6/6/2004 3:46:38 PM
SELAH Down here, it was noted that the Church of England will soon publish a book of modern prayers which will include an updated version of the 23rd Psalm. Well if the church wants to sound like the world, thinks the Telegraph's Oliver Pritchett, it's only fair that the world should start sounding like the church. Here are two of his suggestions:
Rejoice and clap your hands, O ye daughters of Nuneaton, and be glad, ye sons of Tring, and ye who drive the latest top-of-the-range BMW, for in three miles I have prepared for you a service area, so that you may refresh yourselves in its clear waters and your babes and sucklings may have snacks in abundance and there shall be toilet facilities, yea also for the disabled.
I say unto him who cries out in a loud voice that I will hearken unto him. Let him tell of his affliction and make his suffering plain. Let him speak of the scornful who persecute him. If he sees nothing but deceit, slander and iniquity in his gas bill let him not despair, but let him press the star button now.
Thanks to Captain J. M. Heinrichs.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 0 comments
6/6/2004 3:17:43 PM
THAT'S GOTTA HURT For several decades now, many western liberals have put Third Worlders and indigenous peoples on a pedestal. Theirs is a modern version of Rousseau's noble savage; to the left, Third Worlders/indigenes are less corrupted by modernity than Westerners. Their art and music is more basic, their ceremonies and celebrations are more real and their worship is more pure. They are, in short, believed to be closer and more pleasing to God than Europeans or Euro-Americans.
Although it has been far from perfect, New Zealand has always been more zealous than most countries to protect the rights of its indigenous peoples(although theory often excelled practice). The 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, for example, which was intended to protect Maori rights was signed shortly after the United States got done expelling the Five Civilized Tribes from their eastern lands.
Good liberal institution that it is, the Anglican Church of New Zealand divided itself into three cultural sections representing the cultural groups of New Zealand and each section runs its own affairs. The head of the Maori section, Whakahuihui Vercoe, was recently elected the church's Primate. Vercoe has been outspoken on Maori issues and on the protection of his people's rights. But the new Primate has a decidedly different view of certain other people:
He is a mix of contradictions, with compassionate words of love for all, yet agreeing with Winston Peters on immigration issues and refusing to condone gays in the priesthood.
But an archbishop is not a Pope. His is not the final word on Anglican policy and he accepts he may be outvoted on issues, including whether gay people should be ordained.
Personally, he is against it, full-stop. It is a matter of morality. Homosexuality is "unnatural". He says it is an "abomination" to the dark races.
But while he condemns the sin, he says he does not condemn the gay person.
Hate the sin, love the sinner, huh? The libs don't like that one much.
Then why can't they be priests? He pauses.
"Well, you see, it's gone further than that. It's not only that they want to be priests, they want to be married and for me that makes a nonsense of marriage.
"According to the Christian faith marriage is between a man and a woman for the procreation of children."
Vercoe is amazingly blunt for a modern Anglican:
In his first big interview since his appointment, he told the Weekend Herald he believed that homosexuality was unnatural and not morally right.
"And that's not quoting scripture either ... I'm just basing it on my human - I'spose I should be basing it on scripture also, but I'm basing it on human accepted norms."
Bishop Vercoe says he does not condemn homosexuals as individuals, rather he loves them as people, but he says ordination is like saying it is all right to have same-sex marriages and same-sex parents.
By that, I assume he means that he thinks both same-sex marriages and same-sex parents are really, really, really, really, really bad things. Don't plan on addressing any ECUSA gatherings any time soon, Bishop. And Vercoe has a vision for the future that Gene Robinson won't much like:
One day society would find homosexuality unacceptable, he said.
"It may not come in our time but it will come. There will be a strong reaction, well, for later generations, we [will] suddenly discover a morality, a new morality."
Over to you, Frank. Sucks when they start developing different opinions about issues than the ones you want them to have, doesn't it?
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 7 comments
6/5/2004 7:13:03 PM
WE HAPPY FEW - Anglicanism in North America is not yet defeated, not by a long shot. Will Duquette reports from Plano West.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 9 comments
6/5/2004 4:14:08 PM
REST IN PEACE - Ronald Reagan was one of the five most important figures of the 20th Century. His resolute stand against Communism in the 1980's drove the last nail into the coffin of that evil system and he reordered American politics as much as Franklin Roosevelt did; indeed, he ought to replace the elephant as the symbol of the Republican Party. And his final struggle with Alzheimer's is one that is intimately familiar to me. Ronald Wilson Reagan has died at the age of 93. UPDATE: You won't read too many better eulogies than this one.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 8 comments
6/5/2004 1:50:40 PM
LORDS HAW-HAW The deaths of some reporters during the Iraq war(such as Michael Kelly) have been great tragedies. But the following story illustrates why the fates of other members of the media will probably not bother me all that much:
Coalition soldiers questioned two news media cameramen and a reporter after a roadside bomb exploded near a Coalition convoy two kilometers north of Mosul June 3.
The media, who were at the scene prior to the attack, told soldiers at the scene they had received a tip to be at that location prior to the attack and they had witnessed the explosion.
There was minimal damage to a Coalition vehicle, a cracked windshield, and no serious injuries.
3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division soldiers requested the media accompany them to a base camp in Mosul to answer questions as witnesses to the incident. The news media representatives left the base camp in the mid afternoon.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 6 comments
6/5/2004 12:40:02 PM
THROUGH HIS FREAKING TEETH In a way, this is actually kind of impressive. You will have to search for a very long time before you find a story in any newspaper of any persuasion anywhere in the world that is more mind-bendingly dishonest than this Stephen Bates report in the Guardian. Seems Steve's upset that worldwide Anglican unity might be endangered by the actions of certain Canadian Anglicans at the Anglican Church of Canada's General Synod. Which dastardly Canadian Anglicans have put the Communion at risk? Ayup:
An attempt by Canadian Anglicans to maintain the fragile unity of the worldwide communion by postponing a decision on authorising gay blessings was shattered within hours yesterday when evangelical church leaders warned of "devastating consequences" of a positive message sent to gay and lesbian couples.
Villains! Blackguards! The "positive message" Steve's referring to is the one that:
affirms the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same-sex relationships.
The one that the Globe & Mail reports was smuggled through with little debate and voted on by a show of hands so that nobody had to go on record. The one that ended the theological discussion the ACC committed itself to before it even began. That "positive message." But you just don't get it, man, says Steve. Some bigots homophobes Klansmen Nazis conservatives actually...oh dear whatever Guardian staffers pray to...complained about it:
A minority of Canadian bishops took to the platform unexpectedly at the church's synod near Niagara to denounce an earlier amendment affirming the sanctity and integrity of committed adult same-sex relationships.
The nine Canadian bishops, about a third of the total, took the synod by surprise when they announced the amendment was "in error and contrary to the teaching of scripture and the tradition of the undivided church".
Scoundrels! Jackanapes! They made Hutch look bad and everything:
The criticisms also took Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, the newly elected primate of the Canadian church, by surprise. He had submerged his previous support for gay blessings in favour of a delay in order to preserve international solidarity.
He said he was "obviously very disappointed to hear that kind of statement because it speaks of division", making it clear the bishops had not let him know what they were planning.
Steve reluctantly admits that there's a microscopic possibility that there's an electron-microscopic chance that there may just possibly have been a sub-atomic bit of politics involved:
The amendment was taken up to affirm that the church still welcomed gays - although, with both liberals and traditionalists jockeying for position, there may have been ulterior motives in presenting it as a compromise.
Neither side wants to be blamed for breaking up the church. But both are accusing each other of attempting to do so by pre-empting a report on the issue by the Archbishop of Ireland, Robin Eames, which is due in October.
Let's see. In both the US and Canada, Anglican liberals tried, by the approval of Gene Robinson in the US and the approval of this "affirmation" in Canada, to create facts on the ground, shut down the debate and change the church's theology while claiming to have done nothing at all. Orthodox Anglicans in both countries are attempting to hold on to the faith once delivered unto the saints. Yeah, I'd say that both sides are equally at fault here.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 1 comments
6/4/2004 2:07:23 PM
A NORTH AMERICAN SYNOD? What are we to make of the Anglican Church of Canada's recent General Synod? Essentially, the same thing happened in Canada that happened in the United States last year. On Wednesday, the ACC committed itself to more talking about the theology of same-sex marriages. On Thursday, it closed down debate. After all, if the ACC thinks same-sex "relationships" now have "sanctity," what else is there to discuss?
This Synod has just given perfect cover to Michael Ingham. He can now, in the name of "church order," finish off the remaining orthodox parishes in New Westminster(how the last few days will affect alternate oversight in Canada is anyone's guess). Mike will piously proclaim that the the church has, in its wisdom decided that same-sex relationships are holy, New Westminster's going to keep on blessing them so you're going have to do so as well or keep your schismatic opinions to yourselves. And he will, of course, talk a lot about a movement of the "Spirit."
What should be done now? A commenter at Kendall Harmon's made this interesting suggestion:
What needs to happen now in my opinion is the calling of a North American Anglican synod which the Archbishop of the West Indies, Drexel Gomes (as the only legitimate primate of the continent) could preside over. He could call to it any bishops he wanted (including TAC and/or REC ones if he chose) and that synod could be the true and valid synod for North America. They could vote on a constitution, canons, Prayer Book, budget, etc. And then they could try, in absentia if necessary, the heretical and schismatic Anglican bishops of North America. Such a synod could then argue it be recognized by Canterbury, York, and all the other Anglican Primates as the true synod and legitimate hierarchy of Anglicans in North America.
Would such an idea fly? There doesn't seem to be any bar against it; the Anglican Communion Network does not seem to bar Canadian parishes or clergy and, at this point, it is difficult to imagine men like Pittsburgh's Robert Duncan, Fort Worth's Jack Iker and other Episcopal conservatives turning it down. And I don't think worries about "collegiality" would stop such a meeting anymore.
When or whether such a synod could ever take place any time soon rests with the Canadian orthodox bishops. And their statement released yesterday would seem to throw cold water on the idea. While their assessment of the Synod agrees with mine:
In recent days the Synod has made a number of contradictory decisions which may be causing confusion in the Church. On the one hand, the Synod has deferred a decision concerning the blessing of same sex unions for three years in order to explore whether such ceremonies would be a matter of doctrine. This consideration will need to be engaged by all 34 synods of the Anglican church of Canada. On the other hand the Synod appears to have pre-empted this work by summarily expressing the opinion that it affirms the “sanctity” of committed adult same sex relationships.
They don't seem to be at all amenable to any radical moves at the present time:
We urge Anglicans across Canada distressed by this expression of opinion not to despair and urge them to take their full part in the diocesan and provincial synods which will contribute to a decision of whether this is a doctrinal matter.
However, their statement clearly indicated where their sentiments lie and contained a shot across Mike Ingham's bow:
We express our sorrow particularly to the Inuit and Indigenous churches whose representatives spoke clearly to the Synod but whose voices were ignored. We express our appreciation to the Bishops and people and churches of the Global South who have implored our Church unsuccessfully to abide by the mind of the Communion. We express our appreciation to all the people in the congregations of the ACiNW, and assure them of our ongoing support, and full recognition.
What's going to happen in the Anglican world? Will Canadian and American conservatives make common cause? I have no idea. At present, the Canadians don't seem terribly enthusiastic about the idea. But depending on the Lambeth Commission report, that could radically change.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 13 comments
6/3/2004 8:55:14 PM
LOOSE LIPS Niagra's Dave Ponting gives the game away:
Although I make no claims to being a theological wiz kid I can’t help but feel the inclusion of the word “sanctity” in this amendment is huge. The word is packed with deep theological meaning around one’s understanding of the concept of holiness. Many will argue the amended motion clears the way for proponents to act locally with the directional blessing of General Synod. I am not sure if that is a good interpretation. With the motions of last night and this morning taken together this General Synod has sent very mixed messages to the church and wider community. The amendment may very well be pre-emptive of the doctrinal debate over the next three years. I suspect several Canadian dioceses will accelerate the dialogue without waiting for the 2007 General Synod.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 10 comments
6/3/2004 12:40:51 PM
DELAYING THE INEVITABLE The Lusitania is still afloat. But the U-boat has her in its sights:
The Anglican Church of Canada approved a measure Thursday to "affirm the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same-sex relationships."
The move stops short of authorizing dioceses to hold same-sex blessing ceremonies, but is still likely to complicate efforts aimed at unifying the 77 million-member Anglican Communion. The worldwide Anglican body is deeply divided over homosexuality.
Why did the ACC pass this measure? Penance. Its refusal to authorize same-sex marriages made the ACC commit the greatest of all possible Anglican sins. Hurting the feelings of homosexuals:
Delegates to a national church meeting handed the victory to supporters of gays and lesbians as a consolation prize the morning after they voted to delay any national go-ahead on church blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples until 2007 and possibly 2010.
The last-minute "sanctity" measure was introduced by Canon Garth Bulmer from the Ottawa diocese.
Rev. Dennis Drainville of the Quebec diocese, who seconded Bulmer's motion, told delegates the church needs to express compassion.
"This says to thousands of people that we love you, we include you among the faithful, we seek to live with you, to work with you, to know you," he said.
Even the ECUSA wouldn't go this far:
Its "sanctity" measure also goes beyond wording put on paper by the Episcopal Church in the United States. The American church passed a measure last year acknowledging that some dioceses are allowing same-sex blessing ceremonies, but not affirming the practice as a national policy.
There are still a few names, even in Canada, which have not defiled their garments:
But Rev. Peter Moore, a former Toronto rector now in the United States as president of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, said Bulmer's bill "seems to intentionally confuse the voice with which the Canadian church speaks on sexual morality, which undercuts the church's ability to speak on anything."
Can you say "facts on the ground?" Knew you could:
"I'm content because this does give us more time for all parties to engage in a very important discussion," said Montreal Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, who was selected Monday as the Canadian Anglican Church's new leader.
And because the church didn't vote against giving a blessing, each of the country's 30 dioceses can still choose to do so if they wish, he noted.
"Constitutionally, because there is no inhibiting legislation at the level of general synod, it does leave diocese at liberty to make their own decisions," he said.
The Anglican Church of Canada did not take the serious step that many thought they'd take yesterday. They took a far worse one today. They've now affirmed the "sanctity" of "committed adult same-sex relationships," something even ECUSA wouldn't do. And new Primate Andrew Hutchison just indicated that nothing would happen to any diocese that wanted to perform same-sex marriages.
This is not quite the shot to the back of Church House's neck that it may appear; measures passed can also be repealed. But orthodox Canadian Anglicans should disabuse themselves of their illusions and begin reorienting their thinking. This measure and the closeness of yesterday's vote to delay things(164-130) means that Canadian Anglicanism's split has begun.
UPDATE: A torpedo's just been fired. The Third World's not buying it:
Warm greetings from the Bahamas where a group has been meeting in theological consultation about the current crisis in the Anglican Communion. Word has come to us of very serious actions of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada. We note the decision to defer paragraph (2) of resolution A-134 to the Primates Theological Committee for a determination as to whether or not the implementation of liturgies for the blessing of same-sex unions represents a doctrinal change.
We are sad, however, that the General Synod of the ACC has passed an amendment to resolution A-134 which has the effect of negating the deferral of paragraph 2 to the Primates Theological Committee. In our view, the amendment is much more serious than even the original form of the motion which did not describe the nature of same-sex unions.
The amendment goes much further than the original motion in employing expressions which Scripture uses to describe marriage (Eph 5:25-33). In accordance with Scripture, your own Prayer Book uses this language in its marriage service. It is completely unacceptable to Bible believing orthodox Christians that same-sex unions are described as "holy." Such language is reserved for marriage alone.
The attempt to give "committed adult same sex relationships" the same theological stature as marriage exacerbates the crisis in the communion and will reap devastating consequences.
We stand in solidarity with you as you seek to maintain catholic faith and practice and to reject such innovations. Please be sure we are praying for you in this critical time in the life of the church.
Archbishop Drexel Gomez
on behalf of the Theological Consultation in Nassau, June 3. 2004
UPDATE: Looks like this measure was snuck through. From the Globe & Mail:
Last-minute manoeuvring at a meeting of Anglican Church of Canada leaders has unexpectedly caused the church to “affirm the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same-sex relationships.”
The decision comes a day after the delegates seemed to have deferred the controversial issue for three years. But, although Canadian Anglicans woke up Thursday morning thinking that divisive topic had been dropped for now, it was back on the agenda in St. Catharines, Ont.
The bravery was awe-inspiring:
After debate that a conservative faction within the church said was cut unreasonably short, delegates voted to approve it by a show of hands. The process has left these conservatives furious and worried about the reaction of other Anglican churches.
Screw other Anglican churches, says Hutch:
Anglican unity was cited as a reason to spurn the motion originally tabled, which would have allowed each diocese could decide for itself whether to offer to bless same-sex couples. But the new primate of the Canadian church, Andrew Hutchison, said this week that unity, while important, should not be a goal in and of itself.
The second torpedo's on its way.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 23 comments
6/2/2004 6:59:31 PM
ECUMENISM The Anglican Church of Australia has a serious sexual abuse scandal of its own:
John Mountford was chaplain at Adelaide's exclusive St Peters College when he invited a young male boarder to his home one Friday night in early June 1992.
Mountford and the boarder knew each other well, the student having worked as an assistant sacristan in the Anglican school's chapel. But Mountford was contemplating a sinister turn in their relationship.
He plied the pupil with wine and told him to undress and get into bed with another male house guest, a young Balinese male who had returned with the chaplain from a holiday in Bali. Mountford then climbed into bed and indecently assaulted the student. The boy got out of the bed and, dressed in a T-shirt, ran to his housemaster's home and told him of the assault.
According to the report, it is now clear that Mountford, a Briton reportedly living in Bangkok, was a serial sex offender during his short tenure from 1991 to 1992.
This situation has a unique feature. The Anglican Archbishop of Adelaide may, and I emphasize may, have been involved in an obstruction of justice:
But it is the church's dealings with Mountford that has engulfed the archbishop of its Adelaide diocese, Ian George. Details of the assault appear in a 92-page report by an independent board of inquiry into the church's handling of up to 200 cases of abuse.
The report, which refers to Mountford as POI9, says the boarder's complaint was pursued by the school's then headmaster Richard Birchnall and his deputy on Saturday morning. Mountford "acknowledged the truth of the complaint". He was sacked and told to leave the school premises immediately.
The report claims George was told of the matter the same morning, learning later that Mountford and his Balinese house guest were staying at the home of a friend, another member of the Anglican clergy, in Adelaide's south. The archbishop visited the home at about midday.
The report says Mountford was "highly distressed" after speaking with George, telling his friend that the church leader had told him that "unless he departed Australia within 24 hours, the matter would be reported to the police". Flights were booked for the same day, and Mountford and his house guest were on a flight to Bali by 4pm on Saturday.
The board of inquiry thinks someone ordered Mountford to leave but couldn't say for sure whether it was George:
"It is plain that someone in authority did instruct POI9 to immediately leave the country, although, in the absence of direct evidence from him, the board is unable to make a specific finding of the identity of that person with confidence," the board says.
George denied that he suggested that Mountford leave the country:
"Anyone who knows us knows that this suggestion is simply wrong," the archbishop said. "It is important for me to state that neither I (nor), to my knowledge, any bishop or senior member of the church has sought in any way to impede proper police investigation."
But some letters appear to cut the ground out from under the Archbishop's denial:
George denies he made any suggestion to Mountford about leaving the country. Yet the report's authors point to an exchange of letters between the archbishop and the disgraced chaplain after he left the country. Mountford refers to the fact that he had been "advised to flee the country", while the archbishop responded nearly 12 months later, concluding: "Both the school and I would do exactly the same if it happened tomorrow. You have been a very lucky person to have survived without the horror of court proceedings and the indignity of public disgrace."
As does this:
[George] also asserted on Monday that the victim's family did not want the matter reported. But the facts outlined in the report show that the headmaster failed in his obligation to report the matter to the state's community services department until a fortnight later. The school failed to launch an inquiry into Mountford's conduct and police "were eventually notified on June 23 via an officer of the department".
"The board would point out that, if the actions of the person who threatened POI9 were prompted by a desire to negate what was considered to be an undesirable police investigation and successful prosecution, then serious questions may well arise as to whether a criminal offence may have been committed," the report says.
The school told the board of inquiry there was no need for an investigation at the time of the June assault. But the board points to two important indicators that were "simply ignored".
First, Mountford had returned from a holiday in Bali with the young Balinese male, who stayed with him on the school campus for up to 15 weeks, and Birchnall had been aware of the young male's willingness to participate in the sexual activities on the Friday night.
Second, after the assault, the student repeatedly contacted the school, while undergoing psychiatric treatment, to find where Mountford had gone. He had no luck but told the inquiry he eventually spoke with the archbishop, who told him Mountford had "gone overseas on urgent family business". The archbishop denied any memory of the conversation.
This scandal goes back decades and doesn't just involve Adelaide:
Again and again, in detailed scenarios with names carefully edited out, the officers of the church and the church as an organisation are found to have obstructed justice, harboured and warned offenders in its midst, and treated victims with thinly disguised contempt. But while the inquiry heard evidence from 85 witnesses and its staff interviewed a further 47 people, the inquiry has found no answers to a couple of issues.
First, there is a missing June 1998 letter from the then bishop of Tasmania, Phillip Newel, to the Adelaide diocese warning about the abusive behaviours of a man who would later be exposed as a one of Australia's most rampant pedophiles, Robert Brandenburg.
During the course of Brandenburg's 30-year "career" with the Church of England Boys Society in South Australia and Tasmania, the board of inquiry says, "it is possible that his victims numbered in excess of 80 young lads".
In its attempt to establish who among the church hierarchy knew about Brandenburg and what they did about him, the board notes testimony from a witness, POI2, that Brandenburg fondled him and other boys on holiday in Tasmania in about 1977-78.
POI2 said a complaint to his parents led to a meeting with an Anglican office- holder, POI23, at which Brandenburg had admitted the alleged conduct and was reprimanded.
This is the earliest time at which the Anglican Church appears to have become aware of Brandenburg's abuse and the reports says "it appears that nothing further was done at the time".
It is clear the board of inquiry is incredulous that nobody in the Anglican Church acted against Brandenburg from the time Anglican officers became aware of complaints in 1977, perhaps earlier. The position of Phillip Aspinall in the "shell game" of who knew what and when was clearly of interest to the board of inquiry.
Aspinall became involved in CEBS in Tasmania, first as a boy in the 1970s, then in 1980 as field officer, state secretary, national delegate and leader and training commissioner. He knew three CEBS leaders known to have abused boys: two Tasmanian priests since jailed, including Louis Daniels and Brandenburg, from the Adelaide parish of Magill.
In June 1998, just before Brandenburg's abuse was reported in the Tasmanian press, Aspinall moved from Tasmania to Adelaide, where he was consecrated an assistant bishop.
Despite the letter Newell sent to Adelaide and Aspinall's long history with CEBS, it was his testimony to the board of inquiry that Brandenburg had not been discussed with Newell. Further, Aspinall denies ever seeing the letter from Newell advising of Brandenburg and Daniels's then alleged sex abuse.
Australian police have started an investigation, Australian politicians are demanding one as well, and the Premier of South Australia is demanding Mountford's extradition. One prays that these investigations move swiftly and vigorously and follow leads wherever they go. And if archbishops are found to have obstructed justice, archbishops should go to jail. The Anglican Church of Australia had better cooperate fully and completely in any investigation into this matter, protecting no one and claiming no special "rights," or it will richly deserve whatever fate awaits it. Including extinction.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 11 comments
6/2/2004 3:51:56 PM
CANADA BLINKS The Anglican Church of Canada pulls its resolution allowing same-sex marriages:
A proposal authorizing Anglican Church of Canada dioceses to provide blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples was pulled Wednesday, just hours before a scheduled vote on the matter at a national church meeting.
The move reflected caution and confusion among church delegates over the impact the go-ahead would have on the Canadian church - and internationally in the 77 million-member Anglican Communion of which it's a part.
World Anglicanism is already severely split over consecration of an openly gay bishop by the Episcopal Church in the United States.
It remained possible that liberals would try to restore the original proposal to allow "local option'' on gay policies, meaning each diocese gets to decide for itself whether to allow the blessing ceremonies.
It could possibly be another six years before the ACC officially allows same-sex marriages, if they ever do:
A revised proposal calls for a two-year study of whether same-sex rituals are "a matter of doctrine,'' delaying action till the next national meeting in 2007. That measure appeared to be gaining momentum on Wednesday afternoon.
If the 2007 meeting decides doctrine is involved but wants to allow same-sex unions, that would require amendment of church law at two consecutive meetings - further delaying any approval until at least 2010.
UPDATE: The liberals admit that the votes were not there:
The activists behind a controversial push to have the Anglican Church of Canada allow the recognition of same-sex couples have offered a compromise that would defer the issue for at least three years.
Late Wednesday afternoon, hours before the original motion was to come to a vote at a meeting of the Canadian church's leaders, an amendment was introduced that would refer the issue back to the House of Bishops for study. Under the proposal, the earliest the issue could come to a vote would be 2007.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 14 comments
6/1/2004 8:03:19 PM
DISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM The Church of England gives orthodox British Anglicans yet another reason to run, not walk, to another Christian denomination:
They are, after the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments, possibly the most famous words in the Bible.
But now the 23rd Psalm, undoubtedly the best-known and best-loved in the English language, has had a makeover.
In a new version published by the Church of England, the words: "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil" are replaced by: "Even if a full-scale violent confrontation breaks out I will not be afraid, Lord." The new version shares with the traditional one the opening line "The Lord is my shepherd", but the psalmist goes on: "He lets me see a country of justice and peace and directs me towards this land" and that His "shepherd's power and love protect me" - instead of "thy rod and thy staff they comfort me".
So if a localized, regional, violent confrontation breaks out, feel free to go ahead and wet yourself. This abomination version will, however, not be official. God's editors are merely using Holy Scripture to make Important Political Points:
The 23rd Psalm, rewritten by Pastor Kameeta, of Namibia, is included in the book Pocket Prayers For Justice And Peace, which has been compiled by the charity Christian Aid and will be published in October by Church House Publishing, the Church's books division. A Church House spokesman said: "It is not the Church's new official version of the 23rd Psalm. All the prayers are focused on issues such as debt, the developing world and fair trade.
"The publishers hope people will take a fresh look at some of these issues." He said the King James version of the psalm "stands for all time and will still be used in churches".
For now. We've still got some more racists Nazis Klansmen homophobes conservatives to run off first. Thanks to Tim Blair.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 12 comments
6/1/2004 5:37:41 PM
FRIENDS FOR LIFE The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington will perform a blessing service for a gay couple at a Prince George's County church next month, the first time a bishop has conducted the service in the diocese.
Bishop John Chane will perform the ritual June 12 at St. George's Episcopal Church in Glenn Dale for the parish's pastor, the Rev. Michael Hopkins, and his partner, John Bradley
Although not a marriage ceremony, the blessing is a recognition by the diocese of the gay couple's partnership, according to diocese spokesman Jim Naughton.
"It is a way for the church to say, 'Yes, we affirm the goodness and holiness of the love between these two people,'" he said. "We can't at this point sacramentalize it, but we can bless it."
"Reverend? Have you got a minute?"
"Certainly, Chris. What's on your mind?"
"I understand that the diocese now has a ritual for blessing committed, long-term relationships.'
"That's correct."
"Well I've got one that I'd like the church to bless. My friend and I have known each other for a long time, practically since we were kids. I can vent, open up, anything I need, and my friend's as patient as the Rock of Gibralter. We're closer than family, my friend and I."
"I understand."
"I don't think this needs to be a big production. I was thinking maybe we could do it in front of a few friends in the chapel, maybe a little dinner afterwards."
"Of course, Chris! That sounds wonderful. When would you like to have the ceremony?"
"My friend e-mailed me that she's going to be in town around the end of the month so I guess that we could..."
"Excuse me. Did you just say 'she?'"
"Yes, that's right. Her name's Susan. She's never been my girlfriend or anything although that thought briefly occurred to me a long time ago. She moved away, went to school out of state, got married and started a family of her own but we've made a point of staying in touch. She's the closest friend I have."
"So you want to...marry this person?"
"No. I just want to have our relationship blessed in church. I read somewhere that Jim Naughton of the Diocese of Washington said this kind of thing is good and holy and I agree wholeheartedly. Is there a problem?"
"You see...the thing is...uh...we don't really do that."
"But you just said there's this new ritual."
"That's just for couples of the same sex. You don't happen to have a male friend you're particularly close to, do you? Because this new ritual is only for same-sex couples since the Episcopal Church won't let them get married. I mean, we don't have a canon for what you want to do."
"So if Susan and I wanted to have our relationship blessed in a church, we'd have to get married?"
"Yes, that's right."
"That implies that the Episcopal Church believes that a man can't possibly have a close personal friendship with a woman unless there's sex involved."
"No, no, that's not what we're..."
"And that the Church's sole criterion for judging any 'committed relationship' is whether there's some variety of sex going on."
"No, no, no, no, of course not! The Church is...We're just...we...you see, it's...it's...oh, will you look at the time? I've got a meeting with the bishop here soon and I've got to, um, get some papers ready. In my office. Listen, I'll, uh, get back to you about this as soon as possible. Have a great day." Slam!
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 16 comments
6/1/2004 11:53:36 AM
TACKING TO PORT Canada, amazingly enough, opts for a liberal:
Montreal's Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, regarded as a liberal in the divisive dispute over homosexuality, was elected Monday as new national leader of Anglican Church of Canada.
Hutchison was chosen as primate on the fourth ballot over Bishop Ronald Ferris of Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., a conservative on the issue.
"Regarded as a liberal," Gracie?
In 1998, after a meeting the world's Anglican bishops voted overwhelmingly to oppose actively gay clergy and blessing rituals for same-sex couples as "incompatible with Scripture," Hutchison joined 146 bishops in issuing a dissent.
The group, which included Canada's retiring primate, Archbishop Michael Peers, apologized to gays and lesbians over the action and pledged to "work for your full inclusion in the life of the church."
And this should pretty much settle the issue of Hutchison's leftist street cred:
The man who led Bishop Robinson's consecration, U.S. Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, will preach at Hutchison's formal installation Friday.
I guess Church House has received the script because Hutchison blathered about "mission" some:
He said his main priority would be “for our church to redirect its energy, rediscover our purpose and reclaim our mission. Circumstances outside the church have forced us in recent years to become introspective and to focus on who we are as a church and on our church structure. I want to see us look outward and refocus our attention on our mission so the world will see the church and say ‘see those Christians, see how they love one another’ and want to be part of it. The church exists for the world, not for the church.”
And trotted out this now-classic bit of Anglican sophistry:
Asked about his views of same-sex blessings, one of the most controversial topics General Synod members are grappling with during their nine-day meeting in this Southern Ontario city, Archbishop Hutchison said that the concept of such blessings were much less of a problem for him than the idea of same-sex marriages.
All you really need to know about this pick is that Integrity Canada is down with it. But with this election and the same-sex resolution coming up Wednesday, orthodox Canadian Anglicans may begin hitting the streets very soon as the Anglican Church of Canada is well on its way to ECUSA-level irrelevance.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 10 comments
5/31/2004 12:46:53 PM
CANTERBURY BEGS Canon Gregory Cameron, an envoy from Rowan Williams, bluntly warned the Anglican Church of Canada that approval of homosexual marriage could destroy the Anglican Communion:
The liberal Canadian Church has been told that worldwide Anglicanism could disintegrate if it paved the way to homosexual "marriages" this week.
In unusually blunt language, Canon Gregory Cameron, a senior official close to the Archbishop of Canterbury, gave the warning to the Canadian General Synod in Niagara on Saturday.
Canon Cameron said the decision it was about to make was "about as serious as it could get".
His comments reflected the growing fears of Anglican leaders that their efforts to avert schism over homosexuality would be "holed below the waterline" if the Canadians permitted gay blessings.
But the intervention by Canon Cameron, who was effectively acting as Dr Rowan Williams's envoy, angered many Canadians, who resented what they saw as outside interference.
We see once again that Dr. Williams' primary concern is institutional:
If it is passed, the Synod will have defied Dr Williams's pleas for restraint on all sides. The decision could provoke a profound split that would lead to millions of conservative Anglicans breaking their ties with the Church's liberal wing.
The stakes are so high that Dr Williams backed the risky strategy of sending Canon Cameron to address the Synod despite fears that it might unleash a liberal backlash.
Certainly not Scriptural:
The Synod needed to be aware of their "sisters and brothers" in Africa and Asia who were wondering whether the West was prepared to pay any attention to their beliefs.
"Nor should we decry their motives," he said. "This is no game playing. On both sides people are acting out of profound convictions that this is what God calls them to."
"If you say 'no' to the motions before you, you will be in danger of letting down the gay people in your midst, who are your Canadian family, as well as all those others who are looking towards the Anglican Church of Canada to set a new standard of dealing with this issue.
"But if you say 'yes', the work of the Lambeth Commission becomes horribly complicated. We will be told that the Anglican Church of Canada refuses to hear the voice and to heed the concerns of your fellow Anglicans in the growing provinces of the Global South, who are your international family."
Will any of this matter? Probably not. I don't know what the chances of same-sex marriage passing the current General Synod are; this is the site to consult for that. I tend to think that fence-sitters might be tempted to vote in favor just to assert Canadian independence.
And Canadian liberals are just as unconcerned with the Scriptural views of the rest of the Anglican world as their American counterparts. And just like the Americans, the Canadians have shown that they won't let a trifle like the Word of God get in the way of making a political point.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 24 comments
5/30/2004 6:58:06 PM
PLAY NICE Meanwhile in the Great White North, acting Primate David Crawley really hopes that the Anglican Church of Canada stays in a good mood when it apostatizes votes on same-sex marriage:
In an opening address to more than 300 Anglican members of the church's highest governing body, Archbishop David Crawley, the Acting Primate, urged them to move away from the "harsh, vituperative and unacceptable" language that has often been used on both sides of the debate over the blessing of same-sex unions.
"We all feel deeply about this issue," Archbishop Crawley said, "but that is no excuse to descend into the depths. The judgmentalism and the profoundly personal nature of some comments, both private and public, could never reflect the nature of the Realm of God, no matter what you understand it to be."
What kind of "harsh, vituperative and unacceptable" language did the Crawley King Snake have in mind? This, basically:
My examples will come from one side, because that's the kind of letters I get. A letter that says: "I hope I never have to stand next to you, because when God strikes you dead... I don't want to be covered with bits of burnt cowardly episcopal guts." Now, at least he didn't sign it "yours faithfully" [laughter] .. but you'd be surprised how many of them are signed that way.
Odd how Dave's "harsh, vituperative and unacceptable" language comes only from the conservative side. But I guess he had time constraints and couldn't get to the all the "harsh, vituperative and unacceptable" language of the liberals. On the other hand, this language is perfectly calm and temperate and shouldn't bother anyone at all:
That joint statement put out by the primates, which these five primates signed, said that primates should not interfere outside their own countries. And so they're acting improperly and inappropriately. They know perfectly well that we have entered a process, at the request of that meeting of the primates last fall, to provide alternate episcopal oversight internally for dissenting groups.
At this juncture they're behaving very badly. And I have, as acting primate, written them to tell them so.
So's this:
That's rubbish. They have a bishop -- Michael Ingham is their bishop. Anglican parishes do not have the freedom to disassociate themselves from dioceses. We are not a congregationalist church.
This too:
It's inappropriate for those foreign primates to intervene at any time, but it's particularly unhealthy at this juncture.
And this:
Yes, I expect they'd be prepared to do that. They just have -- well, I won't say it. They have no business doing what they're doing. They just have absolutely no business doing it, and it's appalling that they're doing it.
As well as this:
No, because those bishops have no jurisdiction here. Anything those bishops and those primates do here is unlawful and improper. They have no jurisdiction. So these parishes are becoming outlaws. They fondly think that this keeps them part of it, but it doesn't.
So let's hope the language at the ACC's General Synod doesn't get "harsh, vituperative and unacceptable." Because that would be bad.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 9 comments
5/30/2004 1:14:53 PM
DIVINE RIGHT I made a slight error in the post below this one. Apparently, the word "arrogant" does not even begin to describe the Episcopal Bishop of Pennsylvania, Charles Bennison. This letter from Good Samaritan rector Greg Brewer was forwarded to me a bit ago:
Subject: To the Members of the Standing Committee
Friends: Thank you for your continued prayers about our situation at Good Samaritan. At this point, things are going from bad to worse. In the light of the vestry's letter the bishop has decided to attend 3 services on Sunday morning rather than one! The only good news is that, so far, all of the clergy on staff still have their jobs.
Below is a letter I have written to the Standing Committee of the Diocese describing the meeting I and my warden had with Bennison on May 27th. That should give you all the details.
Please keep praying!
Greg
Dear Members of the Standing Committee,
I wanted to report back to you regarding the outcome of my letters to Bishop Bennison asking him to reconsider his decision to come to Good Samaritan for a full sacramental visit. After receiving his third letter from me, he wrote to me indicating that he felt that out of his concern "to maintain the unity of the diocese" he should still come to Good Samaritan.
In response to the Bishop's letter, the vestry wrote a letter to the congregation expressing their sadness that Bishop Bennison was determined to carry out his visitation to the parish at this time. They also expressed their doubts as to how a forced visit from the bishop would help "maintain diocesan unity." To the contrary, they observed that such a visit would exacerbate the tensions and grief that already existed. They also resolved that in the light of such a blatant disregard for the pastoral concerns expressed in their Rector's letters to the bishop, they could not- in good conscience- receive communion from Bp. Bennison when he came. In that same letter to the congregation, the vestry offered the congregation the option of attending services other than the one at which the bishop was presiding. Attached to that letter was a series of quotes the bishop has made in some of his articles in the Pennsylvania Episcopalian, as well as a quote from a transcript of Bishop Bennison's firs visit to Good Samaritan. Both of those documents are attached to this E-mail. These same documents were sent via E-mail to the bishop.
The Rector's Warden, Mr. Jeff Moretzsohn, and I met with the bishop on May 27th, to reiterate our concerns about the grief we as a parish shared regarding the bishop's visit, and how the Sunday of his visitation should be organized. Of course he wanted to discuss the vestry's letter and said that such a letter "was not helpful" to dialogue and neither was the series of quotes. I shared with the bishop that I wanted the congregation to understand the magnitude of both the theological and pastoral differences that presently existed between us. I said that no honest dialogue was genuinely possible of all parties did not fully understand each other's positions.
The bishop then shared with us his own continued resolve to make a full, sacramental visit to Good Samaritan at the time scheduled (June 6). He then also said that instead of coming to just one service on a Sunday morning he would preach and celebrate at three services that Sunday morning (7:30, 9:00 & 11:15). The Rector's Warden and I then told the bishop the anger and anguish that his visit to three services would cause the parishioners at Good Samaritan. Many would not come to any of those services. The parish would be profoundly wounded, and the level of pastoral clean up that would be required of the staff after the bishop departed would be enormous.
At that point, I said to the bishop that I did not see how I could come to the communion rail either in the light of his actions. I told him that he would probably need to bring a chaplain to assist him in the distribution of communion. I asked, "In view of what you want to do, how can I come to the communion rail when I am required to be 'in love and charity with my neighbors'?" I stated that to force a communion service on a congregation in the light if all that has happened would make the sacrament a travesty.
I ask you, members of the Standing Committee: how is it pastorally permissible to use the sacrament as a weapon to force a congregation into submission? Isn't using the sacrament as a weapon of control skirting dangerously close to blasphemy?
For both my warden and I, the meeting was excruciating. We left Church House almost numb with grief. It was clear that nothing either my warden or I had said made any difference. He was determined to make a visit to Good Samaritan strictly on his own terms, and he was coming to as many services as he could possibly attend.
I have never had a meeting with any bishop were my entreaties were so entirely ignored and my observations about the parish were so completely disregarded.
Please hold the parish of Good Samaritan in your prayers.
Sincerely,
Gregory O. Brewer
I will not dare to presume to tell the people of Good Samaritan what they should or should not do next Sunday. But if I were one of them, I would either attend another church or sleep in. I would not go anywhere near Good Samaritan as long as Charles Bennison was inside.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 45 comments
5/29/2004 4:00:53 PM
EDGEHILL Paoli, Pennsylvania's Episcopal Church of the Good Samaritan raises the Parliamentary standard:
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, it is with great sadness that we report that on Sunday, June 6, 2004, Bishop Charles Bennison will be visiting Good Samaritan during the 9:00 service. While we recognize the canonical authority of the office of Bishop, including his responsibility to visit the parishes of his diocese, we grieve because of Bishop Bennison’s refusal to send Bishop Clarence Coleridge (Assisting Bishop in the Diocese of Pennsylvania) on his behalf. We believe that Bishop Bennison’s visit will be viewed by many in our congregation as detrimental and harmful.
Because of our continued desire to maintain our relationship with and participation in the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania, since early February, we made numerous attempts to resolve this potentially divisive situation, including a formal request to have Bishop Coleridge come and preside. Our Rector has written the bishop three times, copying the latter two letters to our diocesan Standing Committee. In the midst of cries for “adequate Episcopal oversight” as well as “designated pastoral oversight” ringing throughout the Episcopal Church, it was our prayer that a workable solution to our plea would be possible within the context of our diocese. While we continue with this prayer, to date no such solution has emerged, despite the fact that many in leadership in our diocese encouraged Bishop Bennison to honor our request to send Bishop Coleridge in his stead.
In response to our requests that Bishop Bennison refrain from making a full sacramental visit to Good Samaritan, Bishop Bennison wrote a letter on May 6, 2004 which seemed to minimize the pastoral concerns that exist in our parish and went on to indicate that his “overriding concern is the unity of our diocesan family.” It is difficult to understand his insistence on making this visit when it comes at the expense of the pastoral well being of our congregation, particularly when his desire is to promote diocesan unity. We, the vestry, respectfully submit that Bishop Bennison’s methodology in this regard is flawed.
Bishop Bennison’s public statements, his teachings, and his support of the confirmation of Gene Robinson at General Convention, stand in direct contradiction to the Scriptures, and the tradition of the church that is honored by the overwhelming majority of the Anglican Communion. It is because of his teachings, his refusal to send another bishop in his place, and because we did not want to divide our confirmation class, that the Rector and those leading our confirmation class have elected to present all our candidates for confirmation to Bishop Franklin Turner on Sunday, June 13, 2004 at All Hallows, Wyncote. Bishop Bennison has granted his permission for this and Bishop Turner has indicated that he will welcome our candidates and is looking forward to our coming. Sending our candidates to another bishop, however, does not mitigate the larger pastoral and theological issues that are before us.
In view of these facts we, the vestry, respectfully request that members of our parish family consider joining the vestry in worship at the 7:30 am service on Sunday June 6th. At this service, we will celebrate the Eucharist together and pray for God’s wisdom and guidance for our church. If you cannot join us at 7:30, we would encourage you to attend either the 11:15 am or 11:30 am services. While the vestry has an obligation to be present at the 9:00 service the congregation has no such obligation. Based on our obligation as a vestry we will be attending the 9:00 service, but will not receive communion at that time. We take these actions under duress; not because we want to separate ourselves from the Diocese, but because we believe it is our Biblical obligation to stand in prayer for a bishop, called to be “one with the Apostles,” whose teaching and actions are contrary to the plain meaning of Holy Scripture. While each person’s decision as to how she or he responds to Bishop Bennison’s visit is personal and must be prayerfully considered, it is imperative that we continue to respect and love one another as Christ loves us. This is our obligation: to remain faithful to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, to remain faithful to love one another, and to remain faithful to our charge to be a lighthouse for the Gospel of Jesus Christ- continuing to expand our mission, ministry and facilities here at the Church of the Good Samaritan.
The Vestry of the Church of the Good Samaritan
On one level, I don't see this ending very well. It is difficult to see how someone like Bennison can let rebellion like this go unpunished. Expect to see him come up with some kind of canonical pretext for firing COTGS's vestry and perhaps even inhibiting its rector.
But on the level that truly matters, Bennison has already been defeated. Staying away would have been a conciliatory gesture that might have diffused a good deal of tension in Pennsylvania. But Bennison's arrogant invocation of his "rights" means that he has lost Church of the Good Samaritan and lost them forever.
Thanks to Kendall Harmon.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 13 comments
5/28/2004 10:29:51 PM
GO EASY ON THE NEW GUY - If your interests are trending literary these days(or even if they're not), check out Phil Wade's Brandywine Books.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 1 comments
5/28/2004 2:25:58 PM
DON'T LET THE BEDBUGS BITE - If you think a good night's sleep is for wimps, Charles Austin found this nightmare-inducer.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 0 comments