The two thirds majority needed to allow same-sex marriage was met by the laity and clergy but defeated by the bishops.
Primate Fred Hiltz appeared to be stunned by the vote.
Before the meeting was adjourned, there was talk of making another motion to somehow bypass the decision of this defeated motion, so this may not be over.
I’m watching the live stream of GS2019. The discussion is about the change to the Marriage Canon. A motion has just been made to close debate. That means that Bishop David Parsons will not be able to express his views; apparently something similar happened in 2016. I wish I had recorded it, but the gist of it was that, in spite of all the talk about respect for all points of view, not much respect was being shown to the bishop – who, of course, disagrees with the motion.
It went further – almost to the point of unCanadian unpleasantness – as the bishop seemed to throw down a gauntlet: there would be serious consequences if he wasn’t heard. If anyone has a better recollection of exactly what was said, please comment below.
Bishop David: I’m sure ANiC would be delighted if you spoke at any of its synods.
From here:
In an exercise intended to produce more compassionate discussions than those that sometimes prevailed during marriage canon discussion in 2016, members of the 2019 General Synod spent almost the entire afternoon of the gathering’s first official day of business hearing about and practicing ways of speaking and listening respectfully to one another.
An organisation that spends an entire afternoon discussing how to discuss things doesn’t stand much of a chance of getting to the heart of the matter to be discussed. It is like Kierkegaard’s view of ‘reflection’ as opposed to ‘immediacy’, where you have an idea about something and indulge in endless conversations about the idea, instead of dealing with the thing itself. Will anyone be allowed to express any strong reasons to oppose same-sex marriage or will they be squashed as hurtful or bullying. We’ll see.
From 1:30 p.m. until close to 5 p.m. on July 11, with one break, Lynne McNaughton, bishop of the diocese of Kootenay, and priest and psychologist Canon Martin Brokenleg led a session on “being a synod,” discussing the importance of living out Christian love during debates about potentially contentious issues, and having synod members practice respectful listening and talking skills in table groups.
The Anglican version of “Christian love” has devolved into mushy sentiment centred around not hurting anyone’s feelings.
Dean Peter Wall, chair of the General Synod planning committee, said the idea for the exercise arose out of a great deal of talking and praying committee members had done, in the hope of creating a “listening, learning atmosphere” at the 2019 synod, and to help it be “both a community and a body.”
The alleged “listening, learning atmosphere” is a hoax: no one was willing to listen to ex-homosexuals and ex-lesbians from the Zacchaeus Fellowship in prior synods and no one will be in this synod.
Brokenleg was to have co-led the session with Archbishop Melissa Skelton, metropolitan of the ecclesiastical province of British Columbia and Yukon and diocesan bishop of New Westminster, but Skelton was ill and unable to attend General Synod on Thursday. McNaughton, another member of the General Synod planning committee who, Wall said, was closely involved in developing the exercise, took her place Thursday.
McNaughton said she hoped the exercise would allow members of synod to be their “authentic selves” in their discussions while at the same time making room “for others with different authentic selves and perspectives.”
What on earth are “authentic selves”? How did non-authentic selves get nominated as delegates? Have synod delegates been the victim of alien body snatchers and become Pod People, duplicates in every respect except in their ability to maintain a connection with authenticity? It would explain the behaviour of many of the clergy.
Listening and speaking well through difficult discussions, she said, is a way to “be as Christ to one another, to love one another as Christ has loved us,” and by doing this, Christians can be an example to the world.
“We are called to be a witness to a world that is hungry for civility, parched for compassion,” she said. “The world is watching how we treat each other in the midst of difference, and the world is waiting to be inspired.”
The world is hungry for truth not sickly, bogus, anodyne civility.
Unplanned is a pro-life film which has not yet been shown in Canada because Canadians don’t wish to be reminded that abortion kills babies and Canadian law does nothing to protect them. Nor, in spite of all their crowing about caring about society’s most vulnerable, do most mainline churches.
Those who claim to be “pro-choice” are actually not when it comes to choosing to see Unplanned. Two Canadian film theatres have received death threats because they are going to show the film. That must mean it is worth seeing.
From here:
Police are investigating death threats sent to two Canadian independent theatre owners because they are screening the pro-life movie Unplanned on July 12, LifeSiteNews has learned.
Unplanned dramatizes Abby Johnson’s conversion from Planned Parenthood abortion facility manager to pro-life advocate and was written, produced and directed by Cary Solomon and Chuck Konzelman.
As a safety measure, the movie’s producers have now removed from their website the comprehensive July 12 listing of 46 Canadian theatres — independents, Cineplex and Landmark locations — that will be showing Unplanned, Konzelman told LifeSiteNews.
They did so at the request of B.J. McKelvie, pastor and president of Fredericton-based Cinedicon, the Canadian distributor of the film.
McKelvie confirmed to LifeSiteNews that two Canadian independent cinema owners contacted police after receiving death threats they perceived as credible, and that they are “fearful for their families.”
Another Canadian independent theatre owner “has been harrassed to the extreme.”
One of the two owners who contacted the police has cancelled the Unplanned screening, but all the rest “are holding their ground,” McKelvie said.
Read it all here:
Of all the items of business on the General Synod agenda, a lot of attention has been given to the second reading of the motion to revise Canon XXI – On Marriage in the Church to include same-sex marriage.
We do not know, nor do we wish to anticipate, how that vote will go at General Synod. We hope and pray that the Holy Spirit will infuse the conversation with holiness and will guide the results of the balloting. We are all approaching General Synod in a spirit of openness to ongoing discernment.
The College of Bishops, embodying as we do a breadth of theological views ourselves, is committed to remaining united regardless of the outcome. Whether the motion passes or fails, we will not be divided. We will stand together through the grace of God and by faith in our Saviour Jesus Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit. We call upon the Diocese of Toronto to stand together with us, unified in all our glorious diversity under the banner of Christ.
I can’t see much that is pastoral about this letter. It is filled more with an air of denial and desperation than of spiritual guidance and care.
Denial of the reality that the church has already fractured over same-sex marriage and desperation at the probability of the fracture widening and expressing itself as a loss of yet more members and their wallets.
And nobody is “approaching General Synod in a spirit of openness to ongoing discernment”. Anyone who has not already made up his mind about same-sex marriage has no mind to make up.
From here:
Dennis Drainville, retired bishop of the diocese of Quebec, is re-entering politics by running for the Green Party of Canada in this fall’s federal election.
Drainville, who retired as bishop in 2017, announced June 5 he would be running for the Greens in the riding of Gaspésie-Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, which covers a swathe of the Gaspé Peninsula as well as the Magdalen Islands.
Drainville, who served as a member of Bob Rae’s NDP government in Ontario 1990-93, says he’s been involved in politics in some capacity his entire life, so that returning to it feels second-nature to him. His decision to re-enter now, he says, was spurred by a realization that the coming vote, scheduled for Oct. 21, will be “an election like no other,” because it will require momentous decisions to be made on how to deal with the twin threats of climate change and unethical government.
Drainville was Bishop of the Diocese of Quebec between 2009 and 2016 during which time around two thirds of the parishes were closed, sold or amalgamated. I don’t think this was all the bishop’s fault but it’s hard not to look at this as an example of reverse evangelism.
Following this ecclesiastical success, he is setting his sights on something easier: solving climate change and reforming unethical government.
The Occupy Movement (remember that?) reveals where Drainville’s political sympathies lie: with the 99% (we) and against the 1% (they) even though, on a bishop’s salary, he was almost certainly in the 10% category and consequently had more than a toe in the “they” camp. Perhaps he will find people to Occupy all the empty churches in the Diocese of Quebec.
The Occupy movement has created a focused public debate on economic and political institutions and provided “a new and powerful critique” of them, says Bishop Dennis Drainville of the diocese of Quebec.
Invited to speak at various events Sept. 28-30 sponsored by Occupy Nova Scotia and churches in Halifax, Drainville noted that the anti-capitalist movement that spread around the world in 2011 has brought new awareness to the notion that ‘They are the 1 per cent and we are the 99 per cent,’ ” Drainville told those attending his lecture at the Atlantic School of Theology. “This formula underlines the structural inequalities of our political and economic system and highlights the collusion between the corporate and political elites,” he said.
Pastorally sensitive bishops like to sugar-coat things, so she did not put it quite like that. Instead, we have:
Our presence in the [Annual London Pride] Parade, supported by Bishop Linda Nicholls and the Diosesan office will form behind the banner “Proud Anglicans”.
Even parishioners who intend to leave their clothes on should bring sun screen.
The Church of England has written 10 commandments for the digital age; that should really be “0000 1010 commandments for the digital age” but we’ll let that slide.
The Church is encouraging people to sign their agreement to this digital charter here.
Violators will have their rudeness summarily expunged:
The Church’s and Archbishops’ Communications teams may take action if they receive complaints or spot inappropriate, unsuitable or offensive material posted to the national social media accounts. This may include deleting comments, blocking users or reporting comments as appropriate.
Justin Welby has conveniently summed up the 10 digital commandments in this way:
“Social media has transformed the way we live our lives. As Christians we are called to engage in a way which is shaped by the example of Jesus.”
I found this very inspiring so I though I would try it out. Here goes:
But woe to you, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
Woe to you, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.
Woe to you, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?
I’m looking at you, Anglican Church of Canada bishops.
I think I’m getting the hang of it.
I have two enduring memories of Junior School. The first is of Day One when Mr. Stucky, our teacher, introduced his students to a display case mounted on the wall behind him. It contained an array of canes, each of which had a name which he gleefully recited as he lovingly flexed them, one by one. I don’t remember their names, but I do remember a fervent desire not to come into physical contact with any of them. Happily, I didn’t, nor do I recall anyone else suffering that misfortune; his class was very orderly.
My second memory is of my last year of Junior School under the gentle ministrations of Miss George, a young lady who, my mother informed me, was soon to marry and become Mrs. Something Else. Miss George had no canes. She did have hands, though, and when she thought a student deserved their application, she would slap him repeatedly on the thigh.
I had at an early age adopted an air of studied insouciance towards matters that others told me were of great import but which I found of little interest; hence, I sat at the back of the class and tended not to listen to her. One thing does stick in my mind: after waxing eloquent on the conquering of Mount Everest by Edmund Hillary, she looked at me and said: “Look at Jenkins in the back, there – he is in a constant state of Everest.” I couldn’t argue with the observation.
At one point my curiosity overcame my desire to be left alone in peace. Miss George had a special inkwell. We all had inkwells, but hers, so rumour had it, was immune to spills: no matter how far you tipped it, the ink would not come out. I had to test this. One day, when Miss George was out of the room, I boldly went to her desk and tipped the inkwell upside down: red ink spilled everywhere. When she returned, I experienced for the first time the sensation of being a Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God.
“The person who did it Must Own Up”, she said. “But I don’t want anyone Telling Stories.” We all knew that being a snitch was Bad.
I owned up. She made me clean it up. I spilled more ink trying to clean it, but Miss George was merciful, and I was spared The Hand.
Things are different now. We are all encouraged to tell stories and no one particularly cares whether they bear any relation to what is true: all that matters is that is that we experience them as true. Objective reality is irrelevant.
I think I prefer Miss George’s version of Telling Stories, Hand and all.
An excellent letter from a bishop whose diocese, as far as I can see, would be more at home in ANiC than the ACoC:
ANGLICAN CHURCH OF CANADA
Word from a bishop’s heart June 22, 2019
An open letter to my fellow Canadian Anglicans
Dear Friends in Christ,
I am writing to you out of love for Christ’s church, and because I feel a heavy burden of concern for the Anglican Church of Canada as we prepare to meet in just a few weeks in Vancouver at General Synod. I also write in the sincere hope that our church will rediscover and return to its purpose for existence.
As I begin, I want to say that I affirm my commitment to Jesus Christ and to upholding the biblical doctrines of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Anglican Communion, and the Holy Catholic Church. I also confirm my commitment to the biblical, traditional, and catholic definition of marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman, as set out in the Book of Common Prayer.
First, allow me to share some of my story as a disciple of our LORD Jesus Christ. Although I was raised in a faithful Christian home, I still had a hunger to know God more deeply. But it wasn’t until I was in my twenties that I became a serious disciple. Forty-six years ago, I said something simple: “God I’m giving up my life to follow you. I want to do what I said I would do when I was confirmed.” It was a serious prayer. I certainly didn’t understand what was happening but what I did know is that something had changed. Even my family realized I was not the person I used to be. At times my family was frustrated with me, and even my wife Rita was very concerned. She said, “David is not the man I married. I don’t know who he is.”
I was working as a logger with a pulp and paper company at that time and started taking a New Testament to work in my back pocket. At first, I didn’t have time to read it between skidder loads, but as my logging skills improved, I was able to cut enough trees before the skidder arrived that I had time to read my Bible. The forest became my theological school, with co-workers presenting me daily with Biblical criticism while the Holy Spirit guided me in how to lovingly answer them. Through reading Scriptures, God the Holy Spirit revealed to me the pre-eminence of Jesus who fulfilled the Old Testament’s covenants by His blood sacrifice on the cross. Jesus is the one and only Saviour. All of this is revealed clearly in Hebrews chapters 8, 9 and 10.
And so, my walk as a serious disciple began with God’s word becoming real to me and turning my life upside down, making me into a different person. Many years ago, it was very difficult to accept the revelation that my way – doing whatever seemed right to me, living according to my own desires and goals – was leading me to destruction. Today, many are asking me to turn away from God’s Way and accept something that His Word clearly prohibits. This is “my way” all over again. I just cannot.
Often, I have heard that the “spirit” is leading us to a new thing in changing the Marriage Canon to include same-sex marriage. But by what authority do we know this? As a bishop, I’ve thought a lot about authority. By what authority do I speak? By what authority do I remain silent? I certainly do not want to sound condescending or simplistic, as there is nothing simplistic about wrestling with Scripture. But there are some things that are very plain, and one of those is that we can find no approval of same-sex marriage or same-sex sexual relationships in holy Scripture.
However, our conversations, especially since 2013, have not been marked by serious wrestling with Scripture, but by the opposite. For the sake of having good “Christian disagreement,” the prerequisite seems to be that the Bible cannot be part of the conversation. The Primate’s Marriage Commission produced a document called This Holy Estate, but it is a document that certainly does not provide any serious engagement with Biblical texts on sexuality. Instead, it tells us that the Biblical texts prohibiting same-sex sexual expression don’t really mean what they say, and it goes on to selectively use other texts to oppose the clear teaching of Scripture. We would do well to remember Article XX: “Of the Authority of the Church” from our Anglican Articles of Religion, which warns, “…And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.”
In Isaiah 66:2,5 God said, “This is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word… Hear the word of the Lord, you who tremble at his word.” I believe that we are in a very dangerous place when we no longer “tremble at his Word.”
I see in many Anglicans a loving passion for all, and a desire to eradicate the injustices people have inflicted upon one another. I also share this passion and I realize that the hatred, isolation and prejudices experienced by so many people because of how they identify themselves sexually is both tragic and heart breaking. Although I will not support changing the national Church’s Marriage Canon, it is important to know that all people are welcomed and valued, and I will treat all who have bowed their knee to Jesus and confess Jesus as Lord God Almighty as my brothers and sisters in Christ.
However, in their zeal to correct injustices, some church leaders promote personal opinions that are profoundly at odds with biblical teaching and what is generally accepted as Christian doctrine. Now they have been emboldened to act in defiance of biblical authority, and in defiance of the traditional teaching of the Holy Catholic Church, and the counsel and permission of the Anglican Church of Canada and the Anglican Communion. As sad as it is for me to say it, I must call the promotion, teaching, and endorsing of same-sex marriage false teaching and heresy.
There is a conflict that cannot be reconciled: The Bible teaches against same-sex sexual activity, and does not endorse same-sex marriage. But our society does endorse these things and thus ignores the Bible’s teaching on marriage and sexuality. And so the church, the people called “out of darkness and into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 1:9), must choose whether to follow the world’s way, or God’s way.
I lay these questions before all delegates at General Synod:
In my ordination as priest I was charged with caring for Christ’s sheep, and as bishop I pledged to “banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word.”
I would be rejecting my ordination vows if I were to agree to redefining marriage and comply with the erroneous decision made at General Synod in 2016. Synods may change the definition of marriage, but that doesn’t change God’s definition of marriage. Synods may choose to walk without the wisdom of scripture, but that doesn’t make those synods wise decision-makers. It would not be wise to think that General Synod and the 68.4% of bishops who voted in favour of changing the church’s Marriage Canon are a majority. The Anglican Church of Canada is marginal in size, representing only 0.65% of the Anglican Communion and only 0.025% of the Christian church worldwide. It is spiritually dangerous to follow this marginal segment of the Christian church, those who think they alone have this prophetic message from God–a message that calls us to turn from Scripture and follow them.
As for me, I choose to remain with the Word of God and represent the gospel in the confines of the traditional Biblical doctrines of the Diocese of The Arctic, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Anglican Communion, and the Holy Catholic Church and to walk with those who choose likewise. As for those who choose to reject the Word of God and the doctrines of the Anglican Church of Canada in our Book of Common Prayer, and the Doctrines and precepts of the Anglican Communion, and choose instead to develop their own worldly doctrines and humanistic theologies, they must do so on their own. I will treat them with love and respect but as those who have walked away from the doctrines of the Christian faith. I will pray for their repentance, but I will not walk in rebellion with them.
It gives me no joy to write what I have written, nor do I write with a self-righteous attitude but with much concern, and as one who knows well his own sinful nature. I end with what I said at the beginning: I write this letter in the hope that the Anglican Church of Canada returns to its purpose for existence, offering the freedom that comes from being forgiven, and being made faithful disciples of our Lord.
Faithfully yours by grace,
Rt. Rev. David W Parsons
Bishop of the Arctic
