The Anglican Church of Canada’s recently formed Commission on the Marriage Canon wants to know what you think about changing canon law to permit same-sex couples to marry in the church. To make submissions, you have to be member of the ACoC (I feel so excluded) so, if you are, let them know what you think. Apparently, they are obligated to publish all submissions as long as they don’t contain anything “objectionable”; I’m sure no one reading this would say anything objectionable.
I am reasonably certain of two things: 1) it’s going to happen no matter what anyone says; 2) thousands of words will be penned in an effort to obscure the truth of 1).
If I were of a cynical disposition, I might make the point that by submitting opinions that run contrary to the inevitable, you will merely be granting the commission the smug satisfaction of employing the well rehearsed strategy of declaring that they listened to diverse opinions – before ignoring those they didn’t like.
Submissions are made by filling out the form here.
From here:
Input from members of the Anglican Church of Canada is vital as the church enters this time of discernment. Commission chair, Canon Robert Falby, encourages broad participation in this process. “Commission members are aware of the strong feelings that many Anglicans have on the issues which it is looking at and we hope that we will receive input which reflects that spectrum.”
Submissions are welcome in both written and video form and must include the author’s name, parish or institution, diocese, and contact details. All of the commissioners will read or view each submission as they prepare their report.
The terms of reference for the Commission on the Marriage Canon require that all submissions to the Commission be posted on the national church’s website (www.anglican.ca). They will be reviewed prior to posting on the national church’s website. Submissions failing to conform to the Anglican Church of Canada’s existing code of conduct for online contributions will not be posted. Those making such submissions will be contacted and invited to revise their content accordingly.
Now this is where Paul and James and Peter missed the boat. They should have taken more cognizance of the opinions of the people in the surrounding cultures. There would then have been fewer, ahem, unpopular pronouncements. Some enlightening indabas could have saved them a whole lot of disagreeable reactions from the populace.
The Scriptural warrant + Acts 15 for “no small dissension, and disputation” about any issue arising among Believers is to “go up to Jerusalem”, so to speak, that is be “received of the Church” and its leadership,”the apostles and elders” – the whole ekklesia, “all the multitude”.
Commissions appointed, as have Councils, fail and have failed in this open and orderly (+ I Corinthians 14:40) means of arriving at a consensus informed not by private interpretation, or worse, private agenda, but rather by a prayerful searching The Mind of Christ by His Holy Spirit-filled Scriptures alone diligently and consistently, as did the Apostle James.
At the same Council, James, with full consensus of the believers,on the basis of the teaching of Holy Scripture Sola, forbad fornication* – in any form. It surpasses bafflement of the first order that this current exercise underway attempts to legitimate within the Church what the State already has permitted:within civil unions between same sex individuals:that is, that which, if not by Biblical definition is marriage, then one may draw only one obvious conclusion as to what it does constitute.
“Now therefore why tempt ye GOD, to put a yoke* upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear?” + Acts 15:10.
I like your line of thinking, Abigail. Acts 15 is about the Jerusalem Council. The issue, do Gentiles need to be circumcised to become full members of the people of God? Some Jews thought so. Paul thought not. Paul believed Gentiles could become Christians by faith in Christ. But of course, Christian Gentiles ought to live righteous lives. But Christian Jews do practice circumcision. So, in Paul’s congregation, both circumcized Jew and uncircumcized Gentile could worship together. Paul was preaching, I think, around 55AD. That is 15 years before the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. After the fall of Jerusalem, I would guess, the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians parted ways.
Councils and conferences do have a place in the scheme of things. But, it was an apostle like Paul who could discern what is essential and what is secondary. For example, fasting practices he deemed secondary. Different practices could exist in a congregation. But, he decided the circumcision issue reached down to fundamental doctrine. For Paul, Jesus’ cross meant the end of Jewish law, and so circumcision was no longer an absolute requirement.
What we need in the Anglican Church, is a leader of the magnitude of St. Paul. Someone who can clearly articulate the issues. Someone with a deep love for the Church, for Church people, but who has a deeper love for God, for His truths. Someone who is a fighter for God’s truths, His doctrines.
In 1968 they changed the Canons to remarry divorcees
How did that go then?
How was it then?
How many are done?
Now is Blessing same-sex unions
2002 Synod Diocese of New West was a walk out resulting in 1 million in legal fees & a schism resulting in a new Province the Anglican Church of North America
How many are done?
This is nothing less than an exercise designed to convert those in the pews from accepting the authority of Scripture to following the apostate leadership into the worship of “political correctness” – a deceptive term in itw own right. The 2002 incident in the Diocese of New Westminster showed how the apostate leadership was allowed to legally steal properties to which they made NO contribution and proves their allegiance to “political correctness” as opposed to the authority of Scripture.
Fred Wirrell
phoned diocese of new in the early 80 when member of st john’s shaughnessy
they said,
“St John’s is like how St Paul’s on Pendrell & Jervis -used to be is closed, old fashioned low-anglican we’re trying not to encourage this”
Another told me, “St Paul’s used to be the most evangelical church…..”
The gays would say about St :Paul’s, “The Priest there when asked about gays said, ‘ignore them'”.
In the 80s when MCC went in there is the gay church one of the ministers sensed, “The atmosphere in this place is -negative-!”
Well, was probably due to what seemed like a rather profound doctrinal changes.
Other parishes in the diocese of new would say about St John’s,
“Oh. that church”
or
“That church has a bad undercurrent”
“You allow people to be openly straight but not openly gay”
“They don’t like Bishops, they’re not Anglicans, they’re Baptists”
Fred, that’s where things are at!
I note you refer to me as Fred. The tragedy is exactly what you have said, “that’s where things are at!” That might well be true within the ACoC and the Diocese of New Westminster but within the ANIC we firmly accept both the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ both of which are mandatory for anyone, or any church, claiming to be Christian. The fact is that the ACoC has adopted the worship of “political correctness” – a deceptive term in itself – and has abandoned the true Gospel.
ya I know we’ve moved out of the old building have 4 services on sun at 1,200 people & 2 new church plants sermons are good