A Canadian Anglican bishop signaled on Monday he would defy the wishes of the global Anglican church and start drafting a ceremony for blessing homosexual marriages.
Bishop Barry Clarke said he would be following through with the wishes of the diocese of Montreal, which he heads, and set up a commission to come up with liturgy for such blessings.
In August, the decennial Lambeth Conference of global Anglican leaders asked for a moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions, and Canada’s bishops said on Friday a large majority of them were committed to such a moratorium.
But Clarke told Reuters he was not part of that majority, and he would be proceeding with plans he had laid out before the Canadian bishops met last week.
“I don’t want to stop the journey, because I think that would be unhealthy,” he said.
Lame-beth fallout. Congratulations again to the ABC and inadabadaveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeda.
Well, I am so surprised. This is not determination, this is pig-headedness. This attitude will poison the well in a new and more permanent way. Williams cannot refuse to meet this challenge, duck as he will. Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.
but, yo know, I don’t understand why Canada of all places has fallen all the way off the left side of the bed. Why? I never did understand this. Larry.
Bishop Barry Clarke better be worried about his invitation to Lambeth ’18. Didn’t he get a pre-Lambeth [strike]letter[/strike] phone call from Rowan saying that acceptance of an invitation was acceptance to work within the Windsor process? (Aack, I loathe the word “process.”)
Bishop to Anglican Communion:
Drop Dead!
Not surprised.
[blockquote]”I don’t want to stop the journey, because I think that would be unhealthy,” he said.[/blockquote]
“I” not “We.” What a truly interesting quote.
May we ask the destination of the bishop’s journey?
So what’s the difference between what Clarke said and the following imaginary story about Archbishop Venables:
************
A Southern Cone Anglican Archbishop signaled Monday he would defy the wishes of the global Anglican church and continue taking Canadian and American parishes and dioceses under his protection.
Archbishop Gergory Venables said he would be following through with the wishes of the GAFCON primates council, of which he is a part, and continue to accept orthodox Anglican and Episcopal parishes and dioceses under his protection.
In August, the decennial Lambeth Conference of global Anglican leaders asked for a moratorium on the crossing of episcopal boundaries.
But Venables told Reuters he was not part of that majority, and he would be proceeding with plans he had laid out before the Canadian bishops met last week.
“I don’t want to stop the journey, because I think that would be unhealthy,” he said.
The Global Anglican Future Conference passed a statement earlier this year urging the creation of a North American Province.
“My intention is to honor the request of GAFCON,” he said.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, leader of the global Anglican church, has warned that the 80-million-member communion would be in grave peril if requests for moratoriums were ignored.
But Venables questioned under what authority such a moratorium would come as he said the Lambeth Conference is “not a legislative body.”
**************
What right does Fred Hiltz or any other Canadian bishop have for challenging Archbishop Venables? Not only has Barry Clarke ignored the discipline of the Anglican Communion, he can’t even be bothered to accept the discipline of the Anglican Church of Canada. And it seems like he isn’t the only one.
The difference is blatant and crucial:
Where Venables has acted- it is in RESPONSE to the mess caused by OTHERS disobedience. (I am certain he is busy enough without having to worry about parishes outside his own previously defined boundary) His hand has been FORCED.
Nobody is forcing this BIshop. He CHOOSES to act in a disobedient manner – as the liberal faction have consistently done over WO and matters concerning matters of sexual ethics. And that is a BIG BIG difference one and the cause of ALL THE PAIN within the church.
Whilst both sides of the schism deserve to be listened to and have something to say- let me state clearly. If the CHurch collapses it will be entirely the fault of those who have deliberately pushed the envelope out and broken or ignored widely held boundaries and understanding.
Re 8
jamesw
[blockquote] So what’s the difference between what Clarke said and the following imaginary story about Archbishop Venables: [/blockquote]
What Venables is doing violates a man made church discipline of questionable standing. What Clarke is doing violates the law of God and is heresy.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
Congratulations, jamesw. You just gave everyone the perfect example of how either side can and will rationalize their behavior.
Vitner – One side is acting to protect the Church to what is holy in the light of Scripture and to what is healthy by the evidence in science and medicine.
The other side is affirming sin and leading people away from God’s protection and blessing into darkness, confusion, disease, destruction and death.
There is little to no difference. Both are rejecting compromise and thumbing their noses at the ABC and the wider communion, and proceeding on paths that escalate tension and increase division within the Communion body, instead of working with the ABC and within the tradition of the communion to work toward a solution.
#13- working with the ABC….so what exactly is he doing that one can work with?
“Both are rejecting compromise and thumbing their noses at the ABC and the wider communion, … instead of working with the ABC and within the tradition of the communion to work toward a solution” —#13
As though it were all about process. As though Abp. Williams were offering an honest process rather than a pile of manipulative indaba-babble with a revisionist subtext.
Please don’t misunderstand my point. My point is that Hiltz and the liberal Canadian bishops are being exceeedingly hypocritical in criticizing Venables in doing what he is doing. The Canadian liberal bishops are complaining that Venables is violating good church order, when they, in fact, have now just demonstrated that they couldn’t care less about good church order when The Cause is on the line.
Venables, on the other hand, is arguing for Christian shepherding and care of at risk orthodox parishes who are under threat from heretical bishops. Don’t misunderstand me, I know the difference quite well. My point was to the Canadian liberals.
Violaters who hold response to as bad as their violation are in denial about the real causes if the problems. Some will maintain their willful stupidity until the final trum sounds and then argue with the Judge. He will then say to them, “thy will be done,” and they shall have all they wanted (rather than the riches of glory).
Of course, the moratorium on blessing SSU’s should include New Westminster, but that is, as we all know, non-negotiable. New Westminster was breaking the moratoria before they were requested, so they can continue. But ++Venables was breaking the moratoria before they were requested, so can’t he continue?
The moratoria are stupid. Rowan has always wanted to put these two issues on the same level, but they are not. Rowan wants a church without the Global South. The early invitations told the GS to shove off. (He knew their stated position, and that they would honor it being men of integrity.) Rowan continues his hostility towards the Global South with the moratoria.