At last, some good news from the Anglican Church of Canada

Posted on by
1

They are running out of money.

The end is nigh. It must be, because no organisation, let alone church, can possibly survive if it finds itself groping for answers to questions like: “Why do we exist?” and “What is our purpose?”

All the shiny things adorning the beloved primate are coming soon to a pawn shop near you.

From here:

The likelihood that the church’s revenue will stagnate in coming years means it might want to think carefully about its priorities, Fraser Lawton, bishop of the diocese of Athabasca and a member of the financial management committee, said in a presentation to Council of General Synod (CoGS) Saturday, November 11.

“The trends as we go forward, looking ahead over a number of years, suggest that we need to be mindful of what appears to be a probability of declining income,” Lawton said. “It might be wise for us to think about what are the critical things…Why do we exist as General Synod? What is our purpose, what is the priority in terms of funding?”

More than 90% of General Synod’s net income comes from the dioceses, Lawton said, but almost all of them are “having some conversations” about their own financial future. Given this, he said, “if everything continues as is, the day is going to come when we’re going to have to make some very hard decisions.”

The firing of Rev Jacob Worley

Posted on by
5

There aren’t many ways that lead to a priest being fired from the Anglican Church of Canada; in fact, providing one isn’t too enthusiastic about one’s faith, it is rather difficult. Criminal activity such as embezzlement and paederasty tend – if found out – to be frowned upon, as is trying to murder a parishioner. On the other hand, disbelief in Biblical principles and spreading that disbelief is the bedrock upon which Canadian Anglicanism rests: the less a priest believes, the more secure his job.

Flouting the wishes of the Anglican Synod, far from being a cause for censure or  termination is hailed joyously as prophetic. Providing it is liberal flouting – just look at the antics of Bird, Chapman et al. following the last Anglican synod..

Nevertheless, Rev Jacob Worley has been fired. No reason was given but it’s difficult not to suspect it is because he is that most rare clerical specimen, now almost extinct in the Anglican Church of Canada, a genuine Christian.

The writing was on the wall for Worley since it wasn’t too long ago that his election as bishop was overturned on a technicality.

Archbishop Privett did the firing without explanation, not that one is needed since it seems fairly clear that he bent to the will of the ecclesiastical zeitgeist, and behaved in the disgusting manner we have come to expect of Anglican Archbishops in Canada. The diocese and archbishop have lived down to my modest expectations in every way.

Coincidentally, Worley opposes same-sex marriage. That could have nothing to do with it, surely.

Read it all at the Anglican Planet:

THE REV. JACOB WORLEY was told by Archbishop John Privett in a phone call and a letter received Friday, Nov. 10 that Worley’s employment as a priest in the Diocese of Caledonia is being terminated. Worley says that when he asked what the reason was, Privett (who is Metropolitan of the Province of BC & Yukon) declined to give him one.  In accordance with Immigration rules, Worley has to leave Canada for the United States within ten days of his last day of employment, which is on Sunday, Nov. 19.  “I’m going to trust the Lord – who else am I going to trust?  I could say like Job, ‘Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.’ I’m going to rejoice,” said Worley when reached by phone.

In May of 2017, Worley made headlines in Church news when the House of Bishops of the Province of BC and Yukon refused to approve him as Bishop of Caledonia, a diocese that stretches across the northern half of British Columbia.  The majority decision cited Provincial Canon 4(b)vi, which states that an objection to the election of a bishop may be brought on the grounds that “he or she teaches or holds or within five years previously taught or held anything contrary to the Doctrine or Discipline of the Anglican Church of Canada.”  In a statement released by the Anglican Church of Canada on May 15, Privett was quoted as saying that “within the past five years the Rev. Worley has held – and continues to hold – views contrary to the Discipline of the Anglican Church of Canada.” These “views” relate to jurisdictional issues, as Worley had served for a time within AMiA (Anglican Mission in America) in the United States.

[……]

Reflecting on the news that he will be forced to leave his parish, Worley said, “This is how it started in The Episcopal Church, how the exodus began.  People got shoved out.  In those cases, they were given no reason…but everybody knew the reason.” But he added “I know that God will work all things together for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purposes. He will use this for His glory and the good of His church.

The Diocese of Caledonia and the office of Archbishop Privett have also been contacted for comment but at the time of publication have not responded.

Worley and his wife, Kelly, have five children, aged 12 to 25.

Fred Hiltz wonders what St. Paul would make of the Anglican Church of Canada

Posted on by
4

Wondering what St. Paul would think of a church considering marrying people of the same sex is akin to pondering whether Karl Marx would approve of Walmart. Any Christian whose thought processes are still anchored in the reality our familiar old four-dimensional space-time continuum knows the answer. It is the one thing Paul and Marx would have in common: the strength of their respective loathing for same-sex activity and Walmart.

Yet, here we have Fred Hiltz seriously – at least, I assume this article is not an elaborate exercise in exploring the outer limits of poor taste in Anglican jokes, it’s sometimes difficult to tell – asking exactly that:

Hiltz made the comment in an address that began and ended by wondering what St. Paul might think of the church, what advice he might give it and how he might pray for it.

On the church’s deliberation over changing its marriage canon to allow same-sex marriage, for example, Paul might remind it of his counsel to the Ephesians to be “humble and gentle and patient with one another, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:2-3),” he said.

In an interview with the Anglican Journal, Hiltz said it was partly the idea of the importance of good leadership in the church at this point in its history that had prompted him to imagine what the apostle might think if he were to look at it “with a penetrating eye.”

[…..]

Hiltz concluded his address by speculating that St. Paul might pray for the Canadian church as he prayed for the Ephesians, “that we understand the incredible greatness of God’s power—that we might have power to comprehend how wide, and how long, and how high and how deep is God’s love for us in Christ; that we be filled with that knowledge and in and through it live our lives and do the work to which God calls us.”

Bishops against prayer

Posted on by
7

Episcopal bishops in the US are complaining that politicians are calling for prayer after the murder of many in the congregation at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs. In a pronouncement whose role-reversal irony evades the bishops – as we all know bishops are renowned for being politicians-manqué – the bishops want action not prayer. Prayer is the job of bishops because only bishops have the wisdom to deliver the carefully nuanced incense-laced leftist propaganda to the Almighty necessary for the bishops to attain their political ambitions.

The problem, the bishops intone, is not the obvious one of a church which has ceased to affirm and preach the principles of its founder and thus has encouraged evil to flourish, but the 2nd Amendment.

Having given up on the job of leading people to Christ in order for him to transform the evil present within all of us, our bishops busy themselves with affirming our fallen nature, gasping with horror at the inevitable result, and attempt to limit the unavoidable damage by demanding politicians remove the external means we use to do that damage.

From here:

The campaign group United Against Gun Violence, which brings together more than 70 bishops from the U.S.-based Episcopal Church, has challenged the country’s leaders to act following the November 5 shooting at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, which resulted in the deaths of 26 people.

[…]

In the U.S., efforts to limit widespread gun ownership have been repeatedly thwarted by a highly-financed and effective gun-lobby that promotes the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which grants a right to bear arms. The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791—eight years after the American War of Independence, and states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Regardless of its original intent, it is seen today by the gun lobby as the right for U.S. citizens to own, possess and carry weapons—including assault rifles. And despite a very large number of mass-shooting incidents, politicians appear unable—or unwilling—to take action to limit the number of weapons in circulation.

[…]

Now the bishops have criticized political leaders for being quick to call people to pray following such shootings, while being slow to take action to prevent them.

“In the wake of the heartbreaking shooting at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, we find ourselves both calling people to prayer, and wishing that the word did not come so readily to the lips of elected leaders who are quick to speak, but take no action on behalf of public safety,” the bishops said.

Anglican anxiety in an age of same-sex marriage

Posted on by
14

From a Christian perspective, marrying two people of the same sex is either wrong or it isn’t. The latter case would mean the church and theologians have been mistaken for the last 2000 years and now, for some odd reason, they have finally seen the light; or, as I suspect, they are children of their times and all their high-minded pontificating is little more than chronological arrogance.

One might be tempted to conclude that whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong is the defining issue to be discussed at the next Anglican synod, the either/or – or as is fashionable to say in our computer infested age, the binary – decision that is uppermost in every bishop’s mind. But no! What is unsettling the equanimity of our bishops and primate is how we talk about the problem, not the problem itself.

The compulsion to discuss how to discuss, must surely be among the last symptoms exhibited by an organisation that has utterly lost its way, one that, on its last legs, exerts its last few gasps to explain to uninterested bystanders the precise quality of those gasps – just before the final death rattle overcomes it.

From here:

“My sense is that there’s a lingering kind of anxiety within the church about how we have a decent conversation about this matter at General Synod 2019,” Hiltz told the Anglican Journal Monday, October 30.

A resolution to allow same-sex marriages in the church passed its first reading at General Synod in July 2016; a required second reading will go before General Synod in 2019.

Hiltz made the comments during an interview about the meeting October 23-27 of the House of Bishops in Niagara Falls, Ont.

A number of bishops expressed concerns, he said, about how same-sex conversations at the next General Synod could take place “in a way that doesn’t leave people feeling marginalized, isolated, pushed out—on either side.”

Many feel that the traditional legislative process that the synod follows encourages contention, he said.  “You basically either speak in favour or against. So immediately…you get some sense of the—in some respects—division in the house.”

Among the bishops, he said, there’s “a whole range of hopes and scenarios” about how conversation at synod might be guided.

Some bishops raised questions about the time limits imposed on General Synod members when debating, given the great importance many place on the issue of marriage.

There’s also anxiety among some in the church, Hiltz said, that the resolution, despite its conscience clause, doesn’t offer enough protection to those who oppose same-sex marriages—that if the resolution passes its second reading, would-be priests who are opposed will find it harder to get ordained or appointed.

A widespread concern, the primate said, has to do more generally with how those in favour and those opposed would be able to live together harmoniously afterward, whether the vote passes or fails.

Bishops distressed by Bill 62

Posted on by
5

When I applied for a visa to visit China, before my photograph was taken I had to remove my glasses because they are photosensitive and were darkened from being in bright light. My wife had to make sure her ears were not obscured by her hair: the Chinese don’t want unidentified ears entering their country.

When we arrived in China, bleary-eyed and crotchety, we were photographed again by Chinese immigration. None of this was particularly distressing, although, admittedly, wearing glasses is more of a practical consideration than a religious observance.

Quebec’s Bill 62 requires people to uncover their faces while giving and receiving state services. Clearly, this affects niqab wearing Muslim women – or men, I suppose since gender is now fluid – more than anyone else. Showing one’s face to identify oneself before receiving a state service doesn’t seem to me to be a particularly unreasonable requirement. But it has distressed some Anglican bishops whose priority, having largely abandoned Christianity, is now one of defending Islam; when not marrying people of the same sex to each other, that is.

Here is the wail of distress by our Anglislamic bishops:

As leaders of minority faith communities in Quebec we feel compelled to express our deep distress at the manner in which the religious neutrality law passed by the National Assembly implicitly targets another minority religious group in this province.

Although veiled as a question of identification and security , Bill 62’s provisions regarding face coverings will most directly impact a small minority of Muslim women in Quebec, whose freedom to express their religious beliefs is enshrined in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For Christians, these human rights are grounded in the dignity accorded each human being by virtue of having been made in the image and likeness of their Creator.

The January 29 shooting massacre at Quebec City’s Grand Mosque — and other acts of violence before and since — demonstrate that our Muslim neighbours live in a climate of suspicion and fear that threatens their safety. Bill 62 helps foster that climate at a time when we are turning to our governments and public institutions to protect vulnerable minorities in our midst.

We recognize and support the desire for Quebec to be a secular society. However, to be secular means to be pluralistic, allowing freedom of belief both in one’s private and public life. The provisions of Bill 62, however they are applied, unnecessarily put that fundamental freedom —  and potentially people’s security — at risk.

We invite our elected leaders, and all Quebecers, to join us in trying to foster a safe and welcoming environment for all who make Quebec their home, whatever their culture or religion.

The Rt. Rev. Mary Irwin-Gibson, Bishop of Montreal, Anglican Church of Canada

The Rt. Rev. Bruce Myers, Bishop of Quebec, Anglican Church of Canada

The Rev. Michael Pryse, Bishop of the Eastern Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada

Diocese of Huron Bishop and clergy protest anti-Islam rally

Posted on by
3

From the Huron Church News:

Clergy and laity from the Diocese of Huron, led by Bishop Linda Nicholls, joined 500 counter-protes­tors in London, Ontario, August 26, in response to an anti-Islamic rally led by the Patriots of Canada Against the Islamization of the West (Pegida), a group that says it opposes “the Islamization of the West.” The collective Anglican re­sponse was organized within a day’s notice as word spread of the counter-demonstra­tion. Nicholls led the group of 40 Anglicans from the parking lot at Huron Church House, where they prayed, to London’s City Hall. Pegida members, who numbered about 20, arrived at City Hall at noon, and were met by the counter-demonstrators. Those involved in the counter-rally carried signs, listened to speeches, and sang 1960s protest songs. The counter-protest ended with a march, led by drum­mers, around nearby Victoria Park.

I’m sure the bishop and her clergy rarely feel more at home than when singing 1960’s protest songs. I used to sing them too in the 60’s; then I grew up.

The gentle, mellifluous tones of We Will Overcome were not the only sounds to waft over the anti-protest protest: as you can see in the video below, there was a lot of screaming, some violence and a few arrests. Mostly from those holding signs proclaiming love and tolerance for all.

I don’t see the bishop thumping anyone with pious punches but the cameraman can’t be expected to catch everything.

One of the attendees filming the event described the fracas this way:

I was there filming. Most of the counter protesters were elderly hippies and lqbtq people.

China thoughts

Posted on by
3

I’ve just spent a couple of weeks in China, mostly exploring sanitized tourist locations, although there were occasional glimpses of raw police state reality peeking through for those willing to see it.

First, of course, there was the delight of experiencing the wonderful history of such things as the Great Wall and Terracotta warriors, sights not to be missed if you do travel to mainland China.

Then there was the smog, the slums, the all-pervasive superstition, the grinding poverty, made all the more poignant by an accompanying avarice, the lashings of conspicuous state-sponsored irony with no outlet for mockery – mass murderer Mao’s grinning visage decorating the Gate of Heavenly Peace in Tiananmen square, for example.

All of what follows is anecdotal and my personal experience so, although I think it accurately represents what is going on, others may differ.

When we arrived, I was surprised by the fact that the motorcycles and scooters were all electric: there were no gasoline powered motorbikes. The reason, I was told, is that the government is eliminating pollution by banning gas powered motorbikes. The batteries in these green machines are charged with electricity produced from smog spewing coal-fired generating stations. And the roads are clogged with cars – gasoline powered cars – if you can see them through the smog, that is.

The good news is Chinese citizens are now allowed to purchase their very own condominiums, costing, in the city, around $50,000 per square metre. The only problem is the land the condominium sits on is leased from the government and, in 70 years, will be reclaimed, along with the condominium, by the government. The ultimate inheritance tax.

I saw  some of the grinding poverty I mentioned above, but not, I suspect, the worst of it. The Chinese middle class (and you thought communism was classless – remember, some animals are more equal than others) live in what we would regard as slums. Multiple families crammed into a unit, communal toilets, minimal privacy, dirt, the pervasive smell of urine, noisy, damp and cold – but each entitled to a green electric scooter.

One person I talked to mentioned that he was shocked that Europeans and North Americans take delight in ridiculing their governments; “we trust our government”, he declared proudly. I assume this was for the benefit of a hidden microphone. Another person – a mother – told a story of a school class where the children were expected to take school trips, something for which the teachers were paid extra. A mother whose children took frequent trips because she was a travel agent declined the offer and was told by the teacher – whose income would be reduced by the absence of the child – that the child would “be treated meanly” if she did not come on the trip.

The omnipresent superstition was both irritating and oppressive. Although Christianity is growing in strength, Buddhism is the still prevailing religion. I visited a number of Buddhist temples and was greeted with the sight of people bowing down before idols. I had a cursory acquaintance with Buddhist beliefs before I arrived in China but, after being accosted by the image of literal idol worship, I decided to look into it a little further. One of the convincing things about Christianity is that once you accept a few basic tenets, the whole edifice hangs together logically. Not so for Buddhism: it is utterly incoherent The goal is to divest oneself of desire thereby removing suffering, reach nirvana, cancelling the cycle of rebirth – Buddhists believe in reincarnation (since the population is increasing, where do all the  new  people come from?) – and enter a state of non self-awareness: become nothing. No transcendent God, no transcendence at all, no Creator, no gift of salvation, no explanation of why the universe exists or why we are here, no hope really, just ancestor worship, a desire for obliteration and – Karma. Karma plays a large role in everyday life: what you do comes back to haunt you and that determines your luck. Much store is placed in the concept of luck, particularly financial luck. Rub a Buddha statue’s belly, to bring good luck and prosperity; a dragon statue typically has an open mouth to attract money, so place it in your window to become wealthy. This is a place where fortune cookies are taken seriously. Were I not a Christian, I would have come away with the impression that Buddhism makes a compelling case for atheism.

China has embraced capitalism. Or, more accurately, I think, it has adopted all the worst aspects of capitalism and purged any of its roots or benefits. I am tempted to call it  capitalism lite but it is actually capitalism dark.

This photo of an advertisement in a shopping mall sums up the prevailing attitude in China, another failed utopia, whose unfortunate inhabitants pine for this for their children:

An Anglican Season of Intentional Drollery

Posted on by
3

A number of years ago, the Anglican Church of Canada launched something called “The Decade of Evangelism”. I remember it well. Unfortunately.

After ten years of groping for the real meaning of “evangelism”, we came to the conclusion that – lacking access to even the most basic dictionaries in Canada –  we had no idea what it means but we were absolutely certain it did not mean that Christianity is objectively true and we should tell people that it is.

Here we go again. This time it is the Season of Intentional Discipleship – SID, more appositely known as Sudden Infant Death syndrome – another ten years of pretending we are functionally illiterate. This time we are doing it Intentionally, through.

It would be hilarious if those who should know better were not such willing participants in the chicanery.

From Fed Hiltz’s myopic version of the alarums and excursions from the recent Primates’ Meeting,  here:

Accordingly we welcomed a conversation about evangelism.  We were glad to hear of the call for a Season of Intentional Discipleship across the Communion (2016-2025)