A point of clarification.
This just appeared on the diocesan Facebook page:
A point of clarity regarding our recent statement:
The Diocese of the Arctic remains a diocese within the Anglican church of Canada, but must distance itself from those who violate the Marriage Canon. The implication of this is a state of “impaired communion”. By using the phrase “self-determining,” we are reserving the right not to affirm or submit to decisions that violate the doctrine of the church on marriage.
Accordingly, I have change the headline to reflect this.
This is going to be interesting.
Is “self-determining…” the same as leaving?
I do not interpret the actions of the Diocese of the Arctic as self determining but rather a bold step in standing up for the faith and against APOSTASY. The actions of many co-called bishops including the newly elected primate but more correctly called apostates has removed any claim by the Anglican Church of Canada to be Christian and they have bowed down to that detestable god of political expediency. I am fully confident that the Anglican Network in Canada will welcome this diocese and its people.
It does seem to be a bit ambiguous. Although they do specifically state that they are now in “a state of impaired communion” which is pretty tough language.
Good question.
I think it is a euphemism for “leaving”.
I’m sure we will be seeing more details on how it will work, but consider:
1. Up until now it was a Diocese of the Anglican Church of Canada called the “Diocese of the Arctic”. The letter now has the diocese calling itself “self-determining Anglican Church of Canada in the Arctic”. No mention that it a diocese of the ACoC.
2. The letter states “We are now in a state of impaired communion [with the ACoC]”. Surely “a state of impaired communion” means they are no longer a part of the ACoC.
3. The diocese was always free not to perform same-sex marriages while remaining in the ACoC but clearly this goes further. If it is not leaving, what is it?
On the other hand, the self-determining Indigenous Anglican Church makes a point of saying that it is still within the ACoC, so I could be wrong. We’ll see.
People: once you open the door to “local option,” anything goes. You are witnessing the complete disintegration of the governance structure of the AC of C. You can be in, out, or partially in or out, but what will any of it mean? Nothing, until it comes down to the money. For all we know, the Arctic Bishops have already parlayed some kind of financial arrangements that will allow them to keep going. Or they have other sources of income not connected to AC of C. Regardless, their pesky dissenting votes have been removed from General Synod as presumably they will be excluded next time around for daring to disagree. Look for next GS to require that all parishes perform SSMs as was done in the Episcopal Church USA. This time around was to get the camel’s nose into the tent. When that didn’t work, they pulled local option out of the hat. All Parsons et al have done is taken that to its (il) logical conclusion. To believe everything is to believe nothing. It only waits to be seen whether they will be punished: but hard to do with Indigenous parishioners.
Turns out I was wrong. “Self-determining” does not mean “leaving”.
Please see the revised post.
No, I don’t think it means they are leaving. But it is a very clear statement that they are not okay with these developments. I love them for it. The financial relationship of the Arctic to the south is such that it cannot be easy to take such a stand.
Any Indigenous Church should see this for that insanity that it is. First of all, the ACoC cares WAY more about its gay people than its Native people. Also, Native people, impacted by trauma, want healing. This means strong families, and strong men in particular. Native men have been impacted by trauma much differently than the women.
The community is in desperate need of strong men. You can see how the “white people” keep trying to appropriate this idea of Indigenous “two spirit” sexuality. Even if that was a thing, what should it be appropriated? Likewise, Indigenous people have a right to keep their Churches conservative and to want to pass on strong, conservative family values to their children. They have that right, don’t they ACoC? Or shall we take them back to residential school and relearn them once again?
This decision has nothing whatever to do with indigenous persons OR the residential schools but solely due to APOSTATES within the ACoC who willingly abandon the WORD and now worship the “god of political expediency”. As I have stated previously the correct terms in this matter are orthodox – those seeking to be true to THE WORD – and apostasy – those who seem to think that their word is superior to SCRIPTURE.
If the RC Archbishop Vigano ‘Testimony’ alleging a “homosexual network:” to be operative in the RCC which was made public on Sunday, August 25, 2018, serves as a template for sexual abuse in all institutions, both secular and religious, the verdict yet has not been rendered on the connection between abuse in the Residential Schools by ALL denominations and the anti-Scriptural sin of predatory homosexuality. + Genesis chs. 18, 19.
For those Churches which were found to be abusive with these specific sins/crimes perpetrated against both children and adult victims then to homologate/make lawful the very same practices among the spiritual leadership, and, by extension, among the Communion of Believers, presents a moral contradiction unresolved.
The profound and justified repugnance that the Indigenous Churches and their Communities have expressed against this ‘repeat offence’ speaks for itself.
It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the Diocese of the Arctic prayerfully has “come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith The LORD, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith The Almighty” + II Corinthians ch. 6. (v. also + I Corinthians ch. 6).
Homosex just further victimises the native. I’m thinking of the Indian boy on the street who typically goes home with a man for food and shelter.
Agreed: save he also could be sitting in his or her pew.
What a mess in trying to please everyone we end up pleasing no one.
It is not a question of pleasing anyone but rather making a stand for the TRUTH and THE SCRIPTURES. Tragically we are witnessing a decline – might I say a rejection of THE TRUTH – with the decision of the so-called bishops taking a stand for APOSTASY. The Church is not and should not be in the business of trying to please people but rather should be in the business of upholding the GOSPEL and the tenants of SCRIPTURE.