From here:
The congregation at Victoria’s Christ Church Cathedral voted overwhelmingly last week to allow same-sex blessings in the church, more than a decade after Vancouver-area Anglican churches did the same.
“The Anglican church has been talking about this for more than 30 years,” Rev. Logan McMenamie says.
[….]
McMenamie laments the parish members he has lost because of the slow changes, but said more progress will be made at upcoming diocese gatherings.
Don’t worry about the members you have lost, Rev. Logan McMenamie. Now you are offering same-sex blessings, rejoice in the prospect of the hitherto reluctant hordes that will soon queue outside your doors every Sunday, eager to worship before the altar of your equality deities.
Then again, it may work out more like those who have gone before you in pioneering compulsive inclusion – like the Dioceses of New Westminster and Niagara: you could find yourself scrambling to close dozens of empty churches every year.
Not suprized
I’m told most people don’t mind anyways
They’ve talked about it for 30 years
As we did talk about it in the Diocese of New Westminister.
The majority at CCC in Victoria feels is the best thing to do.
1968 Anglican Church of Canada started to remarry divorcess
1968 Canadian Laws changed to make it easier for divorcees to remarry
Previous to this divorced Anglicans would go over to the United Church of Canada who’s motto is ‘Dare to be first’
Previous to this the Anglican Church would just not remarry divorcees.
However; the Roman Catholic Church would annul a marriage.
Their practice of annulment has been going on for quiet some time so I’m told
Now it’s Gay Marriage
Being Gay is no longer concidered as a mental illness
Practicing homosexuality is no longer concidered as a criminal offence either.
Michael Ingham Secretary under Primate Michael Peers together developed a rite to bless same-sex unions.
He’s now our Bishop
It seems to me that they feel this is the best thing to do.
The results in our Diocese has been disasterous.
I come from St John’s Shaughnessy and we lost our building out of all of this.
The Roman Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal doesn’t allow it.
The Diocese on Vancouver Island is following our lead.
“’I think a church, like any other institution, is run by humans, and humans have many faults,’ she says.”
Which is why the church is not self-referential. Nor was Jesus. Matthew 5:17
Time will tell over this sort of thing
It’s not really a big deal
Very few people in the population would desire for same-sex blessings anyways
It’s about wants
How many persons desiring same-sex blessings are Anglican?
Probably not too many
How many would go to the Anglican Church to have a same-sex blessing who are not Anglican?
Probably not too many
Most people don’t mind this kind of things anyways
A brief question:
Were the original tenants of the garden of Eden Adam and Eve , Ada and Eve, or Adam and Steve?
I think there’s a pasage in Leviticus that mentions men lying with each other, as with women, and not exactly approvingly, either.
Ann Barnhardt, the modern day Judith writes, “The Marxist-homosexualist infiltrators have intentionally stripped all images and icons of manful strength (many times in the context of a FEMALE saint, too) from Christendom as much as they could over the last 50 years or so. Their goal has been to convince you people that Christianity is some pacifistic cult of the effete, and that Christ is either your imaginary gay boyfriend or your imaginary castrated Golden Retriever.
They did this so that you could be easily disarmed and conquered, and Christianity eventually destroyed and replaced with a new neo-pagan cult tied directly to the tyrannical state.
They’re winning.”
Pietro de Swift
About the no big deal and very few people in the population
Not all gays and lesbians want to follow their feelings
There are a number of deliverance ministries out there.
The gay lobby group might say one thing but at the same time are gays and lesbians who will quietly go to one of these ministries
Yes
Gen Adam and Eve
Leviticus 18 is often frequently used is popular
Romans 1
There are many other books in the Bible than can be of good edification as well
The Book of Proverbs is very valuable
Praying the Book of Psalms is good too
The Epistles in the New Testament are of great value as well
Deliverance Ministies such as Exodus and Living Waters address these situations with sensitivity
Common now John. What about all the other things in Leviticus and elsewhere that you don’t follow and would not dream of doing? How can you just cherry-pick what suits you and leave the rest? This is a basic, and valid, criticism of anyone who tries to rely on Leviticus to address the issue of homosexuality.
Anonymuse
Comment 6
I was responding to Pietro de Swift
Comment 4
Re: Ada & Eve, Adam & Steve
I’ve heard these comments before and are not my words
I don’t pick and choose
Leviticus has a lot of rules in it is true
Gay marriage in the church is a hot button issue
The Commandment to
Love God & Neighbour
The body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit
Acceppting Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour
Following Jesus in newness of life
God’s will & plan in our life
We have to respect people
I know who you were responding to. I was addressing you because of your response. I am still trying to figure out how people can refer to one small part of Leviticus without being selective.
Do we read Leviticus in terms of Leviticus and the whole of Scripture; Or do we read Leviticus disparagingly, in bits and in terms of our comfortable, convenient, insular, 21st c lifestyle? Do we imagine our God is the same God as a rugged, survivalist Bronze Age people would worship; Or must God now be appropriately domesticated, tolerant, inclusive, user-friendly, eco-minded and metro-sexual to qualify as sufficiently enlightened to be God?
John 1:1-5
Anonymuse
I wasn’t being selective
There are several scriptures in the bible but when this topic is brought up so is Lev 18 and Romans 1
I don’t know why you use words pick and choose or selective.
Are you in favour of blessing same sex unions yes or no?
My comment 1 about homosexuality no longer is concidered as a mental illness or a criminal offence
Now there are also deliverance ministries such as Exodus and Living Waters for homosexuals
Anonymuse
When this topic is brought up usually Lev 18 & Rom 1 is brought up so I feel my responses are pretty average
I don’t know why you refer to phrases such as ‘cherry pick’ in comment 6 or ‘one small part without being selective’?
I don’t feel that i cherry pick to suite myself or refer to one small part and being selective.
Throughout time homosexuality is o longer considered a mental illness or a criminal offence.
The BC Human Rights sais, ‘most pedophiles are heterosexual’
But there are deliverance ministries such as Exodus or Living Waters
My Church is St John’s Shaughnessy in the Diocese of New West that walked out of synod in 2002
We still have four sunday services with a congregation of around 1000
Our Priests have said ,’no’ to blessing same sex unions.
Since the loss in court case the Priests left the building and the congregation followed.
So I used to go to the evening service at St John’s in the old location
It is still at the new location with the same services
The evening service has grown to 200
The old location has 3 showing up at the 8am and am told the same 3 go to the 10am has an attendance of 30.
Dr J.I. Packer said, ‘there’s nothing in the Bible to support the blessing of same sex unions’
Canon David Short our Rector sais, ‘repent’ in response to a question I asked something about all of this.
Our Church joined with other Anglicans in Canada and Episcopalians in the United States to form the new Province of the Anglican Church of North America.
In the Diocese of New West it started at St Paul’s on Pendrell and Jervis was told it used to be the most Evangelical of the churches.
Also was told there used to be a lot of families and houses down there as well.
The person also said, ‘there’s always been gays and lesbians around us were our fellow schoolmates, etc’
But the Gay Lobby group started to change around St Paul’s to what it is today
The Diocese in the early 1980s mentioned to me ‘St John’s Shaughnessy is closed old fashioned low Anglican is the way St Paul’s used to be. We’re trying not to encourage this’.
Now there are deliverance ministries for homosexuals such as Exodus and Living Waters.
Anonymuse
Another person at my church stated to me that, ‘I believe the marriage between one man and one woman is God’s plan’
This would be classified and called Conservative Christianity or Fundamentalist Christianity.
I am well aware of SJS John, and SJVan. I also agree with Packer’s statement. I think you are giving an explanation that wasn’t required. All I wanted to know was how you think anyone can use one small part of Leviticus and ignore the other parts. That is something that those opposing same sex unions and the like are usually criticized for.
I don’t believe I am ignoring other parts of Leviticus and using one small part.
I’ve been in Central Focus uses the St helen’s Bishopsgate Study Guide for a number of years.
I’ve looked through Leviticus as other books of the Bible
Sometimes key verses are used to sum things up that’s all.
Dr Charles Stanley does this to get to the point.
What about the book of Genesis and other books mentioning about marriage?
I don’t think people are ignoring other parts of Leviticus but are using a key verse.
This quickly summarizes things up without using too many words that’s all.
Frankly this topic was never discussed much in church anyways
One of the 39 articles in the Book of Common Prayer mentions that ‘Holy Scripture is necessary for salvation includes both the Old and New Testaments as Canonical does not include the Apocrypha can be read as examples’
I use the lection guide for morning and evening prayer at home so I read quite a lot of the bible.
The Book of Proverbs is valuable for Wisdom
The Psalms are good for Meditation
This blog is for edification between the author and the respondents which is us.
Anonymuse,
See Mark chapter 7 about Jesus teaching on clean and unclean foods. Jesus overrides the food laws.
See Acts Chapter 15, the Jerusalem council, regarding laws the gentiles must follow. Other than 3 rather nebullous restrictions, they were commanded to refrain from sexual immorality, which would have included the Levitical prohibited sexual practices, but not, for instance, the wearing of clothing made of two types of material.
I think that should about cover it.
John K.:
Thank you. That is the sort of simple, to-the-point answer I suggest one has to be prepared to give if challenged on the matter. Too many Christians cannot do so, even if they have read the Bible (which too many have not done). If they cannot do so then, as I see it, they will be derided and then disregarded.
I also suggest it is not adequate for Christians to ignore the critics or view them with distain. If others reject the answers given, then one at least has made the effort to engage them and provide a relevant answer in terms they can understand.
A further, more in-depth discussion, for some other time, can perhaps focus on the older and newer interpretations of the Greek word πορνεία (porneia) and on the historical and cultural context of the behaviours addressed by Paul in Romans 1.
With respect to Greek, another topic worth discussing is why and how Jesus and Peter were talking in Greek on the beach when they were discussing lambs, sheep and different types of love conveyed by various Greek words.
Hello Anonymuse
By this last post of yours I am thinking that your intention was to present us with a challenge, as a sort of preparation for what we shall most certainly encounter once we engage people outside of our own circles.
I can say that I have had, and continue to have, this exact experience. A very close friend of mine is a supporter of gay rights, and has presented me with the very same argument that you have. That being “You Christians don’t follow Leviticus about food or clothing so why do you insist on it being followed about gay sex? Does this not make you a bunch of hypocrites?” (He did not use those words, but that was essentially the message he conveyed.)
We must be prepared for when we are confronted with this accusation of hypocricy. The idea that we are the ones “picking and choosing” which passages to follow and which to ignore is actually one that can be thrown back upon our accusors. Point out that they are deliberately using one or two passages from only the Old Testament, but that they are ignoring the other seven or eight passages that are in both the Old and New Testaments. Point out that we take the entire Holy Bible and consider everything it says about an issue. In the case of food God hase given us additional and more detailed lessons so that our understanding has been improved. Same thing with the issue of circumsision.
On the issue of sexual behaviour we also have additional lessons from God in the New Testament, and we follow them also. By the way, these additional lessons strengthen our understanding of the fact that homosexual behaviour was, is still, and forever shall be, sinful.
Peace be with you.
AMP
Hello AMP:
Thank you for your response. Yes I was presenting this board with a challenge of sorts, aimed not only at getting a succinct response to the issue of same-sex unions, that can be used by others, but also at the attitude of the responses. I enjoyed reading John Payzant’s postings, for example. Although I thought some points he made were a little off the mark, he was respectful, thoughtful and sincere, and I appreciated the time he took to do that.
Those of us who are not much confronted with the arguments of the gay community sometimes do not realize just how well thought-out and researched that group’s arguments are. The former St. John’s United in the West End of Vancouver used to have an excellent article on same sex relationships, setting out an historical, cultural and scriptural basis for them. When the church was sold for redevelopment the website also disappeared, I think. Similar articles can be found on the internet though.
The bottom line, in my opinion, is that if you are not venturing out much in the wider world of social attitudes and discussion, but are confining yourself just to venues such as this one, you don’t have to concern yourself much with other groups’ points of view. That can, however, result in the surrender of our communities to those very active groups and the transformation of our communities, and ultimately our country, into a profoundly post-modernist, and even anti-Christian, society. I don’t that is what we were called upon to do, regardless whether one believes he or she are in, but not of, this world.
I can’t imagine what the apostles had to face. Suffice to say that almost all of them did not die of old age.
Anonymuse
You seem to challenge us as AMPisAnglican is mentioning.
I feel overly critisized and judged by you with your comments:
-Comment 6:
-cherry pick
-one small part without being selective
-Comment 17:
-some of his points being a little off the mark
I thought that we’re supposed to build each other up and exchange information on topics not usually discussed.
I think we did John. Thank you for your information. Together we are all trying to build on rock.
Sorry, but I think Anonymuse has been quite right here. As Christians we are called to always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks the reason for the hope we have. I’m afraid, and Anonymuse confirmed it, that there was no clear answer forthcoming to what is a very common point asked us by non- and liberal Chrisitans – that is how do we justify our views in view of the Levitical laws as far as which ones we follow and which ones we don’t. If we don’t have an answer, or appear not to, we come across as bumblers avoiding the question. Very poor witness. That is why I suggested the answer I did. We need to be prepared to give a clear, consistent and reasoned answer. Otherwise we can lose all credibility.
I have also written about this a number of times on my blog. Here is one. http://reasonfaith.blogspot.ca/2007/03/homosexuality.html
Take Care
And how many non- and liberal Christians are won over in this way by simply setting them straight about Leviticus? Is it the case that Bishops and Priests who perform ssb’s simply don’t know the argument you’ve provided so generously in your blog?
I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying it’s not so simple. Non- and liberal Christians have no more interest in hearing the finer points of Leviticus explained than they have in studying the rest of the Bible. Even people who consider themselves Christian are all too ready to consider only the NT. [See story next up on Diocese of Niagara; Gospels not Historical]
The real problem is the culture is increasingly massively prejudiced and mobilized in that prejudice against Christianity. People are interested in throwing out God so they can worship (or be worshiped) themselves. And, into the bargain, being able to consider themselves morally superior without having the burden of a real conscience.
Leviticus is just their way of taking a dismissive swipe at Christianity because in their ignorance they think it speaks volumes as to what’s wrong with the whole religion.
Thanks Lisa.
I agree. I just think it’s important for Chirstians to know why they believe what they believe. Knowing an answer from Scripture can help us stay conficent that our faith is fully grounded and consistent.
I agree that liberals don’t really care what Scripture says. If it conflicts with their worldview they will either interpret it to their own liking or ignore it altogether.
Answering their attacks with a cogent Scriptural argument has as much to do with strengthening a believer’s trust in the Bible as it does truly winning an argument.
However, there may be some Christians who think the liberal argument has some merit, and might waiver in their position. Demonstrating a valid Scriptural argument might just keep them on the right side. And a thinking non Christian might just take a step closer to faith if he/she sees that one can argue intelligently from the word of God.
Thank you, John. I agree completely it is important for Christians to know what and why they believe as they do. How to argue Leviticus is important. I’d like for people to grasp why Leviticus is important even apart from its status as holy writ, to the degree that Christians could then relate its dietary laws to the (many neurotic) food issues and food customs people have today.
One of the things Leviticus represents to us is the burden imposed by having to kill to live; there is a barbaric subtext to existence. People who raise animals [as was common in antiquity; no plastic-wrapped legs of lamb laid out ready to go at the grocery] form attachments to the animals, even though they later slaughter them. Ritual is psychologically purifying and restorative to them. People may ridicule Leviticus as archaic and strange – and therefore of no relevance to them; but in doing so fail to see that in embracing veganism, food allergies, food preferences etc., they are doing something similar – they are trying to reintroduce dietary laws.
Thanks Lisa,
That is an insight I have not heard before. A fascinating observation.
I also think it is a fascinating observation.
Perhaps one does not have to go back to antiquity to find this. Not too long ago most people lived in rural settings and were accustomed to raising animals for food. I would think someone has done a study on the correlation between urbanization and secularization, and the factors involved.
John K
I read Levitcus 18 more closely has a number of passages that discourages intermarrying as well can cause the genes to concentrate too much.
If one marries far away from one’s own family genes gives the genes a chance to blend.
Then there is the whole book of Leviticus to read as well.
I follow the lection guide of the Book of Common Prayer gives me a good exposure to the Word of God
I come from the United Church of Canada like you do. I think many did come and still go to the United Church of Canada as it is a large denomination.
I went to the Pentcostal Assemblies of Canada and the Full Gospel Apostolic Church too.
I was looking around
Someone suggested the Anglican Church
I went to St James’ on Cordova & Gore for a while is High-Anglican
Then a Regent College student living in our basement suite suggested St John’s Shaughnessy.
I tried it.
It had the closeness and similarity to the St James’ on Cordova & Gore and was a bit like the United Church I grew up in too.
“In the Muslim culture, marriage and breeding between first cousins has existed since day one.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/the_keystone_of_the_islamic_mi.html
I think many have had a similar journey John. I am also formerly UCC. There are many in my congregation who are formerly liberal church members or adherents. I learned more about Christianity and the Bible in months at an evangelical church than I did in years at the UCC. Perhaps there should be a greater focus in outreach in some manner to those in the liberal churches generally.
Anonymuse
I found the same experiences as you did with the evangelical Churches in how one learns more about the Bible.
Our Church follows the St Helen’s Bishopsgate study method where we study one book of the Bible at a time.
This takes one year.
Now in Leviticus 18 mentions much more about intermarrying.
Well, one wonders why?
If the genes blend too closely can get exaggerated.
For instance, if two second cousins marry and there is a history of blood sugar disorders in the family gives the child being at risk on inheriting it.
The St Helen’s Bishopsgate’s method is to:
Read, Mark, Learn and Inwardly Digest.
I also follow the Lection Guide from the Book of Common Prayer.
I also heard that when the United Church of Canada first started out it was really good.
Their Sunday School program was ranked as either one of the best or the best.
The United Church of Canada used to be the biggest and the best.
The Covenanting Congregations in the United Church of Canada are pretty good.
The new denomination that formed was going into one of their old denominations was the Christian Congreragational is pretty good too.
One in particular is Port Kells Congregational in Surrey BC
North Lonsdale in North Vancouver and Cliff Avenue in Burnaby are both Covenanting Congregations are pretty good too have been to them both.
The United Church of Canada having a congregational Church government from the Congregational Church and the main government is a presbytery from the Presbyterian Church with the good works side from the Methodist Church is a pretty good blend.
Christian Congregational is most compatible.
Schleirmacher was the most popular person to read about in Europe with Martin Luther being the second most popular.
Schleirmacher was Germany with is now part of Poland.
He was Moravian Brethren as his backgound.
He was a liberal believing that one should follow one’s feelings over scripture.
I learned about this from a minister who’s name is one the tip of my tongue right now.
He was Presbyterian Church of Canada went to the United Church of Canada and back to the Presbyterian Church of Canada.
He has a seat of Wesleyan in a Toronto University.
He has his Doctor’s degree.
Dr Victor Shepherd is his name.
He did a critique of the origins of the operative theology of the United Church of Canada.
The Basis of Union is the 20 articles of religion in the United Church.
Dr Shepherd mentions is very well set up.
It was originally designed to mute the differences between the Methodists and the Presbyterians.
It was built of neither Wesley or Calvin but on Schleirmacher is known as a German Romantic Liberal who believes feeling is to be followed over scripture.
One the United Church of Canada websight mentioned that in the 1800s the Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational Churches had split into 5 denominations.
5 kinds of:
-Methodists
-Presbyterians
-Congregationals
In 1920 they experimented with Union Model Churches
They went over to Geneva as part of forming the United Church of Canada.
I heard that the United Church of Canada started becoming more liberal in the 1950s.
I grew up in the United Church as well. I recently found the booklet I was given upon my confirmation (1959) It was solidly evangelical, a tract that all here might agree on.
How things have changed.
Hi John. I also looked at some UCC stuff from the 1950s and even the early ’60s, and you are right. It was solid Christian doctrine.
John Payzant has summarized a lot of what the UCC was, where it came from and who went where. I don’t know anything about the Cliff Avenue or Port Kells United Church congregations but I am familiar with the North Lonsdale United Church, and John Payzant is correct in his description of it. If you look at its website, especially the Mission and Vision page, you may find a marked difference between it and most other UCC sites. How many other UCC congregations link to the Alpha Course? A lot of credit has to go to the former minister, Rev. Don Faris (a former Saskatchewan NDP government minister, I think), and to his successor, Robin Jacobson and, of course, the congregation itself.
John K
How many people have come from the United Church and are coming out of the woodwork as far as being honest about it is concerned is interesting to know.
Yes, I wish there were some statistics on how many members and adherents of evangelical and pentacostal churches are formerly from the UCC and the ACoC.
To 24.1 John K
I mentioned in comment 24 how the United Church became more liberal in the 1950s was from a couple of older women on some kind of a bus tour that I was on.
The 1950s was prosperous so the UCC felt that it wasn’t so necessary that the doctine is so strong so they eased it up.
That did not change.
With the changing of the doctrine in the 50s to ease up on doctrine they never changed it back.
They lost around 1/3 of members in the 1960s as well.
They seemed to never have thought that strengthening their doctrine might’ve helped them.
One renewal sight mentioned that the UCC is the fastest shrinking Protestant Denomonation in Canada.
Connie Denbock at North Lonsdale United mentioned that in 2002 that the UCC has about 20 years to go before it is no more.
Our rector at St John’s Shaughnessy mentioned in 2002 that the Anglican Church of Canada has around 20 years to go as well.
24.1 John K
What book were you given upon your confirmation in 1959?
Sounds like you were born around 1945?
We attended Canadian Memorial United on W15th & Burrard St.
Parents married there in 1957
I and my brother were baptised there in 1960-1
We attended there until around 1970
My dad had stopped attending Church but mom, Don and I kept on going.
We never prayed or read the bible at home.
Grandma said, ‘Your parents went right in and right out on Sunday’.
When they separated in 1970 and we never went back since.
The minister dropped by to see us.
I missed Canadian Memorial United because it was a nice church to attend and our home Church.
I will try to find the tract again. We have moved since I last saw it so it is probably buried in a box somewhere.
I grew up in Fifty United Church in Winona Ontario. It is, I was told, the longest established continuing church in Canada, established as a Methodist church in 1795. (I could be wrong, but that is what I remember)
Actually, as I read it, the current UCC creed is OK. Maybe a little ambiguous, but still recognizable:
The United Church Creed
We are not alone, we live in God’s world.
We believe in God:
Who has created and is creating,
who has come in Jesus, the word made flesh,
to reconcile and make new,
who works in us and others by the Spirit.
We trust in God.
We are called to be the Church:
to celebrate God’s presence,
to live with respect in creation,
to love and serve others,
to seek justice and resist evil,
to proclaim Jesus, crucified and risen,
our judge and our hope.
In life, in death, in life beyond death,
God is with us.
We are not alone.
Thanks be to God.
But, as this is an Anglican samizdat, I think I should get off the UCC discussion train here. I do have a lot of good memories of and from the UCC of “back then” though.
It started in the United Church of Canada
On their 80th Anniversary, I saw a documentary at St Andrew’s-Wesley United with a saying
‘Dare to be First’
They also mentioned on the Documentary that the United Church started the Vision Channel 24 which is Interfaith Donumentaries have watched it many times find it to be very good.
It started in the United Church of Canada
Ministers found out had their licenses removed.
There had been a fair amount
Same-sex unions to Gay Marriage to Ordination
Is in debate in the Presbyterian Church of Canada
Happened in the Anglican Church of Canada, New West Diocese at St Paul’s on Pendrell and Jervis in the West End of Vancouver, British Columbia.
I heard it used to be one of the most evangelical Anglican Churches at one time.
The West End started to under go a certain amount of changes.
Any neighbourhood changes neighbours every 25 years anyways.
The houses went down and the apartments went up
Suites in a replacing apartment would be the same as when they were in the original rooming house.
I learned this on a walking tour done by John Akins
I think it was the one about the apartments built in the 1950s
The business district was at E Hastings & Main until the historic westward shift in the early 1900s to the then suburb of Granville now known as Granville St.
The residential district there as it was being transformed into a business district spilled over into the West End.
The summer resort there was being transformed into a residential district.
I learned this on a walking tour done by the Architectural Institute on Cambie between W Hastings and Pender
The family houses were bought up sometimes as much as 3 to 5 and changed into rooming houses.
The neighbourhood was being once again transformed this time from a family orientated area to a single persons’ area.
At some time, a number of gay men started coming into the went end.
They’ve always been around but there was a newer group that started to become more open about it.
This started in St Paul’s Anglican in the West End
It was one of the most evangelical churches at one time
This newer group of gays demanded changes in doctrine.
This came about.
I was told this by an older woman at my church
When I phoned the Diocese Synod Office this what happened:
-I mentioned I’m from St John’s (Shaughnessy) Anglican
-They responded:
-they are like the way St Paul’s on Pendrell & Jervis used to be.
-St Paul’s on Pendrell & Jervis was closed, old fashioned low Anglican.
-We are tying not to encourage this.
Well, I was a bit suprised as to how the Diocese Synod thinks and why?
Their theology is such and such a way
I attended the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada before going to St John’s.
I liked the live atmosphere, the sermons, the young people and how they make the bible seem so alive in the PAOC.
I found St John’s to be quiet similar and found it to be quite good.
I liked it.
The Diocesan Synod discussed and forms as described below.
Discussed 1972-2002 with around 2/3rds of clergy approving of the blessing of same-sex unions
There was a walkout by around 1/3 of the clergy.
Now the Diocese seem to now have two polarized extremes after this incident in 2002.
Michael Ingham was Secretary under Primate Michael Peers they developed the rite to bless same-sex unions
Secretary to Priest at St Francis in the Woods North Shore
to Bishop of the Diocese of New Westminister
The walkout affected both the Provinces of Canada and the USA.
The Head Bishops known as the Primates were asked to voluntarily withdraw from the Communion can come as observers
This followed by Parishes from both countries getting together.
Both counties felt disinchanted with their provinces
As a result of this a new Province was formed called ‘The Anglican Church of North America’
We now have another new extra province now at 37 from 36.
And now is in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada.
The situation seems in debate in the ELCC
Although structured like the Anglican Church government is reacting and dealing quiet similar to the Presbyterian Church of Canada.