Author Archives: David

The defining image of Lambeth 2022

Posted on by
8

Justin Welby auditioning for The Ministry of Silly Walks:

As you can imagine, it was an easy transition from oil executive to Archbishop of Canterbury to the Ministry of Silly Walks – I, for one, have seen this coming for some time.

What has accelerated Welby’s ascent to the zenith of his vocation has been his performance at Lambeth 2022.

He didn’t want to talk about sex: the press coverage has been all about sex. He didn’t want to discuss Lambeth resolution 1.10 on human sexuality: somehow it found its way into the Human Dignity Call, nonetheless. Liberals forced him to remove it. Conservatives are trying to force him to put it back. He wanted to use electronic voting machines: they are too confusing (and they reveal real numbers, which could be embarrassing) so he changed voting to “voice votes”, although no one knows how that will work. He wanted everyone to get along: conservative bishops have refused to take part in the Eucharist with homosexual bishops. And we are only on day four.

Little wonder Welby is moving to a more compatible occupation.

Bishop John Stephens launches into Lambeth Human Dignity fiasco

Posted on by
6

John Stephens, Bishop of the Diocese of New Westminster, has waded fearlessly into the Lambeth Human Dignity non-issue with the following:

I’ve also recently read a piece written by the bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church, where they’ve stated: “The members of the College of Bishops will seek to amend the draft call on Human Dignity urging a more inclusive approach and will work in respectful dialogue both with those colleagues across the Communion who would share the position adopted by the Scottish Episcopal Church, and with those who may differ.” The full inclusion of LGBTQ2SIA+ in every facet of the life of the Diocese of New Westminster is a core priority which has been evolving for decades. This priority is the result of decisions made by diocesan Synods over four decades and as the current bishop I honour and fully support those decisions and celebrate the diversity of our diocese.

Stephens, you will no doubt notice, is even more inclusive the many of the other bishops: he has more letters in his letter litany than your average, less inclusive, slightly benighted bishop who stalls at the “T” in LGBT. He’s probably compensating for not listing his pronouns on his office plaque.

Traditional marriage is controversial in the Anglican Church of Canada

Posted on by
Reply

The Anglican Journal has an article covering the rewriting of the Lambeth Call on Human Dignity. The headline is “Same-sex marriage controversy erupts pre-Lambeth”.

In case you are wondering what the controversy is, the body of the article offers clarification. It’s defining marriage as the union of a man and woman rather than two men. In the Anglican Church of Canada, to avoid controversy, we have to all agree that two men can marry each other.

From here (emphasis mine):

A draft Lambeth Conference statement reaffirming a 1998 resolution that describes marriage as the union of a man and a woman has been revised, with the resolution now mentioned but not explicitly reaffirmed. On Tuesday, Lambeth Conference staff published a new version of the Lambeth Calls, with several revisions, including the removal of the call to reaffirm 1998’s controversial resolution I.10 on same-sex marriage.

What level of insanity have we reached when a church newspaper tells us that “marriage is confined to men marrying women” is a controversial proposition? Is this an example of “those whom God wishes to destroy he first makes mad”? Let’s hope so.

Lambeth Call on Human Dignity rewritten to pacify liberals

Posted on by
4

Yesterday the Call on Human Dignity included this (my emphasis):

All human beings are made in the image of God. Therefore, Anglicans are committed to respect, protect, and acknowledge the dignity of all. There has been, however, a gap between rhetoric and reality. Historical exploitation, deepening poverty, and prejudice continue to threaten human dignity. Amidst these threats, and our own divisions and discernment, we call for: (i) an Archbishop’s Commission for Redemptive Action; (ii) the establishment of an Anglican Innovation Fund; and (iii) a reaffirmation of Lambeth I.10 that upholds marriage as between a man and a woman and requires deeper work to uphold the dignity and witness of LGBTQ Anglicans.

Today it says this:

Prejudice on the basis of gender or sexuality threatens human dignity. Given Anglican polity, and especially the autonomy of Provinces, there is disagreement and a plurality of views on the relationship between human dignity and human sexuality. Yet, we experience the safeguarding of dignity in deepening dialogue. It is the mind of the Anglican Communion as a whole that “all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ” and to be welcomed, cared for, and treated with respect (I.10, 1998). Many Provinces continue to affirm that same gender marriage is not permissible. Lambeth Resolution I.10 (1998) states that the “legitimizing or blessing of same sex unions” cannot be advised. Other Provinces have blessed and welcomed same sex union/marriage after careful theological reflection and a process of reception. As Bishops we remain committed to listening and walking together to the maximum possible degree, despite our deep disagreement on these issues.

Notice that the reference to “a reaffirmation of Lambeth I.10 that upholds marriage as between a man and a woman” is missing.

The liberals have had their way – shocking, I know. Conservative bishops who refused to attend made a sensible decision; the whole thing is rigged from the top.

Here is Bishop Sam Rose (he/him – sorry Sam I forgot that last time) who has tweeted his love for the change with a ❤️. We are so blessed in Canada to have bishops who not only list their pronouns on twitter, but are fluent in emoji. And he has a rainbow thing on his photo.

Anglicanism: it really is all about sex

Posted on by
4

Anglican clergy expel endless volumes of hot air on climate change, racism, mosquito nets, universal basic income, gender-based violence – and so on. Nothing about Jesus, salvation, eternity, heaven and hell, of course, but we’ll save that for another time. They would like you to think that these weighty temporal predicaments occupy every minute of their waking thoughts. It’s not true. What really excites the average Anglican bishop is sex. They can’t get enough of it – particularly the homoerotic variety. When sex is on the agenda, the climate can boil for all they care.

There are so many bishops foaming at the mouth in horror at the very, very small possibility that they may be asked to consider that the only legitimate form of marriage is between a man and a woman, that it would waste terabytes of bandwidth to list them – so I will confine myself to some Canadian bishops:

Here is the statement from Bishop Susan Bell:

I know there has been concern over the proposed reaffirmation of Lambeth Resolution 1.10. Please be assured that in our discussions, in our fellowship, and in our conclusions, I will bear witness to the many decisions we have made in the Diocese of Niagara to embrace equal marriage and uphold the dignity of every human being.

And here is the statement from the Diocese of Edmonton’s Bishop Stephen London:

I do have to say I was extremely disappointed to see in the resolution about Human Dignity that there is a call to reaffirm Lambeth resolution I.10, from 1998, which is against marriage equality for our LGBTQ+ community. This goes against what I thought we were doing in speaking where we find we have a common mind as a communion. It is clear that there is no common mind on this issue

Here is Sam Rose, bishop of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador:

And here is Todd Townshend, Bishop of the Diocese of Huron (click on the image to read it more clearly):

And last (for the moment), but not least, Anna Greenwood-Lee, Bishop of the Diocese of BC:

To anticipate the objection that this is all about love – it isn’t, it’s about sex.

If the homosexual clergy in the Anglican church simply loved other men but either did not want or had no intention of having sex with them, none of this would be being discussed. Lambeth resolution 1.10 would not have been written, the communion would not be divided, GAFCON and ACNA would not exist.

It is all about sex; clergy who deny this are trying to deceive you.

Bishop Kevin Robertson unhappy with Lambeth Call on Human Dignity

Posted on by
1

Kevin Robertson is the area bishop of York-Scarborough in the Diocese of Toronto. He is also a homosexual who is married to another man. As a result, he was invited to attend Lambeth 2022 but his sexual partner was not, a decision that make little sense in my opinion, although it is representative of a typical wishy-washy Anglican compromise.

Kevin Robertson was a member of the group the drafted the Lambeth Call on Human Dignity. So far so good. The only problem is that the Call in its current incarnation includes this:

All human beings are made in the image of God. Therefore, Anglicans are committed to respect, protect, and acknowledge the dignity of all. There has been, however, a gap between rhetoric and reality. Historical exploitation, deepening poverty, and prejudice continue to threaten human dignity. Amidst these threats, and our own divisions and discernment, we call for: (i) an Archbishop’s Commission for Redemptive Action; (ii) the establishment of an Anglican Innovation Fund; and (iii) a reaffirmation of Lambeth I.10 that upholds marriage as between a man and a woman and requires deeper work to uphold the dignity and witness of LGBTQ Anglicans.

According to Robertson, including a reaffirmation that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman was not discussed by the group. As you can probably tell from this, he is upset:

Dear Facebook friends,

Like many of you, I have been shocked and dismayed by the Lambeth Call on Human Dignity which, in part, calls upon the bishops to reaffirm Lambeth Resolution I.10 (1998). That 24-year-old resolution, for which there was no consensus even then, limits the definition of marriage to a man and a woman in a lifelong union. I strongly oppose the proposal to reaffirm this resolution at the upcoming Lambeth Conference, and have conveyed this to the Archbishop of Canterbury. I believe it would significantly set back the pursuit of justice and the respect for the dignity of every human person to which we are called in baptism. Moreover, as a gay man married to another man, my understanding and experience of human dignity includes the blessing of two people joined together in holy marriage, regardless of gender.

What is more disturbing is that, as a member of the Human Dignity Call drafting group, I never agreed to this Call in its current form. At no point in our meetings did we discuss the reaffirmation of Lambeth I.10 at the Conference, and it never appeared in any of the early drafts of our work together. I can confidently say that the Human Dignity Call in its current form does not represent the mind of the drafting group, and I distance myself from the reaffirmation of Lambeth I.10 in the strongest possible ways. I also unequivocally reject the phrase within the Call, “It is the mind of the Anglican Communion as a whole that same gender marriage is not permissible.” This statement is simply not true.

With others, I am seeking to amend the Human Dignity Call over the coming hours and days. I am hopeful that this is possible. There are many things in the document that do reflect the good work of the drafting group and would be tremendously positive for the Church and the world, especially the call to protect human dignity with particular attention to sexuality and gender. So, I very much hope that the Human Dignity Call can be amended rather than rejected. Please pray for a positive outcome to this work.

To my siblings in the LGBTQ2S+ community: remember that you are deeply loved and cherished. Our place in this beloved Church is not dependent on any resolution or call. By virtue of the fact that we are fearfully and wonderfully made by our loving Creator, and redeemed through Christ, this is our Church. And we belong – fully.

Church of England unable to define “woman”

Posted on by
1

While bishops have been busying themselves discussing climate change, racism and mosquito nets at the Church of England synod currently in session, someone had the effrontery to ask the bishops to define a woman. No clear answer was forthcoming. The church, we are told, has only just begun ‘to explore the complexities associated with gender identity’.

There are repercussions to this. For example: when, in 2014, the CofE made much of Libby Lane becoming the first woman bishop, it was almost certainly mistaken. The church has probably been riddled with women bishops for centuries, since learned Anglican clerics have no idea what they even look like. For all they know, Justin Welby could be a woman.

Unsurprisingly, no one cares what the bishops have to say about climate change, but the fact that bishops have no idea what women are has sparked enough interest to make its way into the secular press.

Read the whole thing here. The comments under the article illustrate nicely how the church has managed to make itself a laughingstock. Again.

The church was put on the spot in one of almost 200 questions submitted to its ‘parliament’, the General Synod, in York this weekend.

Adam Kendry, a lay member from the Armed Forces, asked simply: ‘What is the Church of England’s definition of a woman?’

Rt Rev Robert Innes, the Bishop in Europe, replied: ‘There is no official definition, which reflects the fact that until fairly recently definitions of this kind were thought to be self-evident, as reflected in the marriage liturgy.’

He added that the church ‘has begun to explore the complexities associated with gender identity’ .

Canadian Primate, Linda Nicholls, instructs Pope on how to do synods

Posted on by
2

I was unaware that the Roman Catholic church has a death wish, but it has. The Pope is seeking advice from the leader of the denomination that, by its own admission, will cease to exist by 2040.

In fairness to the Pope, he only wants advice on how to run synods – and that’s really easy if you do it the Anglican way: he could have asked me. Take the last Anglican Church of Canada General synod, for example. The same-sex marriage motion failed to pass. Within a few days, most of the dioceses represented at the synod announced their defiance and declare they would perform them anyway.

So what could be easier? Assemble a list of motions, discuss them, vote on them and – ignore the result. The beauty of this is that it doesn’t matter what the motions are because no one has to pay any attention to the outcome: they are all meaningless. In fact, the whole thing is meaningless. Best not to hold a synod at all. Think of the money it will save.

Read more about it here:

Anglicans have an indispensable role to play as Roman Catholics start a two-year conversation on how to become a more “synodal” church, Pope Francis said at his first meeting with Archbishop Linda Nicholls, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada.

Nicholls met the pope at the latest meeting of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), which took place in May at the Vatican’s Apostolic Palace in Rome. Due to the absence of Philip Freier, archbishop of Melbourne and Anglican co-chair of ARCIC who was attending the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia, the primate spoke on behalf of the Anglican side of the dialogue. Nicholls presented a formal statement on ARCIC from the Anglican perspective. ARCIC’s other co-chair, Bernard Longley, Archbishop of Birmingham, England, spoke on behalf of Roman Catholics.

Anglican reaction to Roe v. Wade decision

Posted on by
5

None of it is surprising.

ACNA’s Foley Beach supports the supreme court ruling:

While this decision doesn’t end abortion in the U.S., it will lead to fewer children being killed through abortion. We thank God for this limited victory, and the Anglican Church in North America recommits itself to serving mothers so they can embrace motherhood and welcome their children. We also continue to point the way to God’s healing and forgiveness for all who suffer physically and emotionally from their abortion experiences.

TEC’s Michael Currey does not:

While I, like many, anticipated this decision, I am deeply grieved by it. I have been ordained more than 40 years, and I have served as a pastor in poor communities; I have witnessed firsthand the negative impact this decision will have.

Most Canadian bishops have yet to react publicly, but I suspect we all know what they are thinking.

Here are a few that have. Coming in first we have the Bishop of BC, Anna Greenwood-Lee, tweeting her support for Michael Curry’s LibSpeak:

Coming in a close second, we have the ex-bishop of Edmonton, Jane Alexander who thinks that treating an unborn baby as less than human is necessary for women to be treated as fully human:

On the optimistic side of things, church leaders of this calibre are doing their very best to hasten the demise of their own organisation: on the one hand they favour sterile homoerotic ménages and, on the other, the killing of the unborn offspring of the few heterosexual couples still coming to sleep in their pews. They will be gone in a generation.

Primate Linda Nicholls’ statement for Pride Month

Posted on by
4

You can read it all here:

In the hymn “All Are Welcome” by Marty Haugen, we hear the poignant longing for a church where the gospel promises will be lived so that all God’s children will be loved and safe and free. This has been the cry of the LGBTQ2S+ community in society and in the church for decades. Although there have been affirmations of LGBTQ2S+ people in our church through General Synod and its resolutions (for example, General Synod 1995, Act 57; General Synod 2004, Act 37), we have work to do in their realization in the hearts and minds of parishioners in every place.

She goes on to say:

Pride month is an opportunity to lift up recognition of that work—to affirm the God-given dignity of every human being—and to value the contributions and gifts that LGBTQ2S+ communities bring to our church and our world. Our life as a church is enriched by the diversity of God’s people!

And, of course, there is no time like Pride Month for illustrating the dignity of every human being. Here are some not untypical Pride Month examples of people exhibiting their God-given dignity. It doesn’t get any more dignified than this:

I suppose it could get more dignified: the gentleman in the cap could be wearing a bishop’s mitre. Maybe next year.