From here (page 4):
Being a Queer Wife and Fierce Mother
BY ELIZABETH WELCH
Every Saturday, my wife, Danelle, reads my sermon and every Sunday she helps me vest before worship. She is my partner in all things and I could not fully live into either my vocation as a priest or my vocation as a parent without her by my side. I did not grow up dreaming of being a mother, yet unexpectedly becoming the parent of a teenager was a heaven-sent gift. Every day my prayers of thanksgiving begin thus, “Thank you for my wife and daughter; thank you for our family.”
We had the “most churchy” wedding, said one of our friends. We fought long and hard to get here. I’ve been spat on, told to “burn in hell,” called “an abomination,” and informed that I am “unchristian and disgrace to the Church.” The daily micro-aggressions that occur within and outside the world of the Anglican Church include being glared at when I hold my wife’s hand, being asked “what went wrong” that made me the way I am, and having to explain ad infinitum that we are “actually” married and that we are a “real” family.
All these experiences make it painful to watch how much the conversation about marriage has become focused on “safety for traditionalists.” I can only interpret that the safety of my family is irrelevant. In truth, I would like to stop talking about marriage, but I can’t because I am a mother. A mother who would go to the moon and back for her child.
Most days being an ordained priest brings me deep and abiding joy, and I am so blessed to be at St. George. But some days I really wish God would let me leave this vocation and lead me to somewhere where I can do good for the world without feeling like I have to protect my child from this institution to which I’ve made a life-long vow.
I am resigned to our fate. Even if the resolution passes the second reading, those with the power to do so have decided that the Anglican Church of Canada is called to continue to institutionally endorse that it is acceptable to practice and preach that God only approves of marriages between “a man” and “a woman.” Given the incredibly high suicide rates among those youth who do not have accepting homes and communities, I will pray that the LGBTQ2+ children who grow up in these churches will not succumb to despair before finding the support they need to heal from the trauma of all the harmful homophobia that is embedded therein.
If the proposed “Amendment to the Amendment” passes, I ask our Synod delegates to please bring a resolution that requires every church to state explicitly and clearly whether it is affirming of LGBTQ2+ people, including making available to them the sacrament of marriage. Theological ambiguity is dangerous for us – not just uncomfortable, but dangerous. Please put as much effort into ensuring our safety as has been put into ensuring the comfort of “traditionalists.” American activist Glennon Doyle writes that “fear is just love holding its breath.” I hope everyone at Synod takes a lot of deep breaths.
The Rev. Elizabeth Welch is incumbent at St. George, Cadboro Bay.
What I find interesting about this article is mainly in the last paragraph. The “Amendment to the Amendment” mentioned in it is intended to pacify conservatives who hold to the traditional view of marriage or, as Fred Hiltz put it:
offer some protection to those whose views were not reflected in the outcome of the vote. Such an amendment would be worded, he said, to ensure that “people of a conservative view of marriage would feel absolutely free to continue to aspire to that view—teach it, uphold it and practice it.
This seems to upset Rev. Welch who is unhappy that orthodox parishes might choose to remain in the closet; they should be compelled to come out, otherwise we will have “dangerous” “theological ambiguity”. In other words, liberals will not be satisfied until everyone in the Anglican church agrees with same-sex marriages and all clergy are willing to perform them – while smiling; there must be uniformity of thought, action and theology. In Ecclesiastical Newspeak, this is known as “Diversity”.
It’s worth noting that the liberal juggernaut has been gradually whittling down the opposition for decades. First we had to accept homosexual clergy; then partnered homosexual clergy; then same-sex blessings; then same-sex marriage; now we must agree with same-sex marriage or be guilty of Thought Crime. What comes next? I shudder to think.
What comes next, you ask, and you shudder to think. Well, do think, and think hard and logical and the shuddering will pass and simple clarity of thought will set in. As I pointed out before, the first round of modifying Canon 21 (On Marriage in the Church), in addition to proclaiming the subordination of qualification for ecclesial marriage to that of civil law, spoke of substituting “parties to the marriage” for “man and woman” and for “husband and wife”, NOT “the _two_ parties to the marriage”. If, in stark contrast to the Scriptural precept, as I understand it, of “become one flesh”, i.e. two men or two women cannot so “become one flesh”, the Anglican Church of Canada asserts that the “marriage” of two men or of two women is an instance of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, then what barrier is there against following the lead of secular society when it decides that a restriction to just two people is – what ? – an outmoded tradition and an offense against progress, diversity, etc ?
The ACoC and other politely called “liberals” but more correctly called “apostates” continue into their rapid descent into the worship of the “god of political expediency” and reject the GOD of the Scriptures. They have no moral standards and will do an accept anything that suits their purpose which is to destroy the true Christian church.
This has, as we can all agree, been going on for quite some time.
Now, all of this sort of thing is out in the open
This story is about a female Anglican Priest
She has a partner too who is also female as well
‘Time will tell’
‘Round & round & round she goes, where she’ll stop nobody knows’
Is a phrase used but seems to be like this perpetually ongoing situation in the Anglican Church of Canada
Then, for a while, the generation of persons younger than me had this saying that went on for a while is:
‘That’s -so gay- or that’s pretty gay, you know, shitty’
But now all is out in the open for all to see
1 Getting along with people is good
2 People need people
3a Doing good deeds for people
3b Putting food before people
The above are good things to have in place
The above is part of Christianity
But so is God’s Will & Grace too
Ecc 3 ‘There is a time for….’
But my Church was the former St John’s (Shaughnessy) on Granville & Nanton (W27th)
when there was the bad split in 2002
We’re Conservative
So was St Paul’s on Pendrell & Jervis but the Diocese of New Westminster changed it into a liberal Church
They feel Conservative Theology is ‘Closed-Old-Fashioned-Low-Anglican’ & we’re trying not to encourage it!
St John’s (Shaughnessy) is how St Paul’s -used to be!
St John’s (Shaughnessy) went from 1000>50 persons
Vancouver School of Theology has shrunk is a Liberal Theological College
Regent College has grown is a Conservative Theological College
We meet at Oakridge 7-Day Adventist on Baille & W37th between Oak & Cambie
Since then we have a new Church Plant is St Peter’s Fireside at UBC Robson Square
Thanks for your comments. The only thing I would avoid is the use of the terms “liberal and conservative” as they do not deal truthfully with the problems within the ACoC. The correct terminology is “apostate and Orthodox”. One can indeed be liberal or conservative in the style of worship or music but the actions of the ACoC are NOT liberal but are totally APOSTATE.
Frank, I have known Christians who are not orthodox in their theology but are most certainly Christians. I do not include the ACoC though.
Anonymuse, do those “non-orthodox” but “certainly” Christians believe what they say when they recite the Nicene Creed ? My question is sincere, and not, for example, polemically hostile, in that I have known many in church-like “worship and social clubs” who do in fact recite the Creed more or less every Sunday but in a context of private discussion reveal their disbelief. Nowadays such people can be promoted to episcopal status.
Thus the insistent reasoning of the PCC’s neo-Babylonian Moderator today at their June 4,2019, General Assembly, voting by secret (!) ballot for the anti-Scriptural ‘Pathway’ B of LGBTQ ‘Inclusion’; calling upon all concerned to draw comfort from the case of the ACC 2016 General Synod whereby, by one vote, those who “lost” (pro-gay marriage) went home discouraged, until, by seeming miracle, that reversed, and then they “went home rejoicing”.
Where does that leave the Parable of the Lost Sheep?
Perhaps the eighty-some recorded Dissents know the answer.
The inevitable sequel for all who, with minds material, choose the Hill of Evil Counsel over against + Mount Calvary is the coming gamble over His Robe (His buildings, assets, etc.); hence the apostate appointed ‘Committee of Implications’ (!), wholly composed of apostates ( many signatories to the 2014 ultra vires online letter originating in Presbytery of E. Toronto).
The only remedy now (as the late + Reverend Dr. William Klempa, Professor of Reformed doctrine and polity, Presbyterian College, Montreal, would advise):
to lodge at this 2019 GA a formal Protest and Claim of Right as The True Church; the false Church was officially declared and acted upon at the 2018 GA when spiritual discipline, the third mark of The True Church, was suspended; said spiritual suspension to be continued, as both declared again and secretly (!), by extra-Judicial committee-of-the-whole, was voted upon at this 2019 GA.
The PCC motto:
“Let all things be done decently (openly) and in order.”
+ I Corinthians 14:40.
As of June 6, 2019, D-Day for those who cherish and honour freedom, but discrimination-day for those who do not, the PCC has chosen ‘Pathway’ B-“Inclusion” (adopting the PCUSA playbook of setting aside Church polity (The Book of Forms) for ‘Roberts Rules’, and sound doctrine/Scripture Alone, affirmed in her Subordinate Standards): to the exclusion of all the faithful to Jesus Christ in and by His WORD, The+John 17:17 Sola Repository of The Holy Spirit in His Church. Foremost among the excluded, their two Korean Presbyteries, East and West, who comprise 20% of the PCC Body, and by ‘B’s making no provision for Biblical conscience, they must needs “Come out of her, My People”+ Revelation 18:4, this after their heart-rending plea to “Remember” the Missionaries who went to Korea to + Save their souls for Jesus Christ.
After the tyrannical neo-Babylonian/Cultural Marxist deadline of September 1, 2022, the Blitzkrieg of all things LGBTQI…… will be permitted:
Ordinands, Clergy, Elders, Congregants, marriage between “two persons”……
Their faux procedure for the ensuing year long Remittance under the Barrier Act is a charade founded upon a lie.
Once the PCC suspended spiritual discipline, the third mark of The True Kirk, in June, 2018, they de-constituted thereby as a Reformed Church of Jesus. Christ.
Protest; or leave.
Shavuot 5779 + Pentecost 2019 + Isaiah 37
“For Thus saith The LORD…he shall not come into this City…by the way that he came, by the same shall he return…For I will defend this City to Save it, for My Own Sake…” Amen.
June 10 PCC 2019 GA (online)
Summary of Decisions re. human sexuality
1) holds two parallel definitions of marriage..
with liberty of conscience and action
2) call and ordain as ministers…elect and ordain as
ruling elders LGBTQI persons…with liberty of
conscience re. participation
3) Clerks provisionally prepare guidelines re. no. 2
4) Moderator issue pastoral letter
5) Life and Mission provide a means (!) for those
affected express concerns etc…report before
report on Remits to 2020 GA…
June 10,1925, ‘The DisUnion Movement’
The Reverend Dr. Ephraim Scott, 1925.
“At the General Assembly in 1925, I registered my Protest, along with others, against an Act which destroyed the unity of Presbyterianism and wanted to substitute a Church that had neither a vital theological basis nor a polity comparable to the Presbyterian form of government…the vital connection between the intellectual and the spiritual in religion…never the sense of beauty…never the emotional in human nature…the intellect as the proper instrument for the reception of Divine Truth.”
The Reverend Dr. John McNab,
‘Our Heritage and Our Faith’, 1950, pp.92,93.
‘The Presbyterian Record’, Editor.