The primary goal or vision for the Anglican Church of Canada must be to rid itself of apostasy at all levels. It is clear that the Primate and the House of Bishops have abandoned their vows in favour of what might be called “political correctness” and seem to believe that the authority of Scripture is subject to their approval. In other words they have come to believe God is subject to them. There is no question that they know the issue of the blessing of homosexual relationships is simply a tip of the iceberg from the standpoint of accepting or rejecting said blessings. If the Primate and the other so-called bishops were true to their vows they would never have allowed any such motion to appear on the floor of any Synod or other church body. They would or should realize that any motion that is in clear contradiction to Scripture should not be allowed regardless of any “political” pressure.
Currently we have many of Satan’s generals dressed in purple shirts and white collars that by reason of the authority they have or perceive to have in the Canons are determined to decimate the church. It is well past the time for them to repent and recite or sing hymn #410 in the Blue Book.
One must remember that before you can be called an “Anglican” you must first be a Christian and a follower of Christ. Needless to say the apostate bishops seem to think that being an Anglican does not necessarily require one to be a true follower and believer in Christ. What we are seeing is greedy Diocesan officials taking action against true believers simply to seize property which in most cases the diocese has never contributed anything.
Is it not the duty of our Primate to stand up?? If he fails to do so he should resign as should all apostates both those in the House of Bishops and the clergy that blindly follow there lead.
Frank W.
Abbotsford, B.C.
I afraid this post is an example of the kind of extreme rhetoric which is disrespectful of our Primate and our Bishops. There has been all too much of this during the current debate. If the poster thinks the church leadership is apostate, he doesn’t know what he is talking about. These are faithful servants of Christ and the church trying their best to deal sensitively with difficult issues at a difficult time.
The writer thinks no motion should have even gone forward on blessing of same sex unions because scripture clearly has spoken. The writer should know many of us believe scripture has not spoken in the way he thinks. Instead we believe that it is selective literalism of the kind that the Anglican Church has never embraced which brings about such an extreme position.
Those of us who remain in the Anglican Church of Canada are followers of Christ and believers in the word. We celebrate the Eucharist Sunday by Sunday, preach the Gospel, care for the sick, study the Bible. How dare Frank W. judge us all and declare those faithful Bishops, clergy and lay people who remain in the church as apostate.
Property matters have nothing to do with greed. The churches have been built and maintained for years by faithful Anglicans. They don’t deserve to be taken by literalist/fundamentalists who have little grasp of our Anglican tradition of diversity and tolerance. The pattern of parishes leaving and trying to keep the building seems to rely completely on having a literalist/fundamentalist incumbent who has conditioned the people with many years of anti-Anglican rhetoric.
Bob, with all due respect, I find that your use of the literalist/fundamentalist “nom de terror” is precisely the kind of “extreme rhetoric” which you say is disrepectful.
I tend to think that there is a third option, perhaps best articulated by John Howard Yoder: “I have been called both “fundamentalist” and “pietist” by unsympathetic readers, since they put me in an already-closed slot in their minds, to which they had relegated the use of the Bible. They did not read me carefully enough to be aware that my reading of the scriptural texts was post- and not pre- critical.”
John Howard Yoder: “The Politics of Jesus Revisited” (1997)
Bob Bettson seems to be getting a bit defensive. He is quick to accuse that certain statements are “the kind of extreme rhetoric which is disrespectful of our Primate and our Bishops”. But is it really disrespectful to, for example, call a liar a liar or a thief a thief? Of course I am not accusing any individual of being a liar or a thief. I simply use these as examples to illustrate that what is important is that we speak the truth.
One thing that is true is that many of our Priest, Deacons, and Bishops were ordained when we used the Book of Common Prayer. Some of the questions asked of a person being ordained a Priest are:
“WILL you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the doctrine and sacraments, and the discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same, according to the commandments of God; so that you may teach the people committed to your care and charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same?”
“WILL you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your cures, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given?”
And
“WILL you be diligent in prayers, and in reading of the holy Scriptures, and in such studies as help to the knowledge of the same, laying aside the study of the world and the flesh?”
Of course the soon to be Priest always give an answer that begins “I will”. As I understand things, these Ordination vows remain in effect for life, even if the Priest is elevated to Bishop. Thus, what are we to say of a Priest (or Bishop) who breaks any of these vows? Are we as lay-members of the Church not within our rights, and also within our obligations, to challenge Priests and Bishops who break the Ordination vows?
When we see in the four Gospels direct quotes of the lessons given to us all by Jesus Christ, and where these lessons teach of a specific issue (i.e. divorce in Mark 10) in the most direct language possible, are we not to expect our Priests and Bishops to teach us the same as that which Christ taught? What are we to say and do when our Priests and Bishops teach us things that are a contradiction and are contrary to the Teachings given by Christ?
“I have been called both “fundamentalist” and “pietist” by unsympathetic readers, since they put me in an already-closed slot in their minds, to which they had relegated the use of the Bible. They did not read me carefully enough to be aware that my reading of the scriptural texts was post- and not pre- critical.”
The Politics of Jesus Revisited (1997)
I suspect that there are a number of people for whom the appearance of any opposition to SSB on biblical or theological grounds needs to be reduced to a charge of “fundamentalism/literalism”, but that is simply not the case. There is simply a failure to admit that one can hold such a view in a post-critical age.
re Bob Bettson’s comment”The writer thinks no motion should have even gone forward on blessing of same sex unions because scripture clearly has spoken. The writer should know many of us believe scripture has not spoken in the way he thinks. Instead we believe that it is selective literalism of the kind that the Anglican Church has never embraced which brings about such an extreme position.”
The leader of the Anglican Rowan Williams in his reflections “Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future (on July 27th of this year) said this:
“However, the issue is not simply about civil liberties or human dignity or even about pastoral sensitivity to the freedom of individual Christians to form their consciences on this matter. It is about whether the Church is free to recognise same-sex unions by means of public blessings that are seen as being, at the very least, analogous to Christian marriage.
7. In the light of the way in which the Church has consistently read the Bible for the last two thousand years, it is clear that a positive answer to this question would have to be based on the most painstaking biblical exegesis and on a wide acceptance of the results within the Communion, with due account taken of the teachings of ecumenical partners also. A major change naturally needs a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding.
8. This is not our situation in the Communion. Thus a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole. And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond; whatever the human respect and pastoral sensitivity such persons must be given, their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church’s teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires.”
Enough said.