Comments on: Primate calls for church to show ‘humble humanity,’ practice ‘good disagreement’ in marriage canon discussions

By: Curt Gesch

Curt Gesch — Fri, 11 Jan 2019 15:26:07 +0000

(Please excuse me if I double-posted this–blame the computer.) I would like to comment on this post and a previous one from November 23, 2018—‘Primate calls for church to show ‘humble humanity.’ In that article the Primate says he feels that people “are a little less harsh” recently in regard to the marriage canon and other topics. My experiences suggest he is right and that his own patient example helps explain part of this positive change. Thank you.
I think that another statement—often repeated—may need urgent consideration. When our Primate says, “There is, in truth, a continuing place for everyone in this church” he is expressing the hope of our own congregation, too. However much we say we have “open doors, open hearts, open minds” and that we are a “big-tent” church, there is still a matter that is a larger elephant in the closet that the marriage canon and that is, I maintain, the way in which the church structure leaves out the laity. Often the Anglican news services contain almost entirely clergy-related items. When people say or act as if “the bishop is the diocese” or the “bishops are the church”, a large part of the Anglican church is marginalized. Until there are what the Americans would call a system of “checks and balances” in relation to the exercise of episcopal authorities, laity is reduced to a “poor third.”
I understand that these comments may cause extreme discomfort or even anger because it seems to be in the marrow of the bones of many/most Anglicans that episcopal structure may only be imagined as functioning in the way it presently does. I have to try to express these ideas here, because there are few if any forums in which to do so: synods have their agendas largely determined by bishops and some congregations experience clergy-determined agendas, too. The one “doctrine” that should unite us all is the person of Jesus Christ, whose authority was that of service.

By: Duleep Jesudian

Duleep Jesudian — Thu, 03 Jan 2019 01:40:38 +0000

Any answer has to be based on the new testament & what JESUS said about it. Anything that goes about trying to bring it to human latest ideas is wrong as far as I am concerned. If you bring to the level of human need- anything goes. So if you live in a moslem country multiple wives are OK and can you do it there as a Christian ? Or in a third world country living as mistress due to poverty alright or even having a prostitute (minor) for an evening or two alright ? If there no absolutes life is alright whatever you do. Yes we invite Christ into our lives & repent of our sinfulness & as Christians invite all to see the GRACE of CHRIST but not approve of sinful behaviour . Sorry that the CHURCH still keeps on harping about this subject. If that is the way it is going would it approve of what went on in the residential schools ?

By: Chris Biensch

Chris Biensch — Sat, 24 Nov 2018 17:01:01 +0000

CoGS has danced around the issue of same sex marriage for a several cycles, properly . . . or not.

Whatever’s your opinion there is a point when, ‘the-rubber-hits-the-road’ and a vote taken. Come what come may.

Weather or not the ACC (a donor driven organization) is inclusive, is a decision about business survival, as much as religious philosophy. Look at the numbers of losses affecting not only Anglicans, but every other main stream ecclesiastical org in Canada today. So go ahead and philosophize and prognosticate, there soon will not be a platform on which to perform those functions unless inclusion and unity are embraced from a business sense.

Kudos to the Rectors Wardens considering these questions in hand-wringing fashion in Canada today.