Anglican Samizdat

March 12, 2010

Canadian Anglicans Widening the Circle

The Diocese of Niagara is advertising the Widening Circle Conference 2010, apparently, because orthodox Anglicanism is inclusive and diverse.

In case anyone has any doubt about what that really means:

We are joining together:
1. to take a stand against making the doctrine and discipline of our national church subservient to the Primates of the Anglican Communion through a proposed Anglican Covenant; and
2. to resist a narrow and exclusive version of Anglicanism, expressed in our own country as resistance to the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of the church.

I bet that was a surprise.

As is this:

We welcome the resolutions of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada affirming the full equality of gays and lesbians, and the “integrity and sanctity” of their intimate relationships. We believe that this affirmation must be translated into concrete acts of contrition for past wrongs, and full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of the church.  In the absence of such acts, the church is existing in a state of unholy hypocrisy.

And this:

We call on the House of Bishops to lift the moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions.

Just how wide is this Circle. Not that wide, it seems:

Other provinces, mind your own business:

We uphold the autonomy of the provinces of the Anglican Communion to adjudicate, elaborate, and specify questions of doctrine as they emerge in their unique cultural contexts from time-to-time.  We expect these doctrinal decisions to be reached by synods or other established councils of the church, in the form of canon law and authorised liturgies.

Rowan Williams, mind your own business:

We appreciate the historic place of the Archbishop of Canterbury as a symbol of unity, while affirming that his juridical authority is restricted to that primatial See.

Primates, mind your own business:

We recognise the role of the Lambeth Conference and the international Primates’ meetings as occasions for our episcopal and primatial leaders to engage in mutual reflection; but we reject any notion that such voluntary gatherings should exercise juridical authority.

We don’t care what any of you think, we make up are own rules, so there:

We affirm that every Christian has the right, through baptism, to judge questions of faith, and to contribute to ongoing dialogue within communities of faith and in the councils of the church. The free exercise of this responsibility is necessary in order to maintain the integrity, constancy, and truth of the faith.

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. They left out the part where there are churches on the real estate market going for a song. I’d list them but lets just mention one. Grace of Hamilton. How long has it sat empty and forlorn on the main street? A crumbling witness to the crowning achievement of the revisionist agenda.

    Comment by obituary — March 12, 2010 @ 7:40 pm

  2. These revisionist prelates, who are so keen to pack LGBT folk into their “church” – I’d love to be able to ask them what their views are on the spouse-like “lifestyles” that are up and coming, and very much on the horizon: polyamorists (communities of people who live together as spouse-like partners), the zoos (people who live, and have sexual relationships, with animals) and some people who believe in consensual … relationships … with children (I forget the word – but they’re anxious to say they’re not paedophiles, apparently). They’re all out there, and arguing for full legal status and recognition (much as gays did in recent decades; they use the same arguments). Presumably the so-obliging clerics will be quick to welcome them as fellow-“Christians” … Of course, I’ll be called mad for thinking that people will be legally allowed to “marry” animals; just suppose in a 1950s dinner party, you’d said that one day the government will recognise a man’s marriage to a man – you’d have been dismissed as mad, and not invited again; you might have been committed for treatment. Once you get rid of an objective morality, with non-this-worldly origins, you have no logical or ethical grounds for objecting to anything. If God does not exist, anything is permissible, as that Russian chap said.

    Comment by John Thomas — March 16, 2010 @ 2:04 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: