TEC changes the definition of marriage; Justin Welby is deeply concerned

Posted on by
18

From here:

The Archbishop of Canterbury today expressed deep concern about the stress for the Anglican Communion following the US Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops’ resolution to change the definition of marriage in the canons so that any reference to marriage as between a man and a woman is removed.

While recognising the prerogative of The Episcopal Church to address issues appropriate to its own context, Archbishop Justin Welby said that its decision will cause distress for some and have ramifications for the Anglican Communion as a whole, as well as for its ecumenical and interfaith relationships.

Other than the fact that I am still waiting with considerable anticipation for an archbishop to voice a shallow concern, what I find most interesting about this is that Welby’s worry is not so much whether it is Biblically sound to redefine marriage, but whether TEC’s decision will hasten the demise of the pallid but still twitching carcass belonging to what used to be the Anglican Communion.

In order to remain credible, and in the absence of any more potent stricture on TEC than deep concern from Canterbury, what choice will Provinces that take the Gospel seriously have but to further distance themselves from TEC – and Canterbury?

Incidentally, does anyone doubt that the Anglican Church of Canada will follow in TEC’s footsteps? Anyone?

Anglicans in the Toronto Pride Parade

Posted on by
13

Canadian Anglicans, having little else to be proud of, paid their annual homage to the Zeitgeist yesterday:

PA1

PA2

Oakville was represented by St. Jude’s, the town’s posh church:

PA3

Someone lamented that there was only one bishop present, Terry Finlay. I think the person may have been mistaken, though: this fellow looks like a bishop to me:
image

Primate hopes marriage canon debates will be respectful

Posted on by
4

The object on which an Anglican bishop rests his hope rarely fails to confirm my low expectations.

Fred Hiltz could be hoping that the outcome of the debate will align with the Biblical understanding of marriage or, to say it another way, with God’s will for a Christian marriage. Instead, he hopes that there will not be too much squabbling.

From here:

Archbishop Fred Hiltz said he is aware that there is anxiety among Anglicans about how the 2016 General Synod will deal with a motion amending the marriage canon (church law) to allow the marriage of same-sex couples.

Hiltz expressed hope that the debates that will precede any decision will be conducted with respect and patience.

He is praying, he added, that people will “know the leading of the Holy Spirit” and that there will be “grace in the midst of what will be a very difficult and challenging conversation.”

[……]

In July 2013, General Synod — the church’s governing body — approved Resolution C003, which asked Council of General Synod (CoGS) to prepare and present a motion to change the church’s Canon 21 on marriage “to allow the marriage of same-sex couples in the same way as opposite-sex couples.”

It also asked that this motion include “a conscience clause so that no member of the clergy, bishop, congregation or diocese should be constrained to participate in our authorize [sic] such marriages against the dictates of their conscience.”

It’s hard to take the prayer “know the leading of the Holy Spirit” seriously, since the “conscience clause” (not that anyone takes that particularly seriously since those that exercise it will be ridiculed, ostracised and eventually driven out) anticipates disunity, something that would not be present if the delegates were more interested in being informed by the Holy Spirit than in using him as rubber stamp for their own opinions.

Justin Welby peddles “inclusive capitalism”

Posted on by
3

I was under the naïve impression that there was nothing left to which the overused to the point of meaninglessness adjective “inclusive” could be applied – but I was wrong.

From here:

The Archbishop of Canterbury today calls on business and market leaders to be less self-serving and to adopt a new model known as “inclusive capitalism”.

[…..]

“Rather than just seeking a return on investment, there has to be a generosity that reaches out.”

Any model of capitalism that relied solely on self-interest would lead to the collapse of society, he warns, writing in the Telegraph.

“Altruism, the imitation of the God who acts in love that does not seek return, is a crucial part of a stable and functional society.”

To what organisation should we look for inspiration in eschewing financial self-interest and seeking no return on investments? The Church of England, of course:

The Church Commissioners hold investments whose value was approaching £6.7 billion at the end of 2014.

[…..]

Their long term target is a return of at least RPI [inflation] plus 5% over the long term.

A paradigm of inclusive capitalism: it includes £6.7 billion and 5% return over inflation.

Diocese of Niagara supports living wage program

Posted on by
5

From here:

Hamilton’s business voice and a leading social service agency have joined a crusade to make the city a living wage economy.

The Hamilton Chamber of Commerce and the Good Shepherd Centres signed onto the drive Friday, joining a growing group calling for a basic wage that’s tied to what it actually costs to live here.

[….]

In Hamilton, the campaign argues a working person needs at least $14.95 an hour to purchase adequate shelter, clothing, food, transportation, child care, health insurance and “social inclusion” needs, such as a city recreation pass and other necessities.

Companies and agencies backing Living Wage Hamilton …….

Anglican Diocese of Niagara

There is only one problem with this: the Diocese of Niagara pays its janitors $12.50 per hour while campaigning for everyone else to pay at least $14.95 per hour; poor chaps will be deprived of their social inclusion needs – whatever that means..

Scottish Episcopal Church considers change to Canon on Marriage

Posted on by
6

Following the Anglican Church of Canada and TEC’s prophetic lead, the Scottish Episcopal Church is to consider changing its marriage canon to included same-sex couples.

In this context, “prophetic” means abjectly striving to fit into a world to which, the Bible tells us, the church is not to be conformed.

From here:

The General Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church has today voted to begin a process for change in relation to its Canon on Marriage. It has therefore instructed the Church’s Faith and Order Board to begin the two year process which may lead towards canonical change. That change would potentially allow the marriage of same gendered couples in Church in late 2017. The option which Synod voted for states

Holy Ramadan from Gosford Anglican Church

Posted on by
2

Since Anglican churches still maintain a loose connection to Christianity, wishing holiness on a competing religion’s ritual seems a little odd. Anglicans normally reserve the attribute of holiness for gay marriages.

Much like watery Anglicanism, ISIS wishes you a holy Ramadan, too; except, if your children don’t comply, they will be crucified. ISIS, as far as I am aware, has yet to wish anyone a Merry Christmas.

Judge rules 5 year old should choose his own gender

Posted on by
13

A judge has ruled that a five year old Oakville boy should be permitted to pick a gender that is at odds with his chromosomes. His parents are separated and his mother claims that the boy, to use a phrase I have come to loathe, self-identifies as a girl; the father disagrees.

The case has come before the courts and the judge has ruled that “the boy should be dressed as he wishes and not unilaterally pushed toward either a male or a female identity.” The case bears a passing resemblance to a much earlier one where Solomon ruled that a disputed child should be divided in half and each half given to the two women claiming to be his mother. Justice Sheilagh O’Connell, not having the wisdom of Solomon, did not rule that the top half of the child be dressed as a boy and the bottom half as a girl. It would probably have done little to shake the mother’s conviction that the objective reality of her son’s sex should not be a determining factor in his upbringing.

I was a guest at a wedding yesterday and had been asked by the bride’s father to take some candid photos of the event. When the time came to take a photo of all the men, I was preoccupied with photos of my own, so I missed being in the official men’s photo. A woman asked me why I wasn’t in it. The conversation went something like this:

Woman: Why aren’t you in the photo?
Me (deciding to have a little fun): Because I self-identify as a woman.
Woman (not in the least nonplussed): Well why weren’t you in the women’s photo, then?
Me: They wouldn’t let me.
Woman: That’s terrible.

The laughable thing about that is not only was I taken seriously, but the part that shocked the woman was that I, a not particularly effeminate man (I just verified that with my wife) – other than the long nails on my right hand used for guitar playing, an embellishment balanced by the chewed nails on my left hand – was not allowed to pretend to be a woman.

The next wedding I attend, I will be self-identifying as a poached egg to see how that works out.

Diocese of Montreal elects first female bishop

Posted on by
20

MiGThere isn’t anything surprising about that, of course. Nor is there anything surprising about this:

Irwin-Gibson listed nine priorities, of which the sixth was “to continue the Diocese of Montreal’s inclusive policy of ordaining partnered gay people.” She was the only one of four whose statement mentioned the topic.

The only surprising thing is that a suitable “partnered gay” person couldn’t be found for the position of bishop; the diocese had to make do with Irwin-Gibson instead. Still, at least she mentioned the priority of looking for more “partnered gay people” to ordain.