The Anglican Journal conducted interviews after the vote.
Predictably, Peter Elliott, a partnered homosexual from the Diocese of New Westminster, was “happy”:
“very happy to see this small step, an important step being taken.” Elliott acknowledged that the resolution could reopen wounds over the issue of same-sex blessings that have daunted the church in the last decade. But, “it is also continuing in the healing process for some of the wounds that have been there for a long time,” said Elliott. “Nobody has the monopoly on pain. Gay and lesbian people in the life of the church have for some decades been second-class citizens…I think it is a word of healing for those of us who are gay.”
As Elliott says, “Nobody has the monopoly on pain’. What he doesn’t say is that Anglicans who are resisting the temptations of same-sex attraction because they believe succumbing to them would be wrong, will be hurt by this resolution. It seems that their pain doesn’t count because, presumably, in Elliot’s world, they don’t count.
Gene Packwood noticed what, to the un-blinkered, was apparent all along: no matter how strenuous the denials, same-sex blessings in the ACoC were always intended to be a prelude to same-sex marriage, making the liberal Anglican hierocracy little better than a coterie of con artists:
Canon Gene Packwood, a clergy delegate from the diocese of Calgary, said same-sex marriage “was the intent all along. I think folks who are in favour of this were using same-sex blessings to try in the interim to gain ground. I’m not accusing them of being devious, but that was what the strategy was.”
Sue Moxley pointed out another obvious inconsistency in the ACoC’s willingness to bless what it is unwilling to do:
Bishop Sue Moxley, diocese of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, expressed support for the motion. “There’s an interesting dynamic: that people can get their head around blessing a couple but not get their head around marriage,” she said. “For me, that doesn’t make sense because for me a blessing is what a wedding in a church is about.”
Gene Packwood went on to point out that changing the marriage canon in this way will further alienate most of the world’s Anglicans, drive yet more people out of the ACoC, decrease the church’s revenues and further hasten its demise – demonstrating once again the old saw: those whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes mad:
Packwood, who believes that same-sex marriage is “manifestly contrary to the teaching of scripture and the liturgy of the church,” also expressed concern about the resolution’s effect on the Anglican Church of Canada’s standing in the Anglican Communion worldwide. “We’re not in communion with the majority of Anglicans…because they think we’ve gone so far and that’s even without making a decision,” he said. “If we go and change the marriage canon, then that’s really going to draw the line and that won’t be helpful to our spiritual health or our finances.”
Gene Packwood is the only one of the lot who stands on biblical truth here.
There are more like Gene, sadly a lot keep their heads down. What I hear from a lot of Anglicans is it doesn’t affect me. So the vine rots more day by day.
To be fair Bishop he was one of the few that made it in time to the microphone before discussion suddenly stopped, due to procedural error. Many others were wanting to speak. Momentum was not regained later to continue.
Total admiration for Canon Packwood for taking what must have been a difficult stand. Blessings upon you, for your courage in support of the gospel.
“What he doesn’t say is that Anglicans who are resisting the temptations of same-sex attraction because they believe succumbing to them would be wrong, will be hurt by this resolution.”
Could you show your workings here? It’s possible to “resist the temptations of same-sex attraction because [one] believe[s] succumbing to them would be wrong” regardless of what canon law says. Same sex marriage being permitted doesn’t make it compulsory.
The church is saying its ok to sin on this matter, once this is out of the way we will probably find some more Scripture to modify. Secular same sex marriage is just a piece of paper. All the variations of …gamy’s have been practiced forever. The church has the moral responsibility to react to improper behaviour. It should not condone it nor support it. I feel less Anglican and more Roman every day. My Church packed it in and I’m tired of explaining that.
“I feel less Anglican and more Roman every day. My Church packed it in and I’m tired of explaining that.”
I do not miss the stress I used to feel over this issue since I started actually attending the Latin rite.
Vincent,
Yes, of course it would be possible for those with same sex-attractions to continue to resist them no matter what the canon says.
But changing the canon sends the message from their church that they are wasting their time resisting that particular temptation; moreover, they have been wasting their time, energy and effort their entire adult lives because the church has made a 2000 year old mistake on the issue. Not only should they give in to their inclinations, it is good to do so; they are even condemned for their position by the homosexual lobby in the ACoC.
How could that not be damaging and hurtful? Why would they even consider remaining Anglican?
To be anecdotal: I know Anglicans who resist same sex attractions and they do find this capitulation to the zeitgeist hurtful.
My reactions to this Synod move, was to turn to Psalm 80….
80.8 “Thou didst bring a vine out of Egypt;
thou didst drive out nations and plant it:”
80.12 “Why hast thou broken down the wall round it
so that every passer-by can pluck its fruit?
The wild boar from the thickets gnaws it,
and swarming insects from the fields feed on it.
O God of Hosts, once more look down from heaven,
” take thought for this vine and tend it,
this stock that they right hand has planted.”
I am trying to have some hope, in the fact that 11 Bishops did vote against this, as well as some clergy and some laypersons. These few persons represent the lonely, abandoned faithful ones, who have been staying, praying, and continuing to believe and trust in God, inspite of the failures, absurdities, abuses of faith the current leadership displays and preaches. These persons are the “righteous remnant”, which is a biblical concept.
I hope we all remember that the reason this particular demand is being made of the church is precisely because it is objectionable to almost everyone. That’s how the establishment show their power.
They are, of course, contemptuously approving of those who conform to their demand; who wouldn’t be?
To my mind, it boils down to this: Elliott, Hiltz et al will continue their plans for a homosexual church and I believe Canon Packwood is quite right when he says that it will serve to hasten the end.
Sadly, I no longer care what the ACoC does, or does not do.
But I do care about this: God created us female and male and He had a reason for that which is the procreation of children. Two men cannot procreate, nor can two women. There is a reason for that and the reason is God.
What consenting adults do with their lives is their business: however, children need one male and one female parent and homosexual marriages do not provide the parents that God created.