Logan McMenamie, the bishop of B.C. is due to retire. He has gained the interest of the secular press by championing same-sex marriage and the fact that he was the first B.C. bishop to march in a gay pride parade. His prancing in the pride parade has won secular approval; that doesn’t mean God is impressed.
From here:
An Anglican bishop known for his progressive attitude towards reconciliation and the LGBTQ community is retiring after six years of leadership.
[…..]
McMenamie became known for talking openly about the Anglican Church’s history in colonization and future role in reconciliation, but he also stood up for the rights of LGBTQ people. In 2018 the Anglican Church of Canada struck down same-sex marriage, but responded to public outcry by allowing local dioceses to make choices for their own jurisdictions.
In 2018, McMenamie was the only bishop in Western Canada to approve same-sex marriages.
“My motivation was I thought that we should have marriage in the church, and that marriage should be for everybody,” he says. “It shouldn’t be restricted in any way.”
McMenamie says acknowledging LGBTQ rights, like reconciliation, is about choosing to live well together.
Perhaps he’ll have time to do more reading now.
Considering his rejection of the authority of SCRIPTURE and his endorsement of secular thinking he should never had the opportunity to resign but should have been removed from office. Clearly he is not and never was a true bishop or a Christian.
Shouldn’t it read “2019” the Anglican Church of Canada struck down same-sex marriage, instead of “2018”? Some diocesan writer…..
Personally, I was surprised to hear about Bishop McMenamie’s retirement, as I thought he only was elevated a Bishop about 5 years ago. What bothers me, is priests with a Liberal theology are able to rise in the ranks. And it is because of Anglican Church culture, all the bad Liberal theology is in the Church’s culture. So, he, along with other Liberal Church leaders, will retire with comfortable pensions. And they are blind and unaware of the damage they have done to the Anglican Church communion, and to theological intergrity within the Church.
I think you give them too much credit. They are definitely NOT blind or unaware of the damage they have done and continue to do. Their actions are deliberate and they have no concern whatever for the TRUTH.
Being a now elderly clergyman’s daughter, and having known really well, and tried to work with, a lot of Anglican bishops & clergy over the years, I’d want to assert that the aetiology of their bad doctrine and practice is often quite multifarious. A cold, cruel or absent father, an alcoholic mother, various kinds of serious abuse and neglect, all never forgiven by the victim, are often factors. Such traumata if unresolved may mark people for life. They may seek ordination as compensation.
Many clergy have never seen a functioning Christian marriage as they grew up.
I do not underestimate the effects of the sheer sinfulness which we all suffer from; but many of our church troubles are rooted I believe in a ruinous defect in the training of clergy, the failure to address personal/psychological/spiritual neediness before the individual gets into professional ministry at all.
Brainpower is genetic, education a matter of training, opportunity and experience, what we do with our equipment is something that the whole Church or denomination has a responsibility to see to. It is not sufficient, let alone Christian, to sit on the sidelines and carp at those who are in office.
With respect, I have to agree with Frank on this one. In my opinion, if more people had “carped” then probably less people would be “hooked” by falsehoods.
One of the things that I am trying to assert is that we really don’t have knowledge of the motivation of other people unless it is plainly stated by them. Our own state is not good if we pretend to such knowledge.
I suggest that if such a plain statement is false, and it is evident that it is false, then we do not pretend to know. We do know. It may be through a glass darkly, but we are seeing. I also suggest that we often do not need to have knowledge of the motivation to be aware of the consequences, and the motivation can often be imputed or deduced from the consequences.
Our personal state can be enhanced by such awareness. The spiritual state of society in general appears to have suffered as a result of the failure to assert what could have been declared or propounded more clearly and frequently including from the sidelines. Those opposed to the steps taken by churches such as the ACoC did not vacate the field even though in many cases they did not own the stadium, but loud demonstrations on the sidelines, in their support, could have strengthened, and still can strengthen, their resolve and could weaken that of those who are intent on changing the rules. In that context, spectators are very much participants. Moreover, instead of being subjected to carping, perhaps those rule-changers should have had the fish thrown at them, metaphorically speaking of course.
Dr. Turner, perhaps what is happening is that you are discussing the cause(s) of the motivation whereas I am discussing the motivation regardless of the cause(s).
I am for intellectual ruthlessness in dealing with falsehoods and heresies but personal tenderheartedness towards individuals whose sorrows and woundedness, not being God, we often do not know. As I myself hope to obtain mercy when I come up for judgment. Isn’t that what the Lord taught? To believe the best is more Christian by far than to assume the worst. Only one Person has ever successfully walked the knife-edge between serpentine toxicity and dovelike stupidity. I greatly prefer to be ‘had’ sometimes rather than to be poisonous!
Buy good literature for our leaders, talk with them, and pray for them at least as much as we talk about them, that’s my principle.
I am slow answering because I am very exhausted in just such an endeavour at this particular time.
I wasn’t actually expecting an answer Dr. Turner, but thank you for your further comments. I appreciate you having taken the time to do that.
I do like Bishop McMenamie’s statement, “acknowledging LGBTQ rights, like reconciliation, is about choosing to live well together.” I can’t disagree with that. The statement implies mutual respect and consideration. Discussions and disagreements about this should, in my opinion, always keep that in mind and be conducted in a manner that avoids being unnecessarily strident regardless of the forum.
As Christians we are mandated to stand for the GOSPEL and not taken in by modern thinking that seems to surrender to the LGBTQ community. Indeed one can reconcile but that requires taking a firm stand for the TRUTH – NOT perversion.
“Acknowledging” as in admitting the fact that those people now have civil rights in our society.
Surely civil rights have never been in question?
Friday, January 31st, 2020 UK Brexit
As The United Kingdom marks its historic sovereign exit from the economic, judicial and cultural (Cultural Marxism) tyranny of the European Union, an exercise in the first instance initiated and imposed by the Cameron-May Government’s non-mandated imposition of gay ‘marriage’ on the opposed populace (duplicated by the May-Johnson Government on Northern Ireland, July 10, 2019),
but an exit discouraged, even opposed, by both the pro-EU Archbishop of Canterbury and the House of Bishops,
the greatest damage done to the global Anglican Communion has been the vacillation on the issue of human sexuality and marriage as demonstrated by the Primates of The Church of England; manifested again in their current reversal/”apology” of their recent statement re.civil marriage which therein had upheld the Scriptural definition of Christian marriage.
Concomitant to this anti-Scriptural vacillation and capitulation is the absence of the third mark of the true Church:spiritual discipline as it should apply, first among equals, to the three Primates of The Episcopal Church of Scotland, The Episcopal Church USA, and The Anglican Church in Canada.
This observation is shared by orthodox sister blogs to this one; and by all those souls who are absenting themselves from their respective Churches under the conviction of Christian conscience.
+ Romans ch. 1.
I found David Kellett’s observations very judicious and charitable.
Brexit had nothing whatever to do with same-sex ‘marriage’, a wicked measure brought in by a corrupt political party in order to stay in power. Do we seriously expect the British Tories to rescind it now? Or to stop the sexual mutilation of young children at taxpayer expense?
For decades, since I was an undergraduate and young graduate student (1957-62), I have been discussing with friends the meaning of love for neighbour. All along I’ve been convinced that many of our troubles spring from misunderstandings about what it is and what it isn’t. My paper on the subject grew over years, and was published in Canada in 1969 soon after we arrived. It is reproduced here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/your-neighbour-yourself-luke-1027-dr-priscilla-turner-1/ . I don’t think it dates badly at all. In fact I was cheered recently to read that my general conclusion is the same as that arrived at by St. Thomas Aquinas. !!!
Only in our Faith do we find a universal love-ethic. The Commandment originates in the OT as we all know; but in Judaism as in Islam it does not stretch to love for everyman.
With respect, this theory was put before the British public in ‘The Daily Mail’, June 28, 2016;
and, according to other bonifide sources, its massive funding drawing upon George Soros’ ‘Open Society Foundation’, itself obviously pro-EU;
the same Foundation that underwrote the incumbent Liberal Government in Canada in the 2015 Federal Election and its Cultural Marxist mandate unfolding.
If the British Tories, wisely advised by their Sovereign as Supreme Governor of The Church of England, do not rescind it, thus subjecting their populace, especially their children, to its iniquity, they shall be that ‘Millstone set in a Sulphur Sea’.
Mathew ch. 18.
When same-sex ‘marriage’ was proposed I wrote to HM beseeching her to refuse to sign it into law, as contrary to her coronation vow. I sent her a copy of my book Holy Homosex?. I received as is usual with the Palace a very courteous reply from one of her minions (unlike Lambeth). That lady is an elder sister of a school-mate of mine at SPGS. But The Queen has no power, only influence, and signed. She has, however, let it be known what she thinks about this matter.
“Here is The Wisdom.
This is The Royal Law.
These are the Lively Oracles of
GOD.” June 2, 1953.
Words of presentation of The Holy Bible to the Monarch, as presented by the Moderator of The Church of Scotland.
‘Stands Scotland where it did?
Alas, poor country; almost afraid to
know itself!
It cannot be called our mother…’
MacBeth IV,iii
‘Anglican Mainstream’ confirms this
tragic truth in the devastating account of father and husband, James MacDonald, Jan. 31, 2020, ‘They Are Coming For Our
Children’.
Prayers going up for this evil regime to be brought down; answered on two counts to date: 1) denied access to the EU, the Cultural Marxist Mecca inspiring this iniquity;
2) First Minister’s Finance Minister
found ‘coming for our children’.
Let us pray that Her Majesty’s appointment of the Duke of Cambridge as Royal High Commissioner to the 2020 General Assembly of the fallen Church of Scotland will bear this in prayerful
mind.
Count three:
February 6, 2020
The Free Church of Scotland upholds the December 10,1948, Universal Declaration of Human Rights in support of The Reverend Franklin Graham’s right to free speech in The United Kingdom.
v. ‘Anglican Mainstream’.
“I thought… that marriage should be for everybody,” he is quoted as saying. “It shouldn’t be restricted in any way.” Did he stand up for the marriage rights of bigamists, polyandrists, polygynists, polyamorists and those committed to non-exploitative incestuous unions? Just wondering… given his apparent position that marriage is for “everybody” and “shouldn’t be restricted in any way”…
Yes. As I wrote over twenty years ago, Really, Hugh! You write as though I had conceived some innovative idea about Christian sex-ethics and were trying to put it over on everybody else. Hasn’t it crossed your mind that the onus of proof is on those who wish to change Christianity at this point?
I am STILL waiting to hear the case for the inherent goodness and beauty of homosexual acts. It is not established by an assertion, however often repeated, that perhaps they are not sinful after all.
As good a case, if not better, could be made for “loving, consensual” father-daughter incest. I cannot see that any conduct is improved or rendered acceptable by an undertaking to engage in it exclusively or for a lifetime. [Holy Homosex? pp. 90-91]
In a fallen world, it is quite obvious that nobody lives according to the will of the triune God all the time. Humans often suffer because of their behaviours. God’s justice will be done!