Bogus unity is worse than honest disunity

Now that same-sex marriage is settled, the Anglican Church of Canada is concentrating on presenting a united front “as a form of witness to the world”, in contrast to this “time of political division”, a snide reference, I presume, to the US elections.

Here is a tweet showing Michael Thompson exhorting the church to indulge in a little faux-unity hypocrisy for the sake of its witness…. or should that be coffers?

unity

The only problem is, there is no unity in the ACoC: a number of bishops walked out of the last general synod after the same-sex marriage vote; later, they registered their dissent. Aboriginal Anglicans want to distance themselves from same-sex marriage. I know it falls somewhat short of rioting and property destruction but, in the Anglican world, this is disunity.

As an aside, I do hope Thompson has noticed that voting in the US elections – a slightly more ambitious exercise than the ACoC general synod – went much more smoothly than the GS2016 voting debacle run by…. you guessed it, Michael Thompson.

Still talking about same-sex marriage

The Anglican Church cannot stop talking about same-sex marriage. The more words that are spoken, the less that is said, an endless stream of fustian vacuities circling the certain knowledge that the outcome is inevitable; a gathering of CoGS clergy weaving an elaborate pretence of impartial objectivity, willing puppets, eyes blinkered and strings pulled by the spirit of our age.

It’s not unlike a description from Anthony Powell’s masterpiece, A Dance to the Music of Time:

The image of Time brought thoughts of mortality of human beings, facing outward like the Seasons, moving hand in hand in intricate measure, stepping slowly, methodically sometimes a trifle awkwardly, in evolutions that take recognisable shape: or breaking into seemingly meaningless gyrations, while partners disappear only to reappear again, once more giving pattern to the spectacle: unable to control the melody, unable, perhaps, to control the steps of the dance.

Here is a more prosaic account from the Journal:

Despite hopes expressed by some members that the Council of General Synod (CoGS) will be able to shift its focus away from same-sex marriage during the next triennium,  this did not happen just yet.

The Council spent much of the second day of its fall meeting brainstorming how it can ensure that productive discussions of the motion to amend the marriage canon will happen on the provincial and diocesan level over the next three years.

The motion passed its first reading at the July meeting of General Synod, but because same-sex marriage is a matter of doctrine, it requires a two-thirds majority vote at two consecutive General Synods. In preparation for the next General Synod in 2019, dioceses and ecclesiastical provinces have been asked to continue to study the motion in preparation for the second and final vote. CoGS has been mandated to support this work.

As several members noted over the course of the day, it might not be a straightforward task.

The church remains deeply divided on the issue. There are those who believe same-sex marriage has been put off for far too long already, those who insist that homosexuality is a serious sin and those who believe some accommodation for gay and lesbian Anglicans is necessary, but aren’t yet ready for marriage.

Some CoGS members, among them, the Rev. Lynne McNaughton, of the ecclesiastical province of British Columbia and Yukon, said their dioceses have already held meetings to discuss the next three years. Others, like John Rye of the ecclesiastical province of Rupert’s Land, compared debates over same-sex marriage to the film Groundhog Day, in which the protagonist re-lives the same day over and over again.

The Rev. Vincent Solomon, of the ecclesiastical province of Rupert’s Land, said people need to learn how to listen to each other if healthy discussions are to be had—a point that the Rev. David Burrows, a CoGS member from the ecclesiastical province of Canada, agreed with.

An Anglican Theology of Money

The Anglican Church of Canada has produced a report on The Theology of Money in which it denounces capitalism, a system that, apparently, is mired in “structural sin”. In its place, the report seems to be proposing Marxism branded with the stamp of an ecclesiastical imprimatur.

This would all be a little less risible if the senior ACoC clergy eager to impose economic strictures on the rest of us, earned less than six figures annually themselves. But, then, as a group of literary pigs have noted: all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

I remember a number of years ago attending a meeting where Fred Hiltz, speaking in his usual soporific monotone, became almost animated when announcing some wonderful news: not that revival had overcome every obstacle carefully placed in its path and visited the ACoC, but that a major donation was on the horizon, a bequest from a dead – even more dead than usual – Anglican, as I recall.

Of course, Western civilization is obsessed with money and its acquisition but it’s not the system that’s at fault, it’s the people living in the system: us. That includes (I do like to be inclusive) clergy and a church that is forever begging for financial support.

Here, the church version of the Occupy (anything but the cathedral or the bishop’s house) Movement is explained by Rev. Maggie Helwig, a regular at the Toronto gay pride parade:

On October 18, an Anglican Church of Canada task force has released “On The Theology of Money,” a report calling the faithful to embrace a “vision of ‘enough’” when it comes to material wealth.

Many Christians in the 21st century are torn between their faith, which teaches that hoarding wealth is wrong and that Christians should support each other, and an economic system that values individualism, limitless growth, and commodification, says the Rev. Maggie Helwig, a priest in the diocese of Toronto and member of the task force.

Using Biblical texts, early church teachings, contemporary theology and political theory, Helwig’s essay, Non nobis, Domine (Not to us, Lord) provides the main substance of the report, a result of two years of research, reflection and study.

Helwig makes the case that the current economic system and the value it places on money are antithetical to authentic Christianity, and should be seen as a kind of “structural sin.”

The essay takes its title from Psalm 115, which attacks the idolatrous worship of images made of silver and gold,  “the work of human hands,” and argues that the money economy, as it is currently practiced today, is a similar form of idolatry.

Citing stories like God’s feeding of the children of Israel with manna in Exodus 16, to the early church practice of holding goods in common described in Acts 2, Helwig points out that the Bible consistently teaches that Christians are called to be satisfied with what they need, and to share with those who have less—an argument she believes is backed up by the Bible’s frequent denunciations of lending money on interest.

She notes, however, “This vision of ‘enough’ is not only very different from the ever-spiralling growth of the money economy, it is actually hostile to it. If we are satisfied with simple, basic human lives of good work and mutual care, we will ‘fail’ according to the terms of our economy.”

Furthermore, Helwig argues that, because the capitalist economic system sees no intrinsic value in human life, it is completely indifferent to the suffering of those who find themselves unable to succeed on its terms.

“The inability of the market alone to ensure adequate human lives for the majority of the population is increasingly clear, as the gap between rich and poor, both globally and within nations, increases,” she says, quoting a report from Oxfam, an international confederation of groups working to fight poverty, that shows inequality as having grown dramatically over the past 30 years.

“These statistics speak of human lives stripped down to the voracious needs of an economic system’s implacable internal logic,” she adds.

[……]

Helwig also believes Christians should have a voice in the political arena, pushing for more redistributive economic policies and resisting trade agreements that “have been proven to limit the ability of persons and societies to make choices for the local common good.”

Fred Hiltz meets the Pope

Along with Justin Welby, Fred Hiltz met the Pope recently to discuss unity between Anglicans and Catholics. It’s odd that Hiltz felt he needed to travel 7000kms to talk about a “united witness to the gospel” when he could have taken the GO train 30kms to talk about the same thing with Anglican Network in Canada leaders.

From here:

hiltz-popeBut there is a growing desire in both churches to see unity as more than an end in itself, said Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, reflecting on his recent trip to Rome.

“The unity of the church is not for the church itself, and if it is, we might as well stop talking,” Hiltz said in an interview. “The unity of the church has to be in the interest of a common and faithful and united witness to the gospel, and the gospel is clearly for the world.”

For further confirmation that the whole exercise was little more than a posturing sham, we need look no further than the fact that the latest divisive antics of the ACoC were not even discussed:

For example, the Anglican Church of Canada’s move toward solemnizing the marriages of same-sex couples puts it at odds with Roman Catholic teachings on marriage. However, Hiltz said it was not an issue that came up for him or for any of the leaders of provinces that have made similar decisions.

“There was no kind of public calling into question the integrity of the Canadian church, or The Episcopal Church, or the Scottish Episcopal Church,” he said. “The focus was elsewhere.”

An Anglican hunger for Thanksgiving justice

The Anglican Church of Canada wants to end poverty (Bishop Jane Alexander is co-chair of the End Poverty Edmonton Task Force), an ambition that we might be tempted to think a trifle arrogant since the Church’s founder said it couldn’t be done.

No one seriously thinks the ACoC can actually do it, of course; it can’t even deliver Biblical sustenance to its own flock. That means it’s up to the government or, to put it more plainly, taxpayers, most of whom don’t attend an Anglican church, anyway, so that’s a good plan.

Read it all here:

At their first joint assembly in 2013, the Anglican Church of Canada and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada passed a declaration committing their churches to “advocate for renewed federal funding” and for an “integrated national collaborative strategy and greater accountability on the part of provinces and municipalities” in addressing homelessness and substandard housing.

Whatever you do, though, don’t mention abortion. Sorry, I know I just mentioned it. That is because killing the unborn is the biggest injustice that will be visited on the defenceless this Thanksgiving but the ACoC hasn’t the guts to stand up for murdered unborn babies. So I won’t mention abortion. Oops, there I go again.

Fred Hiltz responds to dissenting bishops

Once the vote to change the marriage canon to permit same-sex marriage passed at General Synod, a number of bishops released a statement expressing their disagreement with both the process and the outcome. They also reaffirmed their commitment to stick with the Anglican Church of Canada come what may, a resolve that does little to fortify any influence they may think they have.

Now Fred Hiltz has responded to the statement. He makes his support for same-sex marriage quite clear and, reading between the lines, in spite of protestations to the contrary, I can’t believe there will be much tolerance for dissent.

From here:

While he affirmed the bishops’ commitment to offer “pastoral care and loving service to all irrespective of sexual orientation,” he noted that for many LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning) Anglicans, “pastoral care” would include the solemnization of their marriages—which the bishops have expressly said they will not do. “For me, my brothers, the question you ask is really a question for all members of the church. To what extent can we and will we make room for one another? To what extent will we pastorally accommodate one another?” Hiltz said in his letter.

The bishops are, rightly, worried about the conscience clause:

Hiltz also challenged their claim that the resolution, which contains a conscience clause, “does not provide adequate protection for the consciences of dioceses, clergy and congregations.” He asked the bishops to explain what such protection would look like, and how it would apply for those in their dioceses who are in favour of same-sex marriage.

One answer to Hiltz might be this: when a bishop or clergyman refusing to marry a same-sex couple is either hauled before the Human Rights Commission or is civilly sued, the ACoC must pay for his legal defence. Of course, that won’t stop liberal bishops refusing to hire orthodox clergy or making their lives so disagreeable that they quit for a saner environment – but some things are too much to hope for.

Bishops attempt to think about something other than same-sex marriage

Having driven thousands of people out of the pews through its obsession with same-sex marriage, the Anglican Church of Canada has decided to concentrate on “evangelism and discipleship and mission” instead.

This, of course, is unfamiliar territory for the ACoC. Nevertheless, I have every confidence that – just as it did during the decade of evangelism – the ACoC will spend the next 10 years or so trying to decipher what those terms really mean, having conversations about them and, after establishing a commission to study the numerous theological interpretations that can be ascribed to them, acknowledge that, as theological abstractions, they do actually exist.

From here:

After three years spent in intense debate over a resolution to allow the marriage of same-sex couples, the House of Bishops intends to shift its focus to “evangelism and discipleship and mission” in the next triennium, says Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, following the house’s September 22-27 meeting in Winnipeg.

“In the last number of years…the vast majority of our time in meetings was consumed by conversations about same-sex marriage,” said Hiltz in an interview. “And the bishops are saying, ‘We’ve just got to have a more balanced agenda.’ ”

Bishop Mary Irwin-Gibson, of the diocese of Montreal, agreed, saying in an interview that the same-sex marriage debate has taken up “way too much airtime” in recent years. She said she hopes the house can “get on with the mission of the church” by making it “more vital and adept” at creating disciples.

If the same-sex marriage vote had gone the other way at general synod, I very much doubt that the bishops would be so willing to adopt a “more balanced agenda”.  As it is, liberals have their way and same-sex marriages are proceeding without having to wait for the 2019 vote to finalise the issue. In Ecclesiastical Newspeak, this is called an “interim pastoral provision”, permitting bishops to ignore pettifogging details like synods, votes, canons, the Bible, God and Jesus.

Hiltz said no attempt was made to place a moratorium on same-sex marriages until after the second vote in 2019. What he heard from some bishops who announced their intention to allow same-sex marriages in their dioceses was that such marriages could happen, but as an “interim pastoral provision” that would require “the bishop’s knowledge and permission.” The bishop would also have to authorize a rite to be used to solemnize the union since the current liturgies, in the Book of Common Prayer and the Book of Alternative Services, cannot be used until the marriage canon is formally amended.

When asked how this arrangement was received by the house, Hiltz said, “I didn’t see any major reaction. No blow-up, no pushback.” He said that the bishops understood this as a pastoral provision.

To qualify my second paragraph above a little: one bishop, at least – Montreal’s Mary Irwin-Gibson – does have a clear idea of what “discipleship” really means – hard to believe, I know. “Discipleship” is marrying more same-sex couples:

“I’m interested in marriage as a Christian avenue of discipleship”

Michael Coren’s Dark Knight of the Soul

As a result of promoting Catholicism in his books and journalism, Michael Coren became a Knight of the Holy Sepulchre in 1992. In 2013 he joined the Anglican Church of Canada which, short of Molochism, is about as far as you can get from the Roman Catholic Church.

Now the Catholic Church wants its papal knighthood medal back.

From here:

Michael Coren, former Catholic apologist and journalist, has been stripped of his papal knighthood following his reception into the Anglican Church of Canada in 2013. Coren is known for his popular work of Catholic apologetics, Why Catholics Are Right, and for his schism from the Church over her doctrine on homosexuality. He is married with four children.

Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic made Mr Coren a Knight of the Holy Sepulchre in October 1992, for ‘services to Catholic media’. According to an interview with the ultra-liberal Catholic journal, The Tablet, “Coren was stripped of his papal knighthood and asked to return the medal — he has so far refused.”

Indigenous Anglicans unhappy with same-sex marriage vote

The poor old Anglican Church of Canada is once again caught on the horns of a dilemma: should it upset its aboriginal members by allowing same-sex marriage or its alphabet-sex members – most of whom are its own clergy – by prohibiting them.

I have an idea: be inclusive and aggravate everyone by agreeing to marriage requests from non-clergy same-sex couples only – all three of them.

From here:

“We do not agree with the decision and believe that it puts our communities in a difficult place in regards to our relation and community with the Anglican Church of Canada,” the bishops say.

While they intend to discern their exact course of action “in the days ahead,” the bishops say, they also commit to continuing “in our conversation with the Anglican Church of Canada in regards to self-determination and mutual cooperation in our Anglican Christian ministry.”

The bishops continue, “We will proceed towards self-determination with all urgency.”

At the same time, they say they will also “seek ways to continue our conversation with the LGBTQ [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer] communities and individuals, affirming our earlier statements of love and welcome.”

[……]

Particularly painful, the bishops say, was the “silencing” of an elder during debate on the floor of synod. Although this was understandable given the “Western process” that was followed at synod, the bishops say, an apology to the elder is in order.

[……]

Indigenous Anglican elders, the bishops say, should have been “actively involved” with discussions to change the marriage canon. But neither discussion of the matter nor This Holy Estate—the report of the Commission on the Marriage Canon—were translated into Indigenous languages, they say.

And now for something completely different: an atheist professor of theology

Gerald Robinson is an atheist who teaches theology at Toronto’s Trinity College. It will surprise no one to learn that he is an Anglican who attends an Anglican Church of Canada parish where, no doubt, he feels quite at home amongst like-minded clergy.

He has written a book called Theology for Atheists; we can only assume he is angling to become the next ACoC Primate.

From here:

Award-winning Toronto architect Gerald Robinson is an adjunct professor of theology, in the divinity faculty at the University of Toronto’s Trinity College.

He’s a member of the Anglican congregation that worships in Trinity College Chapel and regularly attends services in the chapel. He calls it his parish church, his “go-to” place to worship. So what is he doing socializing with atheists in Scallywags, a Toronto pub?

Robinson is also an atheist who describes himself as an Anglican/Atheist/Christian—a description that must raise many eyebrows. Some will dismiss it as contradictory, incomprehensible.

Robinson says Jesus never claimed to be God, that nowhere in the gospels does he make that claim. Free Jesus from the doctrinal cluttering, and he is still the “greatest teacher the world has ever known,” whose message of peace, love and tolerance is sorely  needed by a troubled world.

[….]

In his 168-page book, Robinson addresses such subjects as heavenly warfare, faith or reason, and miracles. He raises such questions as: Can atheists have a theology? Do atheists have souls? Can an atheist be a Christian if he or she denies the divinity of Jesus?

He answers with an emphatic “yes.”

To his credit, he has one thing right:

As an Anglican, he suggests that the Anglican/Episcopal Church makes the lowest demands for conformity of belief and could lead the way.

The way where, one wonders?

hell