The House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada recently met, and issued this Letter to the Church.
Earlier the new primate Archbishop Fred Hiltz had visited Lambeth Palace and the Anglican Communion Office. See this report:
…Throughout these visits, Archbishop Hiltz heard encouraging feedback about how the Anglican Church of Canada is dealing with the issue of same-sex blessings.
“It’s always nice to hear someone like the Archbishop of Canterbury or from the Anglican Communion Office say you’re handling this coherently, cautiously, judiciously, and you’ve got some things I would hold up as a model for others to consider as they grapple with the issue,” said Archbishop Hiltz. “Of course that’s very encouraging and I’m looking forward to sharing those kinds of reflections at the Council of General Synod and the House of Bishops. Because we need to hear that.”
Two dioceses have recently voted on the matter of same-sex blessings, see Anglican Journal reports:
Ottawa votes yes to same-sex blessings
Ottawa synod followed process, says primate
Montreal diocese becomes second to urge same-sex blessings
The second link is missing the ht part of http:
It should be http://www.anglican.ca/news/news.php?newsItem=2007-10-25_as.news
Gotta say, you just can’t beat that virtue of NOT being the Ugly Yanks, eh? ;-/
Well, JCF, people here HAVE wondered why it is that the AC of Canada doesn’t seem to get as much flack as TEC. All the same, our conservatives can still trump up claims of oppression. Our ex bishop recently spoke of “faithless” Anglicans in Canada! He neglected to mention who these were, of course, or his own record in fomenting schism. But it IS somewhat more difficult for Candian schjismatics to credibly put up the oppressed face.
Interesting reported remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury, that show the Covenant, should it ever happen, is intended to be based on Communion-process and not fellowship-belief.
Minor spelling correction, Ford ‘flak’ not ‘flack’ – from the WWII German flakartillerie, or anti-aircraft fire. Known, I believe, as ‘Archie’ in WWI….
Geek moment over:-)
Mynster,
Oh my. I’m quite the language geek myself, so this causes me some shame. That and my punctuation mistakes in recent posts. I’ll go hang my head now. Is this God telling me not to be so pretentious?
The flak-disparity might partly be explained by the difference in process. The Canadian Church – even in a “liberal” diocese like New Westminster – has proceeded more deliberatly and incrementally. In New West, Bishop Ingham actually twice withheld consent from synod resolutions calling for the authorization of same sex blessings, and required an intentional diocesan dialogue before proceeding. (Of course, that does not pre-empt the trumped up charge of oppression from the schismatics.) Although Canadian society is, in many regards, more progressive than American (universal health care and gay marriage to name two points), but we are more conservative about… Read more »
Rowan Williams has consistently said that his problem with New Hampshire is the order of events: he thinks that whether same sex relationships should be blessed should be resolved before making someone in a same sex relationship a bishop. The Canadians are therefore approaching things in the “right” order from his point of view. I don’t really agree with him because, obviously, those who participated in the election and consecration of Gene Robinson thought that he had the personal and spiritual qualities required of a bishop, and did not consider his same-sex life partner to be in breach of this.… Read more »
I agree with your last paragraph, badman, but not the second last. A sizable chunk of the Church thinks his sexuality and relationship status is an issue, whether or not the people of New Hampshire agree. He is duly elected and consecrated, but that is the issue. I do not dispute his status as bishop, or the certainty of the people of the diocese they were following the Spirit. But, they went ahead and, as NP is continually reminding us, did something they knew would cause this kind of trouble. From what I read of him, I think +VGR is… Read more »
Don’t get too stressed about typos and slight grammar faux pas. This kind of medium makes them inevitable. God knows we’re human and we are not required to be perfect. I liked the banter between David and Ford, it was done with good will. Remember, one of evil’s manifestations is as The Accusser – which is basically a nitpicking pain in the derrier. I often imagine God and The Accusser haggling over who is “in” and “out”. John the Baptist and Jesus can get away with things because they were conceived of Holy Spirit and thus “divine”, but all the… Read more »
Cheryl and Ford, while I sometimes see spelling and grammar as adiaphora, I think it is better that we do check our spelling and grammar even in a medium where mistakes are inevitable. I have been recently convinced by the likes of Lynne Truss that this is something valuable for the English tongue. Such caution forces us, sometimes, to be careful with what we mean. The Holy Spirit speaks through fragile vessels, and awareness of that fragility is something both of you have pointed out. More importantly, and this is how I connect it to the Canadians, what I admire… Read more »
Ford Elms —
Actually, it seems unfair to blame the people of one diocese, since their choice was ratified by the General Convention of The Episcopal Church.
At the time I certainly did not believe it would lead to schism in the Anglican Communion (or, since the WWAC is NOT “a” or “the” “church” is it even correct to talk about “schism”?)
“At the time I certainly did not believe it would lead to schism in the Anglican Communion” Even for me, this is surprising. I thought it was pretty obvious that if TEC went ahead with the consecration of +VGR there would be major upheavels and, in all likelihood, schism. What basis was there for thinking this WOULDN’T happen? I always thought TEC was quite clear on the consequences, but felt so strongly about the issue they felt it right to act. I would be quite disappointed in TEC if, instead of forging ahead with something they felt strongly about, whether… Read more »
Prior…..NH was in tune with the GC province….. but the same goes for one province making a unilateral change, despite ALL the primates asking them not to given the obvious resultant damage to the AC, and the province then demanding that all accept its innovation is equally valid.
Not acceptable behaviour….first convince people that what you want is not “incompatible with scripture” before doing it, TEC HOB
“…first convince people that what you want is not “incompatible with scripture” before doing it, TEC HOB”
And if you truly believe the Spirit is acting in your decision, but you are unable to convince those other people, what then?
Why should what I perceive as the errors of others prevent me from doing what I think is right?
Ford, I just read your last entry. I knew the last paragraph was deliberat… I mean deliberate.
Have a good weekend everyone!
No, NP, the level of sheer anti-gay aggression unleashed in recent years by people claiming to be Anglican could not have been predicted. In the 1970s, when mainstream British society, for example, was very homophobic, the C of E provided a tolerant space for a lot of gay people. I remember in the 80s when David Jenkins became Bishop of Durham, there was a lot of controversy over his appointment because he questioned what were seen as key doctrines, yet no-one broke communion over that. It simply has not been (is not) the Anglican way to make such an angry… Read more »
Mark – sorry, but it is very Christian to not accept false teaching or contradictions to clear scripture…..we are to judge teaching and reject what is false…..1 Cor 5:12 is just one example but Genesis to Rev is clear on this….the truth is revealed and matters and holiness matter too, especually for those “saved by grace” (Romans 6)….. Pat says “And if you truly believe the Spirit is acting in your decision, but you are unable to convince those other people, what then?” -Well, if you are really convinced but cannot convince many others, then consider whether you are right….prayerfully,… Read more »
“Why should what I perceive as the errors of others prevent me from doing what I think is right?” Because you are a human being, broken by the Fall, and therefor might well have it wrong? Because the fallibility of individual decision making requires us to seek a group concensus, and the Church has traditionally seen that, as far as it can be reached, as evidence of the working of the Spirit? Because one member of a global body can be argued to be individual in a sense in this context, and, like individuals, still get things wrong? Though the… Read more »
Comments here should relate to Canada. That’s C a n a d a.
Thank you.
Canadian – a person who will apologize to you if you step on his foot.
Malcolm – a person who makes fatuous generalisations.
No, Andrew. I’m just a Canadian with an appreciation for self-deprecating humour.
You might try humour. It could sweeten your disposition.
Malcolm,
It has also been brought to my attention that the American constitution begins “We the people” while the BNA Act began “Whereas the provinces…” Pierre Burton said the difference is that the Americans are in love with liberty, Canadians are in love with order.” I think it’s true. At least out here, we have an attitude toward government that is pretty much the exact opposite of the American concepts.