Fred Hiltz speaks at the opening of General Synod

For Hiltz, whether the church should marry or not marry same-sex couples all comes down to inclusion. Not, I hasten to add, the inclusion in the church of the just the person but also the inclusion of what the person does. In Hitz’s mind Christianity must affirm, accept, condone and, naturally, include not only the person – his essence – but the expression of his essence, how, in the vain little pantomime of his three score and ten years he acts out his essential nature. At least, when it comes to sex; in particular, homoerotic sex.

That is because the Anglican Church of Canada has largely abandoned the idea that, because of the Fall, man is inherently sinful and all creation is subject to the bondage of corruption under the weight of that sin. Thus, we are led to the inescapable conclusion that the urges of the church’s homosexual clergy are there because God put them there.

A lusty young heterosexual could make use of the same principle to explain his unfettered promiscuity, too, of course. But, then, there aren’t many lusty young heterosexual clergy in the ACoC.

From here:

This is the body that through its history has also wrestled with numerous issues within the Church and in the world at large over which we have often found ourselves in deep disagreement. Many of the issues have centred around inclusion—the place of women in the councils of the Church, the place of women as priests and bishops, the place of young people and their voice and vote, the place of children at the Eucharistic table, the place of those married and divorced and wanting to marry again, the place of religious communities whose life transcends diocesan boundaries, the place of Indigenous Peoples from status as observers, to guests, to partners, to members in Synod, and the place of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and questioning people within the Church and their equality of access to all the ministrations of the Church including the solemnizing of their marriages.

For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me

And that which I was afraid of is come unto me. Job 3:25.

What do Anglican Church of Canada clergy fear most? Losing their stipend.

General Synod 2016 has begun and a vote to change the marriage canon is scheduled for Monday. In the unlikely event it passes, the few remaining conservatives will have yet more incentive to leave. If it fails to pass, many dioceses are determined to proceed with same-sex marriages without the approval of synod. For the national church this would be ideal, since it accomplishes what their leaders want while allowing them to protest that no official approval has been granted. Either result signals further division resulting in more people leaving and less revenue for clergy salaries; a tragedy of biblical proportions. That which the bishops fear most is about to come upon them.

Hence, hot off the press from the synod ostrich farm, we have the quote of the day:

Fear

Diocese of BC has a Pride Eucharist

Christ Church Cathedral had a Eucharist to celebrate the “rich diversity of sexual and gender identity” – because that, after all, is what Christianity has really always been about – and the “inclusion, welcome and celebration for all people” – except for the recalcitrant remnant who are still not convinced that God is subject to the cultural whimsy of the moment.

From here:

This week, Pride week, the Anglican Churches in the Diocese of British Columbia have been taking an active part in celebrating the rich diversity of sexual and gender identity which is so much a part of the Pride ethos.  On Tuesday 5th July there was held, in Christ Church Cathedral on Quadra, a Pride Eucharist – where candles were lit in hope of inclusion, welcome and celebration for all people.

When is a church not a church?

According to Canada Revenue, when it is non-creedal and more interested social justice than divine justice.

The CRA is concentrating on Unitarianism at the moment but the Anglican Church of Canada easily slides into the same category. For example, St. John’s Shaughnessy rather than state what its members believe, advertises that it embraces doubt. Most dioceses concentrate on social justice and advocacy – couched in pieties from a Bible in which they have long ceased to believe – and the national church promotes  political agendas while its bishops boast that they will accomplish something that the church’s founder said would never happen: eliminate poverty.

Come to think of it, since most clergy are, at best, fuzzy on the divinity of Jesus, the ACoC is, itself, effectively Unitarian.

From here:

It is not easy to get indignant over the Canada Revenue Agency’s audit of the Canadian Unitarian Council (CUC) — indignant, that is, either for or against. Unitarians are not supposed to inspire any strong feelings. They are, famously, only sort of a church; more of a disposition than a denomination, really.

Unitarianism is explicitly “non-credal,” ecumenical and receptive to “humanism;” the international statement of Unitarian “principles” mentions God’s love (with a capital G), but identifies “the guidance of reason and the results of science” as a source for what it is hard to call a “faith.”

[….]

The Unitarian council is angry, as the CBC reported Sunday, about a “political activities” investigation by the taxman. The CRA, it seems, is uncomfortable with the mentions of “justice,” particularly “social justice,” in the council’s bylaws. (The council is, organizationally, a close approximation to a national “Unitarian church,” although some small-u unitarian congregations are non-members.) Much, perhaps most, of what the CUC actually does has political implications and dimensions. The Canadian state has no objection to that sort of thing being done by a tax-exempt church, as long as the activity is “charitable.”

But auditors appear to be raising the obvious truth about the notion of “social justice:” that it is essentially politics; a metaphor imposed on religious scripture. The Bible, not that the Bible is of much use to Unitarians, does not promise social justice, but something like its opposite — perpetual inequality and suffering.

Anglicans in the Toronto pride parade

As usual, the Anglican Church of Canada abased itself before the zeitgeist yesterday at the Toronto pride march.

There was an archbishop:

finlay

There were nuns:

sjtd

Many grinning clergy:

clergy

Some with children:

And some graduates of the Anglican seminary of bumper sticker theology:

sign

Michael Coren to preach at queer Eucharist

As part of the final convulsion accompanying his metamorphosis from conservative Christian to liberal substitute with a homosexuality obsession, Michael Coren will be preaching at a queer Eucharist this week. I imagine there will be tears and maudlin apologies for his pre-Epiphany benightedness for those interested in such things,

MC Queer

Rule Britannia

I phoned an old friend living in the UK today to offer my congratulations on Britain’s vote to exit the European Union. He agreed that the vote was largely an expression of ordinary people rejecting the political and media elite’s vision of how Britain should be ruled.

We can add to that the religious establishment elite, well represented by Justin Welby and John Sentamu, whose disappointment in the result, having robbed them of any faculties required to come up with a sensible response, prompted them to resort to the well-worn bridge building cliché and an appeal to the ephemeral commodity enshrined high on the totem of liberal Anglican pieties: diversity:

As citizens of the United Kingdom, whatever our views during the referendum campaign, we must now unite in a common task to build a generous and forward looking country, contributing to human flourishing around the world. We must remain hospitable and compassionate, builders of bridges and not barriers. Many of those living among us and alongside us as neighbours, friends and work colleagues come from overseas and some will feel a deep sense of insecurity. We must respond by offering reassurance, by cherishing our wonderfully diverse society, and by affirming the unique contribution of each and every one.

From a Canadian perspective, Rex Murphy has it right:

The often-ignored, sometimes quite rudely deplored British people have spoken and, to the horror of enlightened opinion, respectable party leaders, the ever-guiding liberal intelligentsia, have decided they don’t want “in” the European Union. The vote comes as a mighty shock to broad-minded continentalists and supranationalists everywhere, but particularly the high elites of British politics. The Guardian’s readership will need special help — grief counsellors are already overwhelmed.

The EU vote is the most dramatic illustration to date of how the “guiding elites” of many Western countries have lost the fealty and trust of their populations. Of the gap between ordinary citizens, facing the challenges of daily life, and the swaddled, well-off and pious tribes of those who govern them, and increasingly govern them with a mixture of moralistic superiority and witless condescension.

And so does Tim Stanley in the UK:

This was the day the British people defied their jailers.
People wanted to have their say and they did. Up and down the country they defied the experts and went with their conscience. Labour voters most of all: the northeast rebelled against a century of Labour leadership. I am astonished. Staggered. Humbled. I should never have lost faith in my countrymen. Those bold, brave, beautiful British voters.
Why did they do it? That, we’ll pick apart in the next few weeks. I think that Leave genuinely ran the better campaign, more hopeful and upbeat. Immigration mattered a great deal – although one YouGov poll ranked it third behind democracy and the economy. It’s possible that voters grasped the essential point about this referendum better than we the commentators did. It was a vote of confidence in Britain. Should we run our affairs or should we delegate it to foreign bureaucrats? When I was leaving my polling station, I said to a chap: “I found voting quite emotional.” He replied that this was the day we got our freedom back. That’s how it feels for millions of Britons.

Diocese of New Westminster blesses a petrochemical

The demon fossil fuel – oil – is being blessed by Bishop Melissa Skelton; but only if it is to be used on a bicycle chain. If only I lived in Vancouver: I would have a can of oil blessed and pour it into my SUV – well, I don’t actually have an SUV but I would be sorely tempted to go out and buy one.

From here:

Praying a blessing over a canister of bicycle chain oil may seem unorthodox, but the Anglican Bishop of New Westminster assured Metro her ritual, conducted Wednesday, was doctrinally sound.

“Yes, it’s something I’m allowed to do,” Rt. Rev. Melissa Skelton said with a laugh, as she stood on the lawn of the Diocesan offices in Shaughnessy. “It’s the every day and the useful where God shows up.

“In this case, we’re blessing things … that lead to better stewardship of the environment. It starts with the small and goes bigger.”

[…..]

Adapting the ritual for chain lubricant may seem unusual, but the ideas of community and being anointed for action in the world is related to environmental commitments, Skelton said.

“This is also the oil used in vehicles that would be the implements of action — protecting the climate and finding other ways to get around that don’t depend so much on large amounts of fossil fuels,” she explained.

Decaffeinated Indaba

Apparently, indabas have been replaced by sankofas – and you can tell what that reminds me of by the title.

But I jest. Sankofa actually means: “It is not a taboo to fetch what is at risk of being left behind”. It is a catchphrase taught to English bus drivers to be used as they watch old ladies in their rear view mirrors running after the bus. If that isn’t clear enough, the definition goes on to say: “the narrative of the past is a dynamic reality that cannot be separated from consideration of the present and future”. In other words, the past is dynamic, or changeable by the present, a concept made popular in the ‘70s by those consuming an excessive quantity of magic mushrooms. Since Canadian bishops seem to fall into that category, many of them – Hiltz, Bird, Ingham and Alexander – were present at the latest salacious sankofa  exercise to ponder together homoerotic sexuality under the pretext of conjuring a prior dynamic reality that conforms ancient perversions to 21st century delusions of normalcy.

A pusillanimous church – and that’s what Western Anglicanism has become – grovels and trembles before the culture in which it finds itself. Hence, as Ingham notes below, the church is content to let the culture determine its theology. A church can sink no lower than that.

From here:

Introduced by the Most Rev. Prof. Emmanuel Asante as an ecumenical contribution from the Methodist Church of Ghana, the Akan concept of sankofa served as a guiding framework for the Seventh Consultation of Anglican Bishops in Dialogue, which took place from May 25-29 in Accra, Ghana. The gathering brought together bishops from Canada, Ghana, Swaziland, Tanzania, Kenya, South Africa, Burundi, Zambia, England, and the United States.

Sankofa—literally, ‘It is not a taboo to fetch what is at risk of being left behind’—refers broadly to the unity of past and present, where the narrative of the past is a dynamic reality that cannot be separated from consideration of the present and future.

[….]

Bishop Ingham noted that despite the bishops present holding many different theologies on marriage, sexuality and biblical interpretation, “we’re not divided by these differences. Rather, we’re spurred to be curious with each other and to hear how these matters play out in our different parts of the world.”

“We’re all very aware that mission is contextual,” he added. “And I think most of the African bishops who attend understand that social and legislative challenges have taken place around homosexuality in Western countries.

Diocese of the Arctic rejects changing the marriage canon

A small oasis of sanity in the vast desert of ACoC sexual neuroses.

Read it all in the Journal:

As the Anglican Church of Canada prepares for a controversial vote on whether or not to change its laws to allow for the marriage of same-sex couples, the diocese of the Arctic has sent a memorial to General Synod stating its commitment to maintaining the status quo.

The memorial, passed at the Arctic’s 2016 diocesan synod in May, also notes that the diocese seeks to “preserve the unity of the church,” and expresses a “sincere hope that [the diocese] can remain in fellowship and ministry with the Anglican Church of Canada, while standing with the larger Anglican Communion.”

Holy Matrimony “is a creation ordinance which is restricted to, and defined as, a covenant between a man and a woman,” the memorial says. “We seek to protect and promote this sacrament for the strengthening of the family, the stability of society, the unity of God’s church, and the common good.”

[….]

The diocese has been outspoken on matters of human sexuality in the past. In 2005, the Arctic’s diocesan synod amended its canon on the order and eligibility for licensing and banned employment of anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside of heterosexual marriage, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and those who willingly engage in sexual activities with a minor.

At the time, then Arctic Bishop Andrew Atagotaaluk and Bishop Larry Robertson (then suffragan of Mackenzie and Kitikmeot) explained that the law was passed to ensure diocesan employees maintained a lifestyle congruent with the diocese’s understanding of biblical sexual ethics.

While the memorial states that the diocese is “committed to human flourishing, equal opportunities, dignity and justice for all,” it is not clear whether this commitment to “equal opportunities” indicates a change in official diocesan hiring practices.