<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Letters to the editor, September 2019	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://anglicanjournal.com/letters-to-the-editor-september-2019/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://anglicanjournal.com/letters-to-the-editor-september-2019/</link>
	<description>National News from the Anglican Church of Canada</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2019 17:17:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Wendell Hennan		</title>
		<link>https://anglicanjournal.com/letters-to-the-editor-september-2019/#comment-26430</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wendell Hennan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2019 19:47:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://anglicanjournal.com/?p=160678#comment-26430</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Thank you to the Anglican Journal or publishing these caring loving well-written letters.

The coverage by the Anglican Journal during Synod was also well conducted and helpful 4 us across the country to follow.

How can we be so aggressive in our publishing of the church&#039;s activities and at the same time be so regressive as a church

I like many many others are so very very tired of this discussion and at this point I&#039;m very unsure what my continued relationship with the Anglican Church will be.  

Nevertheless all of these thoughtful thought-provoking letters are helpful to me and in some way provide me with a straw to grasp onto]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you to the Anglican Journal or publishing these caring loving well-written letters.</p>
<p>The coverage by the Anglican Journal during Synod was also well conducted and helpful 4 us across the country to follow.</p>
<p>How can we be so aggressive in our publishing of the church&#8217;s activities and at the same time be so regressive as a church</p>
<p>I like many many others are so very very tired of this discussion and at this point I&#8217;m very unsure what my continued relationship with the Anglican Church will be.  </p>
<p>Nevertheless all of these thoughtful thought-provoking letters are helpful to me and in some way provide me with a straw to grasp onto</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Fr. Stephen Morrison		</title>
		<link>https://anglicanjournal.com/letters-to-the-editor-september-2019/#comment-26426</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fr. Stephen Morrison]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2019 16:29:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://anglicanjournal.com/?p=160678#comment-26426</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[As I read the comments above I was struck by the number of times it was asserted that the failure of the passage to amend the church cannons was tantamount to rejecting those pushing for the change.  That the defeat of the measure caused grief, shock, anger, and pain was evident in all but one of the above comments but those assertions, it seems to me, are begging the question in that they contain an unspoken demand that the church must either affirm the actions and desires of the protagonists or they, the protagonists, will consider it a rejection of their new and improved version of what constitutes the basis for marriage.  As a result of this much too narrow definition of Love and therefore marriage the church is wrongheaded and should acquiesce to those enlightened will be forced to either leave the church and live out some kind of lie.  The issue isn&#039;t ours to debate.  Holy scriptures aren&#039;t something man-made.  You ask to change them to suit your situation and desires but the role of the Bishops in Christ&#039;s church is to ensure that issues of doctrine should be impervious to the whims of culture and human frailties.   I am sorry there were so many bishops who, in my mind, abrogated their responsibilities and their charge by voting for the change.  The sheep should never be given reign over the flock.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As I read the comments above I was struck by the number of times it was asserted that the failure of the passage to amend the church cannons was tantamount to rejecting those pushing for the change.  That the defeat of the measure caused grief, shock, anger, and pain was evident in all but one of the above comments but those assertions, it seems to me, are begging the question in that they contain an unspoken demand that the church must either affirm the actions and desires of the protagonists or they, the protagonists, will consider it a rejection of their new and improved version of what constitutes the basis for marriage.  As a result of this much too narrow definition of Love and therefore marriage the church is wrongheaded and should acquiesce to those enlightened will be forced to either leave the church and live out some kind of lie.  The issue isn&#8217;t ours to debate.  Holy scriptures aren&#8217;t something man-made.  You ask to change them to suit your situation and desires but the role of the Bishops in Christ&#8217;s church is to ensure that issues of doctrine should be impervious to the whims of culture and human frailties.   I am sorry there were so many bishops who, in my mind, abrogated their responsibilities and their charge by voting for the change.  The sheep should never be given reign over the flock.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
