Tag Archives: Anglican Church of Canada

Anglican Church of Canada makes Middle East peace an election issue

Posted on by
7

The Anglican Church of Canada wants to tell you how to vote. In a consummately tendentious article, the ACoC informs us that Israel is responsible for the lack of peace in the Middle East because: Israelis continue to settle in Palestinian territories; Israel’s response to being bombarded by rockets is “disproportionate”; Israel denies the Palestinians’ right of return.

Arabs who inconveniently persist in firing rockets into Israel, murdering Jews whenever they get the chance, calling for Israel’s destruction and teaching their children that Jews should be hated because they are the offspring of apes and pigs are not in the least bit guilty. They are just being mildly inconsiderate.

The party that most consistently supports Israel is Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. The Anglican Church of Canada doesn’t want you to vote for them. I was going to vote Conservative anyway, but I’d like to thank the ACoC for confirming my decision.

From here:

The General Synod’s Global Relations Director, Dr. Andrea Mann, pointed to three key issues that continue to animate the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

The steady and increasing settlement of Palestinian territories by Israeli settlers with the support of the Israeli government is a major point of contention, Mann noted, pointing to ongoing claims on Palestinian villages as Israeli land through the continued bulldozing of Palestinian houses.

Counter-measures by Israel to Palestinian incursions such as rocket attacks, which Mann indicated are often disproportionate to the initial Palestinian actions, are another major issue.

“Where there is an initiative or a strike, say, from Gaza into Israeli territory, the response by Israel is in far greater measure, and has been shown to be without consideration for civilian life or hospitals or schools—the places where people gather for safety from those counter-strikes,” she said.

A third major issue is the Palestinians’ right of return, which relates to compensation to Palestinians for lands taken from them beginning in 1948 with the formation of the state of Israel, and the flight of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who left homes behind and were never invited to return or compensated for the loss of their homes, livelihoods and communities.

Anglican priest wears a hijab

Posted on by
21

Rev. Cheryl Toth from the Anglican Diocese of Qu’Appelle wore a hijab for a day to “see what it’s like” and because she is unhappy that hostility towards women who wear a hijab, niqab or burka is increasing. And, of course, “to contribute to the conversation” – it wouldn’t be Anglican without that.

She didn’t go for the full cover-up of a burka, presumably because in a burka, no one would have any idea that she was a lady Anglican priest declaring “look at me, aren’t I progressive”, rather than an actual Muslim. That wouldn’t have been much of a publicity stunt.

Here she is:

And here are thousands of women protesting against being forced to wear a hijab in Iran in March 1979. I know which spectacle find more convincing:

Iran protest

From here:

Anglican priest Cheryl Toth decided to wear a hijab for a day to see what the experience is like. (Submitted by Cheryl Toth)

Concerned with what she calls the “increasing rhetoric about the wearing of the niqab by Muslim women,” an Anglican priest in Regina decided to take matters into her own hands. She wore a hijab for a day to see what’s [sic] like.

In a post on Facebook, Cheryl Toth said she’s “uncomfortable with the way the debate focuses on what women wear (or decide not to wear). I am afraid that [the rhetoric] will increase hostility towards women who choose to wear a hijab, a niqab or a burka.”

She said she sees her trial run with the hijab as a way “to contribute to the conversation.”

Discipline is on the agenda of the Primates’ meeting

Posted on by
3

David Virtue is reporting that both TEC and the ACoC are to be disciplined at the Primates’ meeting in January.

There are ACoC clergy that have a keen interest in discipline, but only if it is accompanied by bondage.

From VOL:

The discipline of The Episcopal Church (and presumably the Anglican Church of Canada) will be the first item on the agenda when the Primates of the Anglican Communion meet in Canterbury in January, VOL has learned.

If TEC and the ACoC are disciplined for their departure from the faith and do not leave the meeting, the Global South Primates will not be likely to stay, VOL was told.

If they are disciplined, repent and do the right thing and leave, the Global South archbishops will stay on, said the source.

A report by the Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Canada Fred Hiltz that ACNA Archbishop Foley Beach had only been invited 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,” is simply inaccurate. Hiltz described this as “a good thing.”

But VOL was told that this interpretation by Hiltz about what he thinks will transpire in Canterbury is simply not true and avoids the facts. Archbishop Beach will only come if the Global South archbishops come and they will only appear if Beach is invited and the issue of the North American departure from Scripture is the centerpiece of the discussion.

“The central issue of this meeting will be the theological innovations of The Episcopal Church and not climate change,” VOL was told.

Anglican priest and imam officiate at a wedding

Posted on by
26

More inclusion from the Anglican Church of Canada: Rev. Dwayne Bos and Imam Suleyman Demiray officiated at a wedding between a Christian and a Muslim. Apparently, the precedent for this was set some time ago when the Church married a Christian to a Wiccan. The Anglican Church of Canada is easing its way into Chrislam via Wicca, a belief system which already strongly resembles that of the ACoC.

The imam recited a passage from the Al-Fatiha in the Quran, not to be confused with the Quran 8:12 passage which invites Mohammed’s followers to behead the infidel – a bit of a downer just before the honeymoon.

Read all about it here:

History was made this summer at Canadian Forces Base Borden, Ont., with a unique interfaith wedding, the officiating clerics say.

On August 29, Capt. Georgette Mink, a physiotherapist in the Canadian military, was married to Ahmad Osman, a soldier in the Lebanese army. Although technically a Christian marriage, it was attended by representatives from both the Christian and Muslim religions, and was followed by a Muslim blessing of the couple.

Capt. the Rev. Dwayne Bos, the Anglican padre who officiated, said he believes other weddings may have been done in the Canadian military involving Christians and non-Christians—he has heard of some involving one Wiccan partner, for example. But the fact that clerics from both faith traditions co-performed the liturgy made this one unique, he said.

“From what we understand and know, this would be the first one of this type that’s ever been done in the Canadian Forces,” he said.

Anglican Hell hath no fury at all

Posted on by
5

I would be interested to know how many Anglican Church of Canada clergy believe in the reality of Hell. I suspect the number is very small.

When Hell is expunged from Christianity, there is no longer any need for a Saviour since there is nothing to save us from; sins are neither judged nor punished, so Jesus didn’t need to take them upon himself and die for them. Since Jesus didn’t die for our sins, he wouldn’t need to be God incarnate, physically resurrected, born of a virgin or sinless. Perhaps, as Anglican priest manqué, Tom Harpur suggests, Jesus never actually existed. As you can see, without Hell, the whole thing falls apart – just like the ACoC. Not to worry, though, there is still social justice.

Here is an interview with a clergyman who isn’t at all interested in being saved from Hell:

I came to be passionate about justice through Jesus, as I was introduced to him by figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Desmond Tutu. They introduced me to a Jesus that I wanted to give my life too – not because if I didn’t I would go to hell, but because he was showing a way of life that was life, that was truth! When I hang out with my homeless friends, when I engage in social action, to me it is like a spiritual practice, I feel closer to Jesus.

I trust everyone has noticed my restraint in not making any cheap jokes about how the ACoC has invented – or “reimagined”, to use the in vogue non-word – its own particularly torturous version of hell: sitting through an ACoC sermon.

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 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.

The Anglican Church of Canada does reconciliation

Posted on by
21

From here:

ACC shares reconciliation experience at international Anglican gathering

The Anglican Church of Canada continues the journey of healing and reconciliation with Canada’s Indigenous peoples. This path away from the legacy of colonialism and racism including the Indian residential school system reflects the unfortunate universal experiences of human conflict and resilience against egregious acts.

In spite of all the fanfare about reconciliation, the Anglican Church of Canada has yet to offer any gesture of reconciliation to the ANiC congregations whose buildings it seized and bank accounts it froze. That is because, rather than confess one’s own sins, it is easier to confess those of one’s predecessors.

Still, if it were not for the posturing and hypocrisy, fewer people might be leaving the ACoC, so it’s not a total loss.

Anglican Church of Canada marriage canon report almost complete

Posted on by
11

Read the entire article here:

The largest section of the roughly 50-page report will be devoted to biblical and theological reflection on the feasibility of Anglican same-sex marriage. The report will also address other components spelled out in General Synod 2013’s original mandating resolution on the marriage of same-sex couples. These include the wording of any amendment to Canon 21 permitting same-sex marriage, the terms of reference of the Solemn Declaration of 1893, which created the Anglican Church of Canada, and legal aspects of a conscience clause protecting bishops, dioceses, clergy and congregations from being constrained to authorize or participate in such marriages against the dictates of conscience.

[……]

It also set additional criteria contained in amendments introduced by diocese of Algoma Bishop Stephen Andrews and Dean Peter Elliott, diocese of New Westminster. The amendments, approved by a vote, stated that the 2016 motion should include supporting documentation that:

  • “demonstrates broad consultation in its preparation;

  • explains how this motion does not contravene the Solemn Declaration;

  • confirms immunity under civil law and the Human Rights Code for those bishops, dioceses and priests who refuse to participate in or authorize the marriage of same-sex couples on the basis of conscience; and

  • provides a biblical and theological rationale for this change in teaching on the nature of Christian marriage.”

I can’t help noticing that the wording of this article is always on the positive side of changing the marriage canon. For example, considering same-sex marriage has not existed in the church for two millennia, I might expect to see a theological reflection on the infeasibility of Anglican same-sex marriage. Instead, we read that the reflection will be upon the feasibility of Anglican same-sex marriage. Similarly, rather than explain how this motion does contravene the Solemn Declaration, we find the opposite. The bias is obvious, surely.

I wonder how this could possibly work:

confirms immunity under civil law and the Human Rights Code for those bishops, dioceses and priests who refuse to participate in or authorize the marriage of same-sex couples on the basis of conscience

How can a group of clerics expect any pronouncement they make about what may or may not occur under civil law to be taken seriously? Have they all taken a break from their studies of global warming to become civil rights lawyers?

Lighting a sacred fire under the Anglican Church of Canada

Posted on by
4

I’m all for the metaphorical application of such an idea, but it seems that the ACoC has been invaded by a tribe of literalists, so the fire in question is the result of rubbing a few pieces of wood together. Why not use a match, you may wonder: that would be cheating and cheating would hardly be sacred would it?

From here:

Gathered outside in the early morning hours, a circle of onlookers watched as volunteers rubbed spindles into fireboards, trying to produce enough friction to create an ember.

For young men in the Diné tradition, building a fire from scratch remains a rite of passage. The hard work of sparking a blaze without the aid of matches, lighters, etc. teaches virtues such as patience, forbearance, and perseverance.

The fire will be kept running all week, even during the obligatory fulmination against global warming by Bishop Mark MacDonald. The CO2 emitted must be sacred CO2.

Ironically, a persistent fear is that the Arctic might be getting warmer; isn’t there anyone in the Arctic who would like it to get warmer? As this study points out, cold weather is 20 times as deadly as hot weather.

For the evening presentation, Bishop MacDonald discussed the issue of climate change from a biblical and Indigenous perspective.

Early on, he noted his preference for the term “climate injustice” as the people who stand to suffer the most from the effects of climate change—the poor, the dispossessed, people of the land—are those who had the least to do with creating the problem, as is the case with residents in the Arctic.

Primate Fred Hiltz lamented that the church has turned away

from its evangelical call to follow “other gods” such as imperialism, the institutionalizing of racism and policies of assimilation. And lighting sacred fires.

Inexplicably, he omitted that last sentence.