Fred Hiltz looks forward to reconciliation at the Primates’ meeting

Posted on by
5

Fred Hiltz’s reaction – his public one, at least – to Archbishop Foley Beach’s attending the Primates’ meeting next January was a hope that he could converse his way into “reconciliation” with ACNA. To put it another way: he wants to have yet another shot at bamboozling the naïve fundamentalist conservatives that their liberal brethren don’t have horns after all.

“Reconciliation” the Hiltz way is for ACNA to peacefully co-exist with those who are in the process of draining the meaning out of marriage, who deny that Jesus is man’s only means of salvation, who have replaced the Gospel with Marxist flavoured social action, who believe the church’s primary calling is to the temporal rather than the eternal and who value money and survival over truth and integrity.

GAFCON and ACNA can only reconcile with TEC and the ACoC if both repudiate their false teaching, an event that is unlikely to occur this side of the apocalypse.

If Hiltz truly wants to reconcile, he could, as a gesture of good faith, give ANiC parishes their buildings back.

From here:

The Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Most Revd Archbishop Fred Hiltz, welcomed the meeting as “a good thing”. Speaking on Tuesday, he described the decision to invite ACNA — it is understood that the representative will be present for one day, before the formal meeting gets under way — as “an opportunity for some conversation, in the ultimate hope that we might be able to find a way forward towards reconciliation”.

Personally, I would like to see a repetition of the dramatic but, alas, unsuccessful attempt at the 1998 Lambeth conference by Nigeria’s Bishop Emmanuel Chukwuma to exorcise demons of homosexuality from Rev. Richard Kirker through the unsolicited laying on of hands. That might be too much to hope for.

Marriage Canon Machinations

Posted on by
10

The Anglican Church of Canada’s commission on the marriage canon has produced its report. Insomniacs may find relief from their suffering by reading all 65 pages here.

The commission had no intention – and was never asked – to determine whether same-sex marriage is in accord with God’s intent for marriage as revealed in the Bible. Instead, it worked diligently to demonstrate that same-sex marriage is “theologically possible”:

It is, he added, one of three “logical possibilities” being put forward by the commission, and something of a middle way between the other two. The other two possibilities, according to the report, are, on the one hand, to see same-sex marriages as an “undifferentiated” form of Christian marriage, essentially identical to heterosexual marriages; and, on the other, to see them as “blessed partnerships” rather than covenants before God.

The commission said it arrived at a conclusion that it is “theologically possible to extend the marriage canon to include same-sex couples, without thereby diminishing, damaging, or curtailing the rich theological implications of marriage as traditionally understood.”

The idea appears to be to remove the boundaries that presently constrain marriage without changing the definition of marriage. It doesn’t take much effort to realise that this is a clumsy sleight of hand. There is nothing that is not to a large extent defined by its boundaries; remove them and you are left with – as in music when everyone plays any note they want no matter how irrelevant – nothing but noise:

Nicholls also stressed that the report does not suggest ways of changing the definition of marriage as it is currently laid out in church law. Rather, it is looking at changing those parts of the marriage canon that restrict marriage to male-female relationships.

“We’re talking about the same vows, the same purpose, and the same definition of marriage. None of that has changed,” said Nicholls.

The assurances made to conservatives during the 2004 General Synod that same-sex blessings would not lead to same-sex marriage were, as anyone with any sense knew, barefaced lies:

Given that the Canadian church already affirmed the “integrity and sanctity” of homosexual relationships at its General Synod in 2004, the commission said its report accepted that the current definition of marriage could be expanded to include same-sex couples.

Fred Hiltz is worried that the church might “come apart over this”. Perhaps Hiltz has had no access to the Internet for the last 10 years and is unaware that the church “came apart” over this quite some time ago. There were even lawsuits; did no one tell him?

Does it keep me awake at night? Yes, it sure does. I do not want to see the church divide over this. The St. Michael Report used the helpful language of “core doctrine” and other kinds of doctrine. Core doctrine meaning the kind that’s reflected in the creeds of the church. They [Primate’s Theological Commission members] said, in the St. Michael Report, that they didn’t believe the blessing of same-sex unions was a communion-dividing issue. I kind of think about that language still, at the back of my mind. I would hope that the church would not come apart over this.

The ”conscience clause” that permits clergy to opt out of marrying same-sex couples could, of course, be challenged in a civil court. Supposedly, the clause would hold:

The chancellor of CoGS, Canon David Jones, noted the “extraordinarily credible” legal opinion quoted in the report, suggesting that invoking the conscience clause could withstand legal challenge.

The question is, if a priest is sued for refusing to marry a same-sex couple, would the Anglican Church of Canada spend the money necessary to defend him? I would not count on it. Dean Peter Wall from the liberal-extremist Diocese of Niagara is already muttering against the conscience clause:

Dean Peter Wall of the diocese of Niagara felt that the conscience clause goes too far.

“The drafters of the resolution were very generous—I think to a fault—with their interpretation of the word ‘congregation.’” He said, explaining that the Anglican Church “has always been based on synodical and episcopal leadership and direction,” and that he is “concerned about congregationalism,” and the possibility of an individual church telling its priest whom he or she can or cannot marry.

If voters fall obediently into line with current prejudices – theological possibilities, to use ecclesiastical jargon – the marriage canon will be changed at the 2019 General Synod, by which time no one outside and few inside the church – other than gay clergy and a handful of octogenarian conservatives – will care.

The real refugee crisis

Posted on by
7

From Canon Andrew White. Read it all here:

In a scathing statement, Canon White has now slammed Europe for its response to the migrant crisis. He says it is wrong to focus resources on those already in Europe, when those in real need are the ones left behind.

“I am disappointed by Europe’s response to the refugee crisis,” he said “Not enough is being done to help the most vulnerable, particularly those who have fled religious persecution.

“My charity is providing food, shelter and medicine for hundreds of Iraqi refugee families who have fled ISIS and are now in Jordan. Some have walked across the desert to find safety, with little more than the clothes on their backs.

“When I see angry young men clashing with border police in Hungary and demanding to be let into other EU countries, I feel that the wrong people are at the front of the queue.

“Europe needs to distinguish between those who are looking for a better life and those who are running for their lives, otherwise we risk failing those who need our help the most.

“I would like to see more being done for the thousands of refugees, particularly Iraqi refugees, who are stranded in Jordan and other countries without any hope for the future.”

[…..]

“I can confirm that it is not just displaced people who are fleeing,” he said. “Priests tell me that there are also people who aren’t too badly off financially, people who work at banks for example, who are leaving. People who don’t really need to leave. They feel that a window of opportunity has opened up and they fear this window will soon close so they take advantage of it. Meanwhile, those who are poorer aren’t even considering leaving. Everyone is losing out. Those who are most able are leaving and they are the only ones who could rebuild all that has been destroyed in recent years.”

[….]

“If you resist the easy option taken by the chattering classes who claim the moral high ground by insisting on open borders, you can see that European policy is the result of moral confusion,” he wrote.

“Let’s take the ‘duty of rescue’, which is official Europe’s rationale for fishing people out of the sea. People have a right to dream of a life in Europe, but Europe has a moral obligation to rescue, not to make dreams come true.

“What does rescue imply and to whom does it apply? Just being poor does not make someone eligible for being ‘rescued’ by a life in Europe. Mass poverty has to be tackled, but the only way it can be done is for poor countries to catch up with the rich ones. There are ways in which we can help that process, but encouraging the mass emigration of their most enterprising young people is not one of them.”

We have the same problem in Canada. Rather than vigorously attacking the problem – ISIS – we react to the undeniably sad photo of a dead toddler with a predictable, sticky sentimentality that does more to stimulate our feelings of self-righteousness than aid those who actually deserve our help – persecuted Christians. Churches are, of course, among the worst offenders.

If you would like to donate money to help the real refugees, here is one place to do that.

Justin Welby and the Dead Parrot

Posted on by
7

There have been numerous articles – here is an example – written about Justin Welby’s attempt to inject an illusory aura of unity into something that has been decomposing since it expired in 2003: the Anglican Communion. Rowan Williams tried to do this too by channelling Hegel; he failed miserably – does anyone remember the Covenant? – and retreated to academia.

Justin Welby is inviting the Anglican primates to a “special gathering” in January 2016 to “look afresh at our ways of working as a Communion”.

The Anglican Church of Canada has its own parochial perspective on all this. In a 2012 visit to see Justin Welby, Fred Hiltz expressed his “ongoing concern about efforts by the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) to be recognized by the Church of England”. The last thing the rapidly dwindling Anglican Church of Canada needs is more competition from another Anglican Province in North America – one that is recognised by Canterbury. Hiltz’s worst fears may be coming to a nail-biting climax since ACNA’s Foley Beach has been invited to the January 2016 gathering; it looks likely that he will attend. The Anglican Journal sees this as “fuelling the controversy”, omitting the obvious fact that the controversy was ignited by Hiltz and Jefferts-Shori in the first place when they decided to promote same-sex blessings in spite of strenuous protests from the rest of the Communion:

Fuelling the controversy was an invitation extended by Welby to Archbishop Foley Beach, head bishop of the Anglican Church in North America, to be present for part of the meeting.

Welby points out:

We each live in a different context.

“The difference between our societies and cultures, as well as the speed of cultural change in much of the global north, tempts us to divide as Christians: when the command of scripture, the prayer of Jesus, the tradition of the church and our theological understanding urges unity. A 21st-century Anglican family must have space for deep disagreement, and even mutual criticism, so long as we are faithful to the revelation of Jesus Christ, together.

If that sounds like the old familiar Anglican Fudge it’s probably because it is. The ACoC and TEC are not “faithful to the revelation of Jesus Christ”. That has always been the problem, is still the problem and unless Jesus returns before January will almost certainly continue to be the problem.

Happily, the GAFCON primates, having already been fed Anglican Fudge to the point of gagging, see what is going on perfectly clearly and have issued something that is quite unfamiliar to Western Anglicans: a lucid statement. It contains this:

It is on this basis that the GAFCON Primates will prayerfully consider their response to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s letter. They recognize that the crisis in the Communion is not primarily a problem of relationships and cultural context, but of false teaching which continues without repentance or discipline.

For my part, I am somewhat indifferent to the outcome of the “special gathering”. My main interest is to be a part of an institution that is easily identifiable as a Christian Church, something that, while sober, I could not accuse the Anglican Church of Canada of.

I just wish I could be in the room when the GAFCON primates tell Fred Hiltz and Michael Curry that they must repent of their false teaching.

Optimism descends upon the Diocese of Niagara

Posted on by
8

Not, needless to say, because they are bringing more people to Christ but because they have more money.

From here:

The past decade has not been an easy one for the diocese of Niagara. Beset by financial woes, theological divisions over the place of gays and lesbians in the church and a series of lawsuits from parishes that left the diocese to join the breakaway Anglican Network in Canada, diocesan leadership has faced challenging times.

But these days, its leaders are cautiously optimistic about the diocese’s future. For one, a settlement with the Anglican Network reached in 2012 has ended crippling lawsuits and left parish buildings from three breakaway churches in the hands of the diocese.

To clarify one point: “a series of lawsuits from parishes that left the diocese” should read “a series of lawsuits initiated by the diocese against parishes that left the diocese”.

Alcoholism is now a disability

Posted on by
3

Another triumph from the human rights commission Theatre of the Absurd.

From here:

A health-care aide’s alcohol addiction qualifies as a disability, and her employer was wrong to fire her for drinking off the job, a Manitoba human rights adjudicator has ruled.

I wish I’d known that before I retired.

The unravelling of Michael Coren’s ball of wool

Posted on by
4

Having departed the Roman Catholic Church for the Anglican Church of Canada, Michael Coren, once the darling of the right, has consummated his liberal metamorphosis by writing an article for the Anglican Journal.

Not wishing the favour to be reciprocated, I will refrain from attempting a Coren psychoanalysis, something that others have been unable to resist, speculating that he is suffering from mental problems – a contention that may yet be fulfilled as he intends to become a priest in the ACoC.

I hesitated to write this article since I think Coren is a decent, kind and generous man; and that may be part of why he has taken a diametrically opposite view of so many things he once claimed to believe, starting with same-sex marriage or, to use the cliché he used to deride, equal marriage. He has offered no new arguments to support his newly enlighten state, preferring instead, to rehash the transparently nonsensical gibberish that liberal churches have been churning out for decades.

I suspect his kindness towards his gay friends has resulted in a foggy sentimentality that has overwhelmed his capacity to think clearly. That and, perhaps, rebellion resulting from an innate perversity that causes a person to eventually turn against any organisation to which he belongs once he finds himself surrounded by people who agree with him.

Coren was a strong supporter of my church and the other parishes that left the ACoC over the blessing of same-sex marriages, a stand that he would now categorise as homophobic. During a debate on his old CTS TV program between  Diocese of Niagara and ANiC clergy, one of the Diocesan clergy wanted to bring up the issue of homophobia; Coren would not allow it (the request occurred in a break) because, he said, it would shut down discussion. Coren himself now uses the word to produce that result.

Ironically, he once suggested that I consider the Roman Catholic Church, an idea I turned down even in the unlikely event that they would have me. It wouldn’t have been a total loss, I suppose: I could have started a new blog – RC Samizdat. I asked him some time ago – before he became a Catholic – why he didn’t become an Anglican; “because I get tired of arguing with atheists in the pulpit” was his reply. He must feel more comfortable with that now.

Michael Coren now declares that he is an Anglo Catholic; I doubt that he will feel at home as such for more than a decade or so. I’m quite sure this doesn’t apply to Coren, but I keep thinking about the comment in Brideshead Revisited, made to Charles Ryder by his cousin Jasper on beginning university: “Beware of the Anglo-Catholics—they’re all sodomites with unpleasant accents.”

Here is the article:

Did I swim the Tiber or was it a walk to Canterbury? Not sure. It felt at the time more like some sort of ersatz inferno. I suppose I have a certain media profile and was until relatively recently known as a very public Roman Catholic. My 2012 book on Catholicism (Heresy, McClelland & Stewart) had been on the Canadian bestseller list for 10 weeks; I was named columnist of the year for my work in The Catholic Register and had been given numerous awards by Catholic groups. I was one of Canada’s most high-profile champions of Catholicism.

The separation was gradual, of course. While I never swayed from Catholic theology—and continue in my adherence—I began to question, then doubt, then reject Roman Catholic teaching on papal supremacy, authority, contraception and especially homosexuality and equal marriage. On the latter, I simply could no longer glue myself to a church that described gay relationships as sinful and disordered and caused so much pain to so many good, innocent people.

It was rather like a ball of theological wool unravelling. As soon as it began, it was difficult to stop it. The glorious irony of all this is that as my questioning of Roman Catholic teaching developed, so did my faith and my love of God. It wasn’t lack of belief that drove me from Rome but the very opposite. Partly out of respect for the Catholic church, I could no longer receive its sacraments and call myself a Roman Catholic while rejecting so many of its values and views. I know many Catholics remain in their church while doubting or even denying, but that wasn’t for me.

Around 18 months ago, I began to quietly worship at St. James Anglican Cathedral, to meet with various Anglicans and to read Anglican theology. Then I started to regularly attend my local Anglican parish, then I was formally received—a photo of the event was posted online, and the inferno I mentioned began to ignite.

It was a noble infamy, but it still stung. In the space of one week, I lost three regular columns and 13 speeches. No matter. What did matter were the attacks on my children, the fact that people trolled their Facebook pages and alleged that they were gay—irrelevant to me and to them, but the attacks were intended to hurt. It was written that I was a thief, an adulterer, a liar and was mentally ill. Such fun!

But what I found was so much greater than any suburban persecution. Within Anglican Catholic orthodoxy, I could pursue socially liberal ideas; within a church of mingling theologies, I could be respected as a Catholic and respect those with different ideas and call them brothers and sisters; within Anglicanism, I could reach out in Christ’s beauty to all people, irrespective of sexuality or religion, and love everything about them.

I have never been happier or felt more motivated as a Christian than now. The nastiness refined me; my new faith defines me. Regrets? Oh yes. That I didn’t do this a long time ago.