Coren’s book about how he came to support same-sex marriage has been distributed to all Canadian bishops – as if they needed any encouragement in that direction. Here is Michael Bird’s response:
Coren hopes it will do “some good”, as if such a thing were likely to result from a rather disgusting betrayal of his former principles:
Like-minded same-sex marriage enthusiasts have set up a Facebook group to encourage one another in their desire to see a Marriage Canon change to accommodate same-sex couples. As of this writing, there are 1269 members. In the spirit of full inclusion, it is a closed group, so you can only see what is going on if you join. I did and here is the stated purpose of the group:
As administrators of this group, we want to reiterate our purpose because we have more than doubled membership over the past couple of days. It’s important that we are all on the same page and that we continue to promote a safe space where people can be free to express their thoughts, feelings and emotions.
We want to clarify for everyone who is part of this group our intent in coming together here as stated in our description …
“This is to be a forum for support and to encourage each other as we head into this important conversation. Many continue to feel hurt and excluded; others are wanting to continue working for justice, respect and dignity for all as equal members of the body of Christ … the living out of our baptismal covenant. Pray for wisdom and the grace of God through the Holy Spirit as we continue this prophetic mission and ministry for equality for all, and especially our LGBTQ community!”
We trust that everyone who is here as a member of this group shares this purpose and desires this outcome.
The last sentence confirms that dissenters are unwelcome, a fact whose accuracy was reinforced after I posted this:
I’m opposed to changing the marriage canon but thought I would join the group to see if anyone has said anything that might change my mind. They haven’t.
The reply:
I was under the impression that people who have joined this group understood that Jesus loves everyone, all inclusive. I’m all for healthy debate but I’m unsure if that is possible in this situation.
So, as you can see, with full inclusion, no debate is possible.
Very shortly after posting my comment I was booted out of the group by the moderators.
I feel so excluded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDNKBo9TKWA
A process as trivial as voting doesn’t stop liberals; if liberals don’t get their own way through a vote, obviously the rules will have to change to make voting redundant. The important thing is to discern what the spirit is saying to the church – the spirit of theological liberalism, that is.
From here:
Council of General Synod (CoGS) unanimously agreed March 12 to send to the upcoming General Synod a draft resolution prepared by the Commission on the Marriage Canon changing the Anglican Church of Canada’s law to pave the way for same-sex marriage.
At the same time, however, CoGS said that while it is legally obliged by General Synod 2013’s Resolution C003 to send the same-sex marriage motion to General Synod 2016, it has also considered “the possibility of other options.”
In a message to the church, CoGS said, “The General Synod may discern a legislative option is not the most helpful, and if so, we faithfully hope that through dialogue at General Synod an alternate way will emerge.”
CoGS did not indicate what these “other options” might be, but the message was clearly a response to an earlier statement it received from the House of Bishops that a vote to allow same-sex marriage was “not likely to pass in the Order of Bishops.” In their statement to CoGS, the bishops had also questioned whether “a legislative procedure is the most helpful way” of dealing with the issue of gay marriage.
[….]
In its statement to the church, CoGS also said, “We recommend the greatest pastoral response possible, allowing same-sex couples to be fully included in the life of our church with full and equal access to its liturgies and pastoral offices.”
The wording of this last sentence was cause for much debate on the floor of the Council when it was presented to members for approval. The original draft had read, “We must permit the greatest pastoral response possible, allowing same-sex couples to be fully included in the life of our church with full and equal access to its liturgies and pastoral offices,” and some CoGS members felt this came too close to telling General Synod how it should vote.
“When we do this, when we say, ‘You have full access to the liturgies and pastoral care,’ we’re saying, ‘Go ahead and marry,’ ” said Bishop Larry Robertson, of the diocese of the Yukon, expressing an opinion also stated by Archdeacon Terry Leer, of the diocese of Athabasca. “I cannot and will not accept that.”
Hard to believe, I know.
From here:
“I long for a time in our church when there is as much attention and conviction and passion and voice and action from the rooftops about sexual exploitation, about gender-based violence, human trafficking for the sex trade, missing and murdered Indigenous women, pornography, religiously-based violence around the world, our violence against creation itself, and the greed and the reckless consumption that drives it,” said Archbishop Fred Hiltz.
The irony in all this is that Hiltz wants to direct the passions of the Anglican Church of Canada towards things over which it has absolutely no influence or control and in which it has no expertise, while at the same time being unable to come to a decision on whether to change its own marriage canon – something that has been a church speciality for 2000 years.
A fitting parable of ecclesiastical impotence.
The Council of General Synod is meeting in private to discuss the marriage canon change proposal; they don’t want anyone to see the fur fly.
From here:
Given the communication from the House of Bishops at the end of February, the Planning and Agenda Team for the Council of the General Synod suggested to members of the Council that conversation be conducted in camera for two hours of their agenda today. This move was to ensure that members could process and work through the House of Bishops communication and to speak freely and without reservation.
The author of the article above goes to great length to tell us what in camera means.
Don’t pay any attention. In 1944 Jean-Paul Sartre wrote a play called In Camera. In the play, three damned souls are locked in a room in Hell to be each other’s torturers.
That’s what is really happening.
If this article is to be believed, the ACoC indigenous bishops are against same-sex marriage not because they believe it to be wrong but because it is an expression of “colonial oppression”.
That leaves the liberals in the unhappy position of having to decide who to oppress: their indigenous members or their LGBTetc members; normally they take the easy way out and just oppress their conservative members.
The Bible does offer some advice on all this, of course, but no-one in the ACoC seems particularly interested in reading it.
A group of Indigenous Anglican Bishops have released a statement agreeing with Eastern Newfoundland Bishop Geoff Peddle that their community is on a different page when it comes to marriage equality, but not for the reasons you might think. VOCM’s Andrew Hawthorn explains.
Gay Marriage isn’t an issue of right or wrong in indigenous communities. It’s an issue of colonial oppression.
That’s according to three indigenous Bishops who released the statement declaring commitment to ‘the traditional, spiritual, indigenous understanding of marriage’.
There are those on both sides of the issue who would say homosexuality was once treated one way or another by indigenous peoples, but the Bishops, expressing kinship and support of the LGBT community, point out as their culture was almost entirely erased, it is difficult to say what the traditional attitude really was.
For now they say the main issue is an old one; a European-based society dominating discussion in their own culture, a conversation they say indigenous people should reserve for themselves.
Jane Alexander reacts to the recent house of bishops meeting where the bishops announced that the same-sex marriage motion to come before General Synod 2016 will not have the necessary support from the bishops to pass.
Alexander is another liberal, so her comments below are no surprise.
We still have no statements from any of the conservative bishops who have said they will vote against the motion. Are they all shy?
From here:
March 2, 2016
My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ, I have just returned to the diocese following a special meeting of the House of Bishops and a meeting of the Provincial House of Bishops of Rupert’s Land prior to the consecration of William Cliff as Bishop of Brandon.
It is my hope that by now you will have had the opportunity to read the House of Bishops Statement (http://www.anglican.ca/news/statement-from-the-house-of-bishops-from-its-specialmeeting/30015170/) as well as the report of the Commission on the Marriage Canon ‘This Holy Estate’ (http://www.anglican.ca/wp-content/uploads/Marriage Canon REPORT 15Sept22.pdf).
As the 2016 meeting of General Synod draws nearer, there was an overwhelming feeling in the
House of Bishops that we should share with the Council of General Synod (CoGS) just where the Bishops are in their consideration of a change to the marriage canon. Our statement is our attempt to be honest about the position in which we find ourselves.
In this diocese, we have passed a motion that allows for the blessing of a civil marriage between two people regardless of gender. I fully stand by this decision of our synod, and feel that marriages between faithful Christians of the same gender can be seen as a sacrament and give glory to God. I apologize to those members of our community, LGBTQ and heterosexual, who have been hurt and confused by the Bishops issuing their statement. I want to tell you that it was not done with malice or in an attempt to stop us talking at General Synod. Rather, it was an effort to be open and honest about our conversations. We are often asked as a House of Bishops to comment on our discussions at our meetings, and this is our attempt to do so.
I will continue to try and do all in my power to be a symbol of unity in the Diocese of Edmonton, in the Anglican Church of Canada, and in the wider Anglican Communion. I am convinced that in the power of Jesus Christ we will find a way forward. I encourage all of us as brothers and sisters in the body of Christ to continue in prayer and fellowship and to seek the will of God. It is my deepest prayer that we may all be one as Jesus and the Father are one (John 17).
Yours in Christ,
The Rt. Rev. Jane Alexander
Bishop of Edmonton
It appears that Anglican Church of Canada bishops are having a difficult time keeping their stories straight on exactly what happened at the recent House of Bishops Meeting.
In Anglican-speak, this is called walking together.
From here:
The head of the Anglican Church of Canada says a bishop in eastern Newfoundland has made inaccurate statements about the church’s internal debate over the blessing of same-sex marriages.
Most Rev. Fred Hiltz, primate of the Canadian wing of the church, is challenging Bishop Geoff Peddle’s assertion that the church is unlikely to allow the practice because indigenous bishops and the people they represent are opposed to the idea.
Peddle’s comments were made earlier this week during an interview broadcast across Newfoundland and Labrador by radio station VOCM.
He could not be reached for comment today.
Hiltz says the church’s 45 bishops in Canada have made it clear they are unlikely to reach the two-thirds consensus needed to change the church’s rules at its next General Synod in July.
However, Hiltz stressed that it would be inaccurate to suggest that the church’s three indigenous bishops are largely responsible for that position, saying there are plenty of non-indigenous bishops who also hold conservative views.
According to Michael Bird, some of the bishops who favour same-sex marriage will vote against it to avoid suffering the same sanctions as TEC. A vote rooted more in pusillanimity than principle.
From here:
Interestingly, the reasons are not purely theological. Bird told me some bishops reject same-sex marriage on a Biblical basis while others, including himself, interpret scripture differently.
However, many bishops were worried the Canadian Anglican church would be punished if it stepped with the times. It is not divine punishment they fear, but the fist of Canterbury, the heart of the church where its leader, the Archbishop, resides.
“There are many bishops who don’t have a problem with same-sex marriage, but we were told that if we changed the definition of marriage it would negatively impact our relationships with other denominations and within of the Anglican church itself,” Bird said.
For Anglican priests, this is not an unreasonable concern. The American Anglican church defied Canterbury and elected to allow same-sex marriage last year. In January, ranking church officials voted to effectively expel the American church from the Anglican ranks for three years. This means, among other things, American Anglicans cannot vote on church policy at Canterbury. They may be Anglicans in name, but their voices will not decide the future direction of the church internationally.
Canadian bishops evidently fear a similar consequence.
