Niagara Same Sex Union Motion passes; ANIC Responds

Please note the text of the motion posted yesterday in case you missed it–KSH.

The Anglican Network in Canada stands with the millions of Anglicans ”“ in Canada and throughout the worldwide Anglican Communion ”“ who are hurt and distressed by the decision of the Niagara Synod and Bishop to proceed at a time of the bishop’s choosing with the blessing of same-sex marriages. The Ottawa and Montreal Synods approved similar motions in October but their bishops have withheld consent to proceed.

“We are grieved that the synod and bishops of Niagara have chosen to walk away from centuries of Christian teaching and defy the consensus within the Anglican Communion,” says the Right Reverend Donald Harvey, Moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada. “There is clearly a growing momentum within the Anglican Church of Canada to ignore biblical teaching, disregard the views of the global Church, and even ignore the principles upon which the Canadian Church was founded. These actions have ‘torn the fabric’ of the Communion at its deepest level just as the Primates warned in October 2003”

By proceeding with these decisions to bless civilly married same-sex couples, the Diocese of Niagara is separating itself from the vast majority of Anglicans worldwide and deepening the divide within the Anglican Church of Canada and the global Communion.

In its rush to discard its heritage and conform to current culture, the Anglican Church of Canada has abandoned biblically-faithful Canadian Anglicans who, increasingly, feel they no longer have a home within that church. Ironically, while traditional Anglicans are marginalized within the Canadian church, they remain among the vast majority of global Anglicans, upholding historic Anglican and Christian teaching and tradition.

We are grateful for the support of Archbishop Gregory Venables and the Province of the Southern Cone who, at their Synod last week, expressed their willingness to provide a safe haven and Communion connection for these biblically faithful people. The Network is holding a conference ”“ Building on the Solid Rock, in Burlington, Ontario, on November 22-23 ”“ to discuss this option.

The Anglican Network in Canada is committed to remaining faithful to Holy Scripture and established Anglican doctrine and to ensuring that orthodox Canadian Anglicans are able to remain in full communion with their spiritual brothers and sisters around the world.

print

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Anglican Church of Canada, Anglican Provinces, Same-sex blessings, Sexuality Debate (in Anglican Communion)

19 comments on “Niagara Same Sex Union Motion passes; ANIC Responds

  1. Fred says:

    Hurt??? We are hurt? Hurt that thy will no longer discriminate? Against gays? Hurt that they will no longer scapegoat gays? Hurt? Pleeeeeeeze! If there is this so-called hurt, it is derived from their deep seeded homophobia. Hurt that in one place now, they can’t foist their ancient taboos, which have absolutely no meaning in the 21st century, on a group of people they want to oust. I bet it hurts. Too bloody bad. Boo hoo! Oh, and hurray for the Niagara Synod.

  2. steveatmi5 says:

    As a long time reader of this blog I am not surprised Fred is gloating. But I wish he/she would stop the misrepresentations. It isn’t about discrimination. People who understand themselves or describe themselves as gay or lesbian and elgibile for the orders and sacraments of the church. But leaders are called to uphold in life what the church teaches.

    The church is not able to make marriage something it is not. That is simply the nature of the reality as it was and is given.

  3. Susan Russell says:

    Sorry, steve … those doing the discriminating don’t get to tell those being discriminated against whether or not they’re misrepresenting their reality.

  4. Sarah1 says:

    RE: “Fred is gloating . . ”

    Actually — and quite oddly — those weren’t the words of gloating, they were the words of anger.

    RE: “those doing the discriminating don’t get to tell those being discriminated against whether or not they’re misrepresenting their reality . . . ”

    Right — but as nobody is being discriminated against for who they are, neither is taking place. It’s actually simply called clear, defined, thoughtful communication.

    But once one descends to “feelings” as the “true definition of reality” it really is all subjective anyway and anybody at all can “define” reality since it’s all about what one feels.

    “Feeling” discriminated against is “being” discriminated against. My feelings are reality.

  5. Gator says:

    Fred and Susan Russell–Isn’t it the case that God discriminates? I’m thinking of “sheep” and “goats” in a prominent teaching of Jesus. Several important texts in the Old and New Testaments have the same claims.

  6. Brian of Maryland says:

    … and which “side” is it again that’s bringing all the lawsuits?

  7. Passing By says:

    “Hurt that in one place now, they can’t foist their ancient taboos, which have absolutely no meaning in the 21st century”…

    It is beyond me that anyone who is a member of a Christian Church would want to make a statement as ridiculous and heretical as this.

    If you really believe such, Fred, you should head to the nearest Wiccan or Unitarian fellowship.

    Susan Russell, you are in no position to lecture anyone here about “misrepresenting your reality”–you didn’t hesitate to “misrepresent your reality” when you were married to a man.

    Or is the Church supposed to put its blessing on bicurious confusion, too? The ultimate, automatic redefinition to a non-discriminant “sacrament”–you can be married to both a man and a woman at the same time.

    This is supposed to be about the fulfillment of the vision of God, not about “validate me”.

    God bless–

    G.

  8. Sarah1 says:

    Hey — I’m not an elf, and the elves wouldn’t accept me into their club anyway, but I think your personal comments, GinD, in the fourth and fifth paragraphs are not called for.

  9. Ross Gill says:

    If one truly believes in the test of Gamaliel, one might as well put it to the test.

  10. AnglicanFirst says:

    Sarah (#8), regarding Geek in Dallas,

    what did he say that exceeded the ‘norm’ of other comments on T19?

    Just curious.

  11. justice1 says:

    Fred (#1), it’s called integrity (ie. moral uprightness…honesty). I am a priest here in Canada and theologically conservative (traditional), and I agree with the ANIC response. But to me the problem here is a matter of integrity. In the Anglican Church of Canada, all clergy and bishops make the following vow, and sign a form which says, “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?” (cf. http://prayerbook.ca/bcp/ordination.html) Further, we must sign an assent to the Solmen Declaration (http://prayerbook.ca/bcp/solemn_declaration.html) as well, which says in essence that we will NOT break communion with the global Anglican church, AS we uphold the traditional Christian faith. At the core of the dispute is a failure to uphold these vows on the part of Anglican clergy here in Canada – all the while pretending to have integrity.

    And then, to make matters worse, when there has been no change in our doctrine and discipline, and when the overwhelming majority of our global communion has said stop, AND when our own general synod only a few months ago said NO to same sex blessings (at least until we arrive at a greater understanding and consensus), Huron’s bishop Spence has thumbed his nose at us all, and at his vows, and in doing so is thumbing his nose at the Anglican Church throughout the world. THIS is what is causing schism in our day, and THIS lack of integrity is what hurts and grieves people like myself and + Don Harvey. And finally, it is this brazen rebelliosness that will ultimately be recorded in history as the reason for the demise of a centuries old communion.

  12. Eclipse says:

    [b]Ang. 1st:[/b]

    Well, I think that the issue itself should stand and we don’t have to be like all the Revisionist blogs (of which I believe some are owners) and descend to personal comments.

    The statement that it’s ‘discrimination’ for a religion to forbid same sex relationships is ridiculous enough on its own. IF that religion everyone had to belong too – that would be one thing – but this is not the case. Since I’m not a boy are boy scouts discriminating against me? AARP since I’m not 55? The NACP since I’m not African American?

    If I’m not African American perhaps I can join the Hibernians since I’m Irish. By the same token [b]NOTHING ON THE PLANET[/b] is forcing Fred and Susan from joining another religion … in this sense GinD is on the mark.

    It’s like complaining you can’t play Monopoly with the Clue rules.

  13. Passing By says:

    If someone wants to make a public statement that reeks of hypocrisy, then, in my view, their personal conduct is open to question, like it or not. Making lifelong marital vows to a man when you are a lesbian can easily be interpreted as “misrepresenting your reality”. I find it hard to believe, too, the general claims that this sort of thing is no more than ongoing “self-discovery”. People know what does or doesn’t excite them, sexually or otherwise. Plus, if you’re “not sure”, don’t make marriage vows.

    And this

    “Or is the Church supposed to put its blessing on bicurious confusion, too? The ultimate, automatic redefinition to a non-discriminant “sacrament”–you can be married to both a man and a woman at the same time”.

    is a global theological question that applies to everyone and the whole Church. I find it misguided and plain old wrong to cry “discrimination” and believe that such entitles any constituent churchman/woman to an automatic redefinition of the sacrament of Christian marriage.

  14. Rolling Eyes says:

    I’m with AnglicanFirst. Given the venom, anger, lies that comes from Fred and Susan and their typical comments, I don’t see what the big deal is about GiD’s comments.

  15. Rolling Eyes says:

    “it is derived from their deep seeded homophobia”

    It’s not “homophobia”, Fred (whatever that means…) That is a lie.

    “Hurt that in one place now, they can’t foist their ancient taboos, which have absolutely no meaning in the 21st century, on a group of people they want to oust. I bet it hurts.”

    No one wants to “oust” anyone, Fred. That is a lie.

    You, Fred, are a LIAR.

  16. William Tighe says:

    Fred isn’t a liar; rather, as a perverse-minded sodomist, he is incapable of distinguishing his subjective predilections from objective Truth, and so subsumes the latter into the former. It is but a contemporary instance of the appearance of Shakespeare’s “universal wolf,” self-willed appetite:

    “Strength should be lord of imbecility,
    And the rude son should strike his father dead:
    Force should be right; or rather, right and wrong—
    Between whose endless jar justice resides— 120
    Should lose their names, and so should justice too.
    Then every thing includes itself in power,
    Power into will, will into appetite;
    And appetite, a universal wolf, 124
    So doubly seconded with will and power,
    Must make perforce a universal prey,
    And last eat up himself.”

    One might reasonably observe that that these kinds of “universal wolves” seem to begin eating themselves up with their brains first, as there is no rhyme or reason, just barren ipse dixit pronouncements from them whenever the subject arises.

  17. Toral1 says:

    The battle is joined. The problem of the (Canadian) Network has been lack of bishops. For a long time only one, retired; now two. The Southern Cone is willing to take us under their umbrella. Now we have bishops.

    The future is easy to foretell. Without details, within a period of 2 weeks from now to a few months from now, all Network parishes in Niagara will be taken over by Bishops Ralph and Michael.

    There will be so many opportunities for ministry and witness in the near future. The ACC has never evangelized, because it has no beliefs. There is great room for evangelism. For the first time in decades, people will be able to say to new Christians, “I can recommend my Church to you.” Some of the Network documents and public releases have been somewhat deficient in things like, well, literacy. The Canadian Network (ANiC) will now be able to draw upon a huge storehouse of resources, the offerings to God of people who have sat unused in a church which had no use for Christians. The ACC has been successful in the recent past by framing the issue as “Do you hate or disrespect homosexuals?” Now the issue as authority of Holy Scripture, and of Scripture, tradition, and reason, will be paramount.

    Best of all — orthodox ministers will no longer feel it necessary to be silent/careful out of respect for their bishops. And when they stop remaining silent, their witness will be powerful.

    Toral

  18. Daniel Lozier says:

    The difference lies in whether we are obedient children of God who behave as He has directed, or we are rebellious, arrogant, and determined to do what we want and what feels good. It is a matter of submission to God’s will or defiantly walking a different road.

    Like me, many of us followed the desires of our own hearts until by God’s grace our minds were changed and we asked God to transform us into the people He desires. Let us continue to pray for Fred and Susan and everyone who has set themselves above God.

  19. MJD_NV says:

    Ditto, Daniel L – great post.