Comments on: CoGS commends amended marriage resolution to recognize different understandings, Indigenous rights

By: The Ven. Dale Huston

The Ven. Dale Huston — Sun, 14 Apr 2019 17:55:23 +0000

So, let me see if I understand this correctly.
By now it has been made perfectly clear to us that a certain unilateral action by the Anglican Church of Canada will seriously jeopardize our relationship with other member Provinces of the world-wide Anglican Communion. That action, if taken, will constitute a willful decision on our part to step out on our own and cease to care about walking in step with our global faith family.
At the same time, our leaders are now anxiously promoting ‘Walking Together’ as though it is one of the high callings of God in Christ, and they are pleading with us to stay dutifully and steadfastly in step with them no matter what happens.
The message I get is that the Anglican Communion is divisible, but the Anglican Church of Canada is not divisible.
Does anyone else see a bizarre ‘disconnect’ in this, or a sleight-of-hand trick in progress?

By: David Kellett

David Kellett — Wed, 10 Apr 2019 23:10:47 +0000

An additional comment. I mark the beginning of the “same-sex/Christian homosexual” controversy at 1998. In this year, there was a motion passed at the Lambeth Conference, motion 1.10, I believe, stating a traditional understanding of marriage. Here in Canada, in 1998, in the Diocese of New Westminster, a motion was presented, requesting the Bishop give permission for clergy to administer a rite of blessing. So, this controversy has only be going on for just over twenty years. That is not a long time, in terms of church history. So, where does the belief come from, that we ought to have solved the controversy out by now, come from? I suggest it comes from modern, scientific culture.

By: David Kellett

David Kellett — Wed, 10 Apr 2019 22:46:51 +0000

In 2004, a motion A134 was presented at General Synod. It had four clauses. One clause read: “despite deeply held convictions on both sides of the same-sex blessing issue, we commit ourselves to strive for that communion into which Christ continually calls us”. So now, 14 years, later, a statement about “different understandings and teachings” about marriage is going to appear in the Marriage Canon. So, may I ask, how are we any better off than we were in 2004? We have had two official reports, the St. Michael’s Report, a 40 page document, in 2005. We had the Report of the Commission on the Marriage Canon in 2015, a 60 page Report. So, what is going on? Why is there so much confusion, as well as emotion and subjectivity? Why are Anglican leaders unable to see, or even articulate clearly the theological issues? Why is it, all we get are clever wording of phrases, in motions or statements, designed to please all Anglicans and pretend everything is all right? I won’t attempt an analysis, but may I point out there is “identity politics” going on at General Synod, so “identity politics” and theological beliefs are very, very confused. I will point out, this 21 century controversy resembles a 4th century controversy, known as Arianism. Arianism lasted 62 years. Arius began to preach in 318 AD. There were 20 church Councils held, meetings of the bishops during this time.Two Councils were ecumenical (all or most Bishops present), the other councils were provincial in nature. and in 381, the Council of Constantinople re-affirmed the Nicene Creed. Also, the bishops were operating in two languages, Greek and Latin. There were key words, key concepts, they needed to sort out and agree to, what these words/concepts meant. So, the Bishops of the Early Church, successfully engaged in a controversy, they sorted out the philosophy, which concepts to use, how to describe Christian beliefs, and they produced statements we know as Creeds, which have servced the Christian Church down through the centuries. I think our modern Bishops ought to practice humility, and to accept there is a theological poverty at this time. I also think, the belief there is a simple, rational solution, acceptable to all reasonable Anglicans is niave and false This belief (there is a simple,solution) is coming from modern, scientific culture. We arrogant, modern Anglicans, with our big heads, need to learn to respect our historicial forbearers. We need to learn from the events and persons of the Early Church.

By: Tony Houghton

Tony Houghton — Wed, 10 Apr 2019 22:14:39 +0000

In reply to Jean Hayes. Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

By: Jean Hayes

Jean Hayes — Wed, 10 Apr 2019 15:28:00 +0000

I do hope we can do this and have a blessed understanding of our universal love for each other and the desire to remain together in our world wide communion.