The truth, I suspect, is that Hiltz has no interest in stopping a bishop performing same-sex marriages because he is entirely sympathetic to the idea. A plea of impotence is rather convenient for him since he hopes it will absolve him from any culpability that could result in consequences imposed by the next up the chain in ecclesiastical eunuchs, Justin Welby.
From here:
Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, says he understands why some bishops have chosen to go ahead with the solemnization of same-sex marriages, even though the marriage canon (church law) cannot be officially changed until it is voted on again at General Synod 2019.
He also stressed that he has no jurisdiction over diocesan bishops to stop them from doing what they want on the issue.
“As primate, I have no authority to say to a bishop, ‘You can’t do that and you must not do that,’ ” he said.
Unable of unwilling?
All that has happened in the last week has got me thinking about church discipline.
Decades ago in this neck of the woods the diocese started telling ordination candidates not to disclose it if they were living in a same-sex relationship. The rules were such that a disclosure of this sort would automatically mean disqualifying that candidate. Rather than following the rule (or changing it), the diocese opted to begin to ordain priests who were living contrary to scripture on the condition that they kept it secret. This is, in my view, a serious sin against the church, but also against those priests. Can you imagine the weight placed upon such a person, removed from the possibility of either discipline or confession?
Life and doctrine matter in priests. Those living immoral lives should never have been ordained. If it was discovered after the fact, discipline should have occurred. By now the houses of clergy and bishop are so saturated with those who are compromised in both life and doctrine that there is almost no desire among them to exercise authority. (Except, in cases pertaining neither to life nor doctrine, where a bishop’s ego is involved.)
May I suggest that it would not be impossible to -at some point- have more heterosexual priests with a questionable aspect of their lives (ambition, envy, etc.) than gay priests living in a relationship? Just wondering here.
Julio +
You know, Fr. Julio, that’s a line I hear a lot, often from people who are sort of caught in the middle of this discussion (as opposed to on one side or the other). I would simply point out that no one is suggesting we turn other sins into matters for celebration. I agree that many other sins are easier to hide. But they all are sin, requiring repentance so that forgiveness and reconciliation might be possible.
Morning again David,
It has been argued that “It is for the General Synod to decide the matter” in accord with the jurisdiction given it regarding “the definition of doctrine in harmony with the Solemn Declaration”. (The Declaration of Principles, 6. Jurisdiction of The General Synod [j]).
If it is so, -and it is- then the jurisdiction clearly falls within the powers of GS and therefore NOT withing the powers of the individual dioceses. The dioceses voluntarily relinquished it when GS was established. They could have decided to share it but they did not. They left it to GS. It is a basic principle of constitutional law that the one level of government which was assigned that power can not without constitutional change devolve that power. So I would say the dioceses can not do that (legally).
On the other, it has been argued that the solemn declaration is not prescriptive (this assertion based on the wording of the declaration itself). Well, I would argue that such an argument is reflective of the literalist school in constitutional law called Originalism. This as opposed to the sound practice of actually interpreting the text following the intention of the drafters.
Then again you know my support for same-sex marriage.
Julio +
Originalism as a legal doctrine is not ‘literalist’. Instead, it requires that a document (whether the Solemn Declaration, the United States Constitution, or any other) be interpreted according to the mind and intention of the framers/drafters of the document. The alternative is constructivism (or ‘reading into’ the document). Were we to adhere to the intention of the drafters of the Solemn Declaration, it is (highly) unlikely this current resolution would have been passed.
Oh my! Was I sleepy or what? Of course! I meant textualism not originalism. Of course I favor originalism as per the Solemn declaration.. and hence I do not believe the ACoC has any right to change marriage canon from a legal canonical point of view; though I DO support same sex marriage. Thank you Patrick.
Julio +
I note your statement that you support same-sex marriage and this clearly places a huge block in your claimed acceptance of the authority of Scripture. God’s word clearly denounces such activity regardless of what society or the church might think. Any church or clergy person in support of same-sex marriage can only be called apostate and can no longer be considered Christian. God’s word is not subject to filtering through our minds or society. The fact that this has and is occurring within the Christian community is one of the major causes for severe decline in church membership as society and many churches generally believe in “god” – notice the small “g” – but does not accept the GOD of the Scriptures. Until both the church and society change this factor society will continue in its downward cycle.
I sincere pray for your enlightenment. Standing for the Gospel is never easy but as Christians – particularly those leaders in the Church – we are called to stand firm.
Dear Frank,
In the post “General Secretary, Michael Thompson changes his story” I answered to what I thought was not a mere rethorical question from you to me: “I would ask if you believe the motion should have been considered in the first place.” I replied why from a legal pint of view my answer is NO. But then I spent 90% of my writing in explaining my explicit support for same-sex marriage.
Did you not read my reply??? It seems to me you did not since you are bringing up the apostate thing here now more directed to me (but very courteously for which I thank you) by stating: “Any church or clergy person in support of same-sex marriage can only be called apostate and can no longer be considered Christian.”
To this referring to the ACoC – and as a priest of the same- I had already replied in the other post this: “I do uphold the three Creeds, and the resolutions of the ecumenical councils regarding the nature of Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. I do believe all things necessary for salvation (whether they are 1. 2, 3, or 7) are in the Revelation (which is NOT to say that I believe that the 10 000 things in the Bible are necessary for salvation!). Plus, I do believe, teach, preach and confess that Jesus Christ is our ONLY redeemer and Saviour. So I do not consider myself an apostate of ANY of the Christian doctrines.”
I know that there are a number of colleagues who may have a deficient instruction in dogmatic theology – I do not (period) – and who believe that same sex marriage is a matter of justice (social justice that is) or a matter of human rights (secular human rights that is). Well, I don’t, not dfrom a theological point of view that is.
I am not an apostate, if I were I would know, and probably I would have resigned by now. But no. Sorry for upsetting your world view but nope, you cannot say that all or the majority of Christian priests who support same sex marriage are apostates and have ceased to be Christians.
I leave this judgement to Christ.
Pray for me.
In Christ our ONLY redeemer and Saviour.
Julio +
I thank you for your reply and would ask how you read your Bible. Being a Christian involves a lot more than simply upholding the creeds, etc. It requires one to accept the full authority of Scripture and there is no question that homosexual activity is denounced. As I have stated previously, being a Christian requires:-
1. Full acceptance of the authority of Scripture, and
2. Full recognition of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.
Your responses to date seem to state you do accept the 2nd requirement but are not ready to accept the first.
Morning Frank,
Dr. Priscilla Turner on July 17, 2016 at 1:05 am said:
“I believe that what these bishops need to do is … to start thinking theologically about sex-ethics. … ”
I concur with her in this last point
Now she may not 100% concur with me on this other point but here it is: Some of us have based their decisions not on theological reflection but on social ethics (secular), human rights (secular) on one side, and on the other on only one aspect of Revelation (the Bible) while neglecting theological reflection.
Yous are saying that: “Being a Christian involves a lot more than simply upholding the creeds, etc. …”
I believe that being a Christian involves a lot more than upholding the full authority of Scripture: It requires theological reflection on the nature of God.
This is why I agree with her when she says:
Dr. Priscilla Turner on July 17, 2016 at 1:21 am said:
“Apostasy is a very strong term. Sometimes I think it more appropriate to recall that ‘Ecclesia semper reformanda’ is a truth which applies to those individuals who compose it, or it becomes an abstraction.”
Blessings.
Julio +
Satan knows God and the Scriptures too.
In previous comments you mentioned that the matter of same-sex marriages is a human rights issue. That might well be true from a secular standpoint but it is definitely NOT a Christian approach.
MMM no, it was not me, it was someone else´s post, or may be you misread one of my posts (my syntax could is faulty since -as you can easily tell- English is not my first language). I simply could not have said that since I do not believe that the human rights’ concept should be applied to what the churches do or don’t do regarding doctrines or believes.
For example, some years ago a Roman Catholic gay couple requested an interview with me at one of my former parishes and said: when are you people going to stop violating our human rights as gay people and start offering us equal rights regarding ecclesiastical marriage? (civil marriage was already approved).
My answer was plainly and simply that we as a church (just as secular clubs do) have our own rules, and that -in our case- those rules as to what our practices are, are actually based on OUR BELIEVES, conscience, convictions and doctrines, and that if some outsiders wanted to come and be part of us as a church they too should abide by those believes, or else: they have the choice of not joining.
I went on saying that at that time same-sex marriage was not something we could practice based on our doctrines and teachings and that therefore THEY should respect that and not pretend to change them by demanding exceptions to people who do not even believe or share our doctrines or who are not even members of our church. I then suggested to them to go to the Metropolitan Community Church in the city and get their ecclesiastical marriage there.
Going back to the previous point, You are saying that: “Being a Christian involves a lot more than simply upholding the creeds, etc. …”
I am telling you that:
Being a Christian involves a lot more than upholding the full authority of Scripture: It requires theological reflection on the nature of God.
You see, many many supporters of same-sex marriage based their decisions not on theological reflection but on social ethics (secular), human rights (secular), while many many opponents to same-sex marriage based their positions on only one aspect of Revelation (the Bible) while neglecting theological reflection.
The two side have large constituencies with an appalling lack of theological reflection on the nature of God.
The next question is how are we going to theologically reflect on the nature of God.
Julio +
Some thoughtful points Fr. Julio, and I agree that we could all use more reflection on the nature of God. My concern is that the current preference seems to be to only consider those aspects of his nature that we find palatable (love, mercy, grace), but we must hold that in tension with his holiness.
There were good reasons why, for example, the framers of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights worded those the way they did. I think many of them would not be pleased with the manner in which the wording has been interpreted more recently. It is rather like discussions about how to interpret some parts of the Bible.
Here is a link to Douglas Todd’s (updated) July 15 article about the vote, in the Vancouver Sun:
http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vancouver-anglican-gay-priest-celebrates-end-of-battle-to-perform-same-sex-weddings
One comment following the article reads (in part):
“…The fact that this is still an issue with one of more religious groups just goes to show how out-of-touch and thus irrelevant these groups are to mainstream society. This exemplifies why the church pews are so empty these days. What would Jesus have done? The answer is obvious.”
I suggest these four sentences of the comment are quite relevant, in a way that commentator may not realize.
“As primate, I have no authority to say to a bishop, ‘You can’t do that and you must not do that,’ ” he said.”
So, a bishop would have the authority, as a local option, to remove his diocese from the ACoC, along with its properties and financial holdings?
Apostasy is a very strong term. Sometimes I think it more appropriate to recall that ‘Ecclesia semper reformanda’ is a truth which applies to those individuals who compose it, or it becomes an abstraction.
““As primate, I have no authority to say to a bishop, ‘You can’t do that and you must not do that,’ ” he said.”
Liberal bishops are always more into their own authority than God’s.
I took Sunday off, but feel bound to say more in this space.
About “reflection on the nature of God”: this must always start with revelation or it ceases to be specifically Christian reflection. Opposition to same-sex acts chimes with the united witness of the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Septuagint version (which adds an allusion in Ez. 16), the Intertestamental literature, the Fathers, the Scholastics, the Reformers and all Jewish and Christian ethicists until a few decades ago. Surely one cannot suppose that none of these authorities did any thinking about the nature of God?
In the past few decades alone, one could add to this list Anglican theologians such as Lewis, Packer, Stott and Morris, and non-Anglicans Gagnon and Hays. See too additional bibliography in my book Holy Homosex? which I am still willing to send to any of you in .pdf form.
One can find Trinitarian thinking about sex-ethics spelled out in the New Testament itself: my body belongs to the Father Who created it, the Son Who bought it, and the Holy Spirit Who indwells it, and by definition NOT to that ancient and most powerful deity Aphrodite. As for credal orthodoxy, redemption from her worship is most certainly wrapped up, with of course much else, in our faith in Jesus τoν δι’ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, and freedom from her dominion in our faith in the Holy Spirit τὸ Κύριον, καὶ τὸ ζωοποιόν. After very prolonged and extensive study I find crude text-slinging and bible-thumping to be characteristic not of the opposition to, but of the modern advocacy of, homosex.
Thank you for your post. Please may I accept your offer of Holy Homosexual? In .pdf? (Xlibris38@gmail.com)
Done!