible is the communication of truth. Others are convinced that the primary purpose is the impartation of life, not truth. Furthermore, we treat the Bible differently. Some believe that the Bible is free of error in its original autographs, while many prefer to speak of the Bible as infallible (incapable of teaching deception). Still others believe that the Bible is without error in all that it teaches.
We operate from the foundation of various presuppositions. We do not believe in God because we believe in the Bible. We believe in the Bible because we believe in God. Different convictions about the Bible affect our personal and church lives.
As ever, an interesting and measured response, Michael. Thanks.
“We do not believe in God….Bible….Bible….God.”:an unholy syllogism.
The devil (the same one the CoE is seeking to make persona grata at the service of Holy Baptism) believes in GOD:The Bible tells us so + James 2:19 “…and tremble”.
The devil hates The BIBLE ( a capital offence in North Korea even to own one!): The BIBLE tells us so + James 5:19 “..resist, and he will flee from you”, just as He fled from our LORD in His Temptation + Matthew 4/Mark 1/Luke 4; Matthew 26:36 ff.
Christians, Christ’s ones, both believe in GOD AND The BIBLE because they first believe in and love His Son, The Living WORD:to Whom all of Scripture does testify + Luke 24 and The Holy Spirit has sealed that testimony + John 14 -17; Acts 1-2.
What saith The Living WORD about marriage/children ?+ Mark 10/Genesis 1,2.
Both devils and Christians are to “tremble” at His WORD + James 2:19;Isaiah 66:5, respectively.
Christians, because they love The Living WORD.
Devils, because The Living WORD assures them it is by It Alone He will judge in the last day. + John 12:48.
The BIBLE tells us so.
I worship God, not the Bible. I believe in the triune God who governs all things according to the purposes of His perfect will. Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1, 14). To know Jesus is to know God. The 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England state that the Bible is “God’s Word written” (XX). God’s words were put in written form (Exodus 31:18, 32:16; 34:1, 28). But, two stone tablets were inscribed by the finger of God (Deuteronomy 9:10).
In a world free from sin, the Bible would commend itself to all people as the Word of God. But we do not live in a perfect world. Sin distorts our perception of reality. As a result, we do not recognize the Bible for what it really is. We need God the Holy Spirit, overcoming the effects of sin, to persuade us to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Thus, I believe in the Bible because I believe in God first.
In Vancouver in the late 1990s, Ingham commissioned a group of theologians to investigate a theological foundation for same-sex marriage. They found none, which was no surprise. But then Ingham just said “thank you very much” and proceeded with same-sex blessings. And he would from time to time remind the media that the diocese had gone through a discernment process, including a theological study.
Lesson learned by us Christians in the diocese? If one does not place oneself under the authority of the Word of God, then theological studies are just academic exercises.
He wasn’t interested in the truth ,he had an agenda from the beginning and it didn’t really make any difference what they came up with he was going ahead with his agenda
This will be the third commission dealing with the issue of homosexual Christians. Before the 2004 General Synod, a group called the Linda Graff and Associates consultants produced a 70 page report, analyzing the issue as well as analyzing procedures of discussion and making decisions. And, around May 2005, there was the St. Micheal’s Report, produced by the Primate’s theological Committee. This report was supposed to analyze and provide theological resources and rationales. I remember reading that report carefully at least twice. I couldn’t figure out what it was really saying!!!!
On this present Commission, there are eight members. The St. Michael’s Report had twelve members.
I personally don’t have much hope this new committee will come up with a new position. But, Fred Hiltz does seem to be expressing some caution. Whether the distinction between a blessing and a sacrament can be maintained, seems the key matter.
It is very Canadian, isn’t it? Like a Government organizing a Royal Commission. Fred Hiltz has been Primate now for six years. He ought to be comfortable and strong in his role. But, where is the real power in the Church? In the House of Bishops? In General Synod? I want and hope Archbishop Hiltz and the House of Bishops, to do nothing. Resist the Anglican activists. Learn to accept anomalies and inconsistences. Resist letting this issue define the Church. So I hope conservative and moderate Bishops will find their voice, and the House of Bishops will find the courage and the faith to take control of the agenda away from the activists.
Personally I think that the commission that was set up was filled with persons that would bring the desired results.
As for every one talking about us reading Gods word and coming up with different interpretations,the thing is they both can’t be right one is true and one is a lie and we are called to fight against lies.Ultimately scripture interprets scripture ,if we have contradiction there is a lie for God does not contradict Himself or his word
Another vital teaching (Vision TV ) on the absolutely crucial, daily necessity of “abiding”in/reading,+ John 15, The WORD of GOD offered today, January 14, 2014, by Messianic Rabbi, Gennady Livshits, Montreal, House of David Ministries.+ Blessings.
I saw the following on Facebook today….
“It all makes sense now. Gay marriage and marijuana are being legalized at the same time.
Lev 20:13 says if a man lays with another man, he should be stoned.”
We were just misinterpreting it.
🙂 I’m sure the members of the commission would find that helpful.