felix hominum

John Keble’s The Christian Year: Confession & Forgiveness

When John Keble (1792-1866) published a collection of poems in 1827 based on the theme of the Christian year, he chose to remain an anonymous author.  The book, however, proved quite popular, and Keble became well known as a poet in his generation.  Though he was appointed to an Oxford professorship in poetry, he never lost his pastor’s heart.  And while his poetry contains many of the themes of his theological bent, I find the poems to be universal in the way they address some of our deepest spiritual longings, shortcomings and hopes.

For the next little while we will ask Keble to be our guide in the journey through “The Christian Year”.  For those not familiar with the theme, I would simply say that the idea of a liturgical year, a calendar with feasts and fasts and changing seasons is as old as the first prayer for rain, or the first thanks for harvest.

I want to look at Keble’s “The Christian Year” with two views.  First, what does Keble the poet and pastor have to say to our souls?  And second, it strikes me that we live in an age which runs counter to, and is often inimical to, the rhythms of creation and grace – the ways in which God has placed certain patterns into our lives.  It is these rhythms of creation and grace which we resist with our desire to be autonomous, or productive, or yes, even lazy.  So while there are specifics within the poems that are of themselves gems of wisdom, the entire collection calls us examine the patterns of our lives, and ask ourselves if we are being shaped by what another author has called the “rhythms of grace”.  Oddly enough, I am starting with Ash Wednesday, which means that I’m posting in a rather syncopated fashion.  I’ll have snippets, & give links to the full text.

 

Ash Wednesday, by John Keble  (full text here)

 

"Yes--deep within and deeper yet
The rankling shaft of conscience hide,
Quick let the swelling eye forget
The tears that in the heart abide…

 

One of the great frauds of the history of the Christian church is the pretence that we are better than we are.  We all have those “tears that in the heart abide”;  we all have those places, somewhere in the basements of our souls, where stuff is hidden away, hopefully never coming to light.

"The loving eye that watches thine
Close as the air that wraps thee round -
Why in thy sorrow should it pine,
Since never of thy sin it found?
And wherefore should the heathen see
What chains of darkness thee enslave,
And mocking say, 'Lo, this is he
Who owned a God that could not save'?"

 How we forget God’s presence!  I love Keble’s beginning point in this stanza:  “The loving eye that watches thine”.  There is a connection between God and us on at least two levels.  First, that we are under the gaze of God.  We cannot escape His presence, which is as close as the air in which we live, and which we breathe unconsciously.  There is also the wonderful image of God’s eye and our eye. This seems not only a reminder of being made in God’s image, but of the way in which the Incarnation, God-as-Jesus in the flesh, has made this “eyeing” literally true.  The courage to confess comes from understanding who God is, and feeling ourselves under that “loving eye”.

Thus oft the mourner's wayward heart
Tempts him to hide his grief and die,
Too feeble for Confession's smart,
Too proud to bear a pitying eye;

 Now Keble reminds us of the real reasons we do not disclose our faults.  We are perhaps tempted to think that God cannot save, that He cannot forgive.  And instead of confessing, we hide our grief, and die.  Keble also reminds us that it takes a certain spiritual courage and strength to confess.  It might be noted that practice of sacramental, private confession among Anglicans has its roots in Keble and his ilk.  I am reminded of a saying regarding private confession in the Anglican tradition:  “None must, all may, some should”.  Think on that.  But back to Keble’s insight.  We are often too proud to be seen as sinners in the presence of another, even if that other is full of mercy (“Too proud to bear a pitying eye”).  However, it is the one who stays outside who never tastes the feast.  I believe to be often the case that the deeper we experience repentance (however difficult that may be), the deeper we will experience the forgiveness and love of Christ.

How sweet, in that dark hour, to fall
On bosoms waiting to receive
Our sighs, and gently whisper all!
They love us--will not God forgive?
 
Else let us keep our fast within,
Till Heaven and we are quite alone,
Then let the grief, the shame, the sin,
Before the mercy-seat be thrown.
Between the porch and altar weep,
Unworthy of the holiest place,
Yet hoping near the shrine to keep
One lowly cell in sight of grace.

John Keble on the Mysticism of the Church Fathers

It is curious, and may not be uninstructive, to observe how from time to time the assailants of Primitive Antiquity have shifted their ground, since the beginning of the seventeenth century. During the struggle of the Reformation, men had felt instinctively, if they did not clearly see, that the Fathers were against them, so far as they had begun to rationalize, whether in ecclesiastical practice, or in theological inquiry. But it was many years before they ventured to avow this feeling distinctively to themselves, much more to maintain and propagate it. It was not until divines of this class had thoroughly wearied themselves in vain endeavours to reconcile the three first centuries with Calvin and Zuinglius, that Daillé published its celebrated treatise Of the Right Use of the Fathers: in which under the pretence of impugning their sufficiency as judges between Papist and Protestant, he has dexterously insinuated every topic most likely to impair their general credit; professing all the while extreme respect for their sanctity and their wisdom; although perhaps an attentive reader may perceive his ironical meaning, disclosing itself more and more, as his argument draws to a point. However, by his skill in rhetorical arrangement, and by a certain air of thorough command of his subject, which he has been very successful in assuming, he became at once the standard author for all who took that side of the question: opening (if so homely a simile may be allowed) a kind of cheap shop, to which all who had a fancy for wares of that kind have ever since found it convenient to resort.

If you have somehow made it through that first paragraph, I salute you.  John Keble was an influential poet, pastor and preacher in the early-mid 1800's.  His so-called sermon on national apostasy (Assize Day Sermon, 1833) seems for many to mark the beginning point of a movement within the Anglican church which has come to be known as the Oxford Movement.  Over the course of the nest several weeks (or maybe months) a group of us are looking at the works of influential Anglican Christians of the last 200 years.  And, as is my preference, rather than spending a whole lot of time reading what others have said, we will turn to the writings of these Christians themselves.  First up we will be having a look at some of the writings of the leaders of the Oxford Movement with a view to several questions:  what did they say, why did they say it, and how can their thoughts and prayers help form our own discipleship as followers of Jesus in the "Anglican way"?

"Last chance to join in on Vision 2019"

Last chance to join in on Vision 2019
Ali Symons, Anglican Church of Canada

September 30, 2009 - Tomorrow, Oct. 1, is the last day on which you can respond to Vision 2019 and help plan the Anglican Church of Canada's future priorities. Everyone is asked to answer the question, "Where is your church now, and where do you want the Anglican Church of Canada to be by 2019?" All responses will be heard and analyzed by a consultant and then a report will be presented at General Synod 2010.

I'll be brief in my answers.  I say answers because the question is really two questions, rolled into one to save punctuation marks, which are threatened with extinction because of polar ice melt.  As I was saying, in answer to the question "Where is your church now?", it is located in the west end of Edmonton, Alberta, where the overnight temperature dropped to -2 last night.  I scraped frost off my windshield this morning.  This of course points us all to the second question:  "Where do you want the Anglican Church of Canada to be by 2019?"  It is my sincere hope that the ACofC, with buildings sunk upon the vast ice shelves of this northern country, will experience a geographical shift, loosing its moors from the northern half of this continent and moving southward at the rate of 14 knots until we come to rest somewhere off the coast of Bermuda.

Thank you for taking my thoughts into consideration, and I anticipate seeing the General Synod's Geographical Action Planning Team implement this project soon.  Before it snows.  Next week.

Yours, etc,

The Reverend Joseph Walker, BA,MRel,MA,MA

ps - Nothing instills confidence like knowing that my answer will be "analyzed by a consultant".

Twitter: "Connection without Expectation" ://church

I heard a fascinating interview a few days ago on CBC radio.  The guest was relating some comments from the founder(s) of Twitter.  For those not in the 140 character loop, let's just say that if you are reading this you are only a click away from discovering what it is.  The interviewee related a story about the early days of the Twitter concept.  Why did these entrepreneurs think their idea would fly?  The answer was simple:  people today are looking for "connection without expectation".  This is exactly what Twitter (and in some ways its big brother Facebook) can provide in endless measure.  In a form of Newspeak, "friend" can mean either your lifelong companion or someone to give you an energy boost in Mafia Wars, or help raise your vegetables in Farmville, or simply someone who signed onto some cause you promoted, without the slightest intention of actually participating.

This idea of "connection without expectation" is one of the problems of the contemporary church.  From a marketing point of view it is a great guiding principle for our outreach and evangelism and whatever else you want to throw in the pot.  Seen from the vantage point of creating real Christian community, however, it is problematic.  We always run the risk of becoming (or remaining - take your pick) aloof, independent and alone.  "Connection" finds its illusory power in some vague sense of the word, without the expectation that connection with another human being in community involves care, love, friendship.  

It is interesting that one of the readings for this coming Sunday in church is from the Genesis story of the creation of man/woman.  It is the story of the first human community.

Adam.  Eve.

God.

Add as Friend.

Quote of the day

Before looking at the specific problems posed by what I am from here forward going to call cultural Christianity, I would like to address the problem of the faulty ideas many people have regarding the importance of authentic faith. You might think that if you consider yourself a “good” person and are against “bad” things, your faith is adequate. The fact is, you might not be a Christian at all but simply a moral person. You might understand the Christianity our culture has adopted without understanding what constitutes authentic faith. You might know some of the basic facts about Christianity but have no idea how those facts should apply to your life.

from this book

New Bishop for the Anglican Diocese of Athabasca

The Rev. Canon Fraser Lawton, Rector of St. Thomas' Church, Fort McMurray, was elected as Bishop of Athabasca yesterday. Pray for Fraser and the people of the Diocese of Athabasca as they minister together in northern Alberta.

h/t Tim Chesterton

I've met Fraser briefly a few times at clergy events,  & join my prayers with Tim's that he might be supported and led by the Holy Spirit as he takes on this new ministry.

St Tim's Open House & Fun Fair

We had a great time participating in the Laurier community league celebrations last Saturday, and this weekend it is St Tim's turn to host something for our neighbours.  So come out his weekend to the Fun Fair at 8420 - 145 St, just across from Laurier Park.

St Tim's Anglican Church is hosting a neighbourhood fun fair and open house on Saturday, September 19.  The events run from 3:30 to 7:15 pm.  Here are a few of the things happening:

• 3:30-4:00 pm - all ages games in the park
• 4:00-6:00 pm - giant Inflatable jumping zone
• 4:00-5:00 pm - petting zoo for kids & grown ups
• 4:00-6:00 pm - pub zone & East Coast music
• 4:30-6:00 pm - free subs & refreshments - dinner's on us
• 6:15-7:15 pm - variety musical cafe at the Courtyard

Everyone from the neighbourhood & beyond is welcome to attend.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, individualism, & the Anglican Diocese of Niagara

Poets show up in curious places:

Perhaps only in America could a major cultural figure such as Ralph Waldo Emerson become a spokesman for a popular brand of athletic shoes.  During a summer campaign in the late 1980’s, Reebok International put the clipped, gnomic sentences of “Self-Reliance” to work for selling designer sneakers.  In one spot from the twenty million dollar promotion, a fairy godmother, briefcase in hand, spouted Emersonian wisdom:  “Insist on yourself.  Never imitate.  To be great is to be misunderstood.”

(Roger Lundin, The Culture of Interpretation p 104)

At the same time that Tocqville was looking at this new thing called "America", Ralph Waldo Emerson was beginning to exert his own influence on the spirit of the new age.  Emerson was in a line of influential thinkers and writers for whom the Self was an ultimate authority, source of truth, and goal.   "To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men—that is genius’’ wrote Emerson in his influential essay Self Reliance (1841).  This essay was to become known later as Emerson's most forceful exposition of his particular brand of individualism. "Trust thyself" became the catchphrase of Emerson's thinking.

"Ne te quaesiveris extra."

Man is his own star; and the soul that can
Render an honest and a perfect man,
Commands all light, all influence, all fate;

Do not seek anything beyond yourself, you yourself are your "own star".  To be sure, Emerson's take on things was not a base form of misguided Epicurean pleasure seeking.  Or at least he didn't want it to come across as such.  Since the time of Descartes, the idea was floating around that autonomy, rather than authority, should be the starting point of all we do.  The only firm foundation, really, is myself.  For what else can I really know and what else can I really trust?  Forget things like creed and church -- look only within! On the one hand, the Emerson of "Self Reliance" has a point:  do not merely be cowed by the thinking of others - dare to stand against public opinion if you have to..  But then the principle upon which you stand is really only yourself.

Emerson was a wondeful journal keeper.  He detailed some of his thoughts from his time as a minister in the Second Church (Unitarian) in Boston.  Having started in ministry, he began to wander, and then move intentionally, away from historic Christianity.  Emerson began to have his doubts about both the teaching and practice of the Church.  By 1832 you can see that he was getting ready to quit the church's ministry:  "The profession is antiquated.  In an altered age, we worship the dead forms of our forefathers.  Were not a Socratic paganism better than an effete superannuated Christianity?" (Emerson in His Journals, ed Joel Porte, p 83).  Interestingly, most of this came to head over the issue of communion.  In a sermon on The Lord's Supper, Emerson outlines his objections to both the teaching and practice of the sacrament: 

Having recently given particular attention to this subject, I was led to the conclusion that Jesus did not intend to establish an institution for perpetual observance when he ate the Passover with his disciples; and, further, to the opinion, that it is not expedient to celebrate it as we do. I shall now endeavor to state distinctly my reasons for these two opinions.

Perhaps, though, Emerson's greatest reason was his concluding view of who Jesus is.  Emerson gave an address to his old school, Harvard Divinity.  In this address Emerson tells us what he thinks is the root of the problem:  "Historical Christianity has fallen into the error that corrupts all attempts to communicate religion. . . . It has dwelt, it dwells, with noxious exaggeration about the person of Jesus. The soul knows no persons."  And so he proceeded to jettison as so much baggage this historic-faith idea about "the person of Jesus", and found himself in opposition to those who held that Jesus is what the Church has taught about him - Son of God and Son of Man.  The soul, the "self", does not need to look to someone else (such as Jesus) - you only need, in the end, to look to yourself.  Be your own star.

Emerson discovered in the poet Walt Whitman a like minded individual.  In a letter responding to Whitman's "Leaves of Grass", Emerson wrote:  "I greet you at the beginning of a great career, which yet must have had a long foreground somewhere, for such a start." (Letter to Whitman, 21 July, 1855)  Whitman went on to be a disciple of Emerson.  Whitman began "Song of Myself" (Whitman, Poetry and Prose, Kaplan, 1982) with, well, as the title says:  "I celebrate myself, and sing myself, / And what I assume you shall assume..."   The poem continues with a romantic optimism in which "we discover that all of us are saved, because none of us are guilty" (Lundin, 147).   "Let the physician and the priest go home", Whitman declares, as this new version of free and romantic humanity, endlessly progressing humanity emerges.  Let the romantic poet of the "self" usher in a better kingdom than the kingdom of God.

Which brings me to another interesting use of Emerson's thought and Whitman's influence in contemporary culture.  It appears the the Anglican Diocese of Niagara is poised to offer same sex blessings, according to the Anglican Journal:

The decision by the diocese of Niagara to offer same-sex blessings has drawn mixed reactions from Anglicans in Canada.

Similarly, backlash over the recent decision by the Episcopal Church (TEC) to affirm the openness of “any ordained ministry” to gay and lesbian people and to develop more liturgical resources for same-sex blessings reflects the continuing deep divide over sexuality in the Anglican Communion.

“As a bishop, I cannot recognize the legitimacy of what Niagara is doing,” said Bishop Bill Anderson of the diocese of Caledonia. “I sadly conclude that Niagara has chosen to walk apart, and is therefore in a state of impaired communion.”

In an interview, Bishop Anderson said “bishops simply do not have the spiritual, theological or canonical authority to change the teaching of the church at the local level, however much their diocesan synods may do so.” He added that this point was “clearly articulated” by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, at the 2008 Lambeth Conference, the decennial gathering the world’s Anglican bishops.

When you look at the text of the proposed liturgy, you can follow along with this:

PART 2: The Proclamation of the Word
Which includes one or more of these elements:
a) One or more readings from the Hebrew or Greek scriptures
b) A reading from an appropriate secular source.

Note the language (it's the same used by Emerson - "the Hebrew [and] Greek Scriptures".  It was Emerson's way of describing texts which are 'culturally bound'.  And the choices suggested for readings "from an appropriate secular source":

We Two Boys Together Clinging
by Walt Whitman
(1819-1892)

We two boys together clinging,
One the other never leaving,
Up and down the roads going, North and South excursions making,
Power enjoying, elbows stretching, fingers clutching,
Arm'd and fearless, eating, drinking, sleeping, loving.
No law less than ourselves owning, sailing, soldiering, thieving,
threatening,
Misers, menials, priests alarming, air breathing, water drinking, on
the turf or the sea-beach dancing,
Cities wrenching, ease scorning, statutes mocking, feebleness chasing,
Fulfilling our foray.

"No law less than ourselves owning" .  It is the fundamental question before the church still under the influence of the power of the "romantic self".  Are we a law unto ourselves?  Are we, 'ourselves', the highest authority that needs to be obeyed, followed, listened to? Is this the appropriate (it certainly is secular) reading?  If so, what does it teach us?  For the school of Emerson, Whitman and those who follow in their line of thinking, the goal is the dismissal of the old cumbersome Christianity, with its emphasis on the "noxious exaggeration of the person of Jesus".

Death of a conscience clause?: Episcopal General Convention

It is interesting and significant to note what was "crossed out" of the original resolution presented to the Episcopal Church's General Convention this week.  The original motion had a conscience clause;  the one passed by the Convention does not.  Many Anglican clergy have heard time and again that "no one will require you to do this".  It seems, however, that while the resolution does explicitly require anyone to do this, it does explicitly remove the principle upon which one might decline from doing so.

There you have it.  Here is the text that was removed from the original resolution by the Episcopal Church's General Convention: 

Resolution:    C056
Title:    Liturgies for Blessings
Topic:    Liturgy


Resolved, That in the meantime the Ecclesiastical Authority of each diocese may authorize for use in the diocese liturgies for blessing same-gender committed relationships of enduring love, mutuality, and fidelity; and be it further

Resolved, That, with respect to such blessings, no bishop or clergy of this Church or any other person acting on behalf of this Church shall be required or expected to perform an act contrary to a deeply-held position of conscience.

Go here for the full text of the resolution, with original and the final (passed by the House of Bishops) version.  It has yet (at this time) to be passed by the 'House of Deputies'.

Why I live under a curse

...because I am compelled to read and respond to the various papers presented by the Primate's Theological Commission.  Theology, like all intellectual disciplines, requires time.  An obvious drawback to engaging in dialogue with those who have produced this set of papers is the lack of time to adequately consider all angles of what is being said.  Nontheless, let me begin.  The order in which I am reading these papers is much like how I pick the movies I go to:  mainly based on the titles.  And for further reading, one might consider Pete Rollins' question:  who is a theologian?

Mostly I will respond according to the genre of my generation:  meandering. 

Walter Deller makes gives us some interesting "for instance" examples in his paper: Pastoral Practice and Doctrine—Two Instances of Change and Some Questions They Raise.  He uses two examples:  suicide and baptism of children born out of marriage.  I want first to look at the way he addresses the latter.  He relates the following to us:

As the synod presentation made clear it is still the practice in some parts of the Canadian Church not to baptize children who are born to parents who are not married. I am aware of clergy who have encountered in their ministry individuals who have been alienated from the church for long periods of time because of such refusals within living memory. This offers an interesting reflection point, since this instance is one where pastoral practice is in outright contradiction of doctrine.

He goes on to note that it has never been the doctrine of the church  to formally deny baptism based on the marital status of the parents.  Yet he notes that practices contrary to the teaching of the church have at least existed within the Canadian church.

There are a few problems I see with using this kind of example.  First, it must be noted that the practice was actually contrary to the teaching of the church.  As a model for implementing SSB, I find it less than persuasive.  Look at it this way:  the correction to a faulty practice is to bring it in line with the teaching of the church.  What is missing from Deller's example is the strong fact that this was not a widespread practice, and it was, by all accounts, contrary to the understanding of the sacrament itself.  So I find it rather unconvincing.  It does not prove a blanket "practices can change" principle.  It merely points out a set of clergy (how many? and for how long?) who engaged, of their own accord, in a practice which was contrary to the teaching of the church.  Seems to me that the model actually works against making a case for change...

16 papers from the Primate’s Theological Commission

And they can all be found here.

I know, I know...  First of all, who has time to read and adequately address such a plethora?  If St Augustine lamented the lack of time in book XI of his Confessions, then so can I.  But be that as it may, if one has the time, and one is Anglican, and one thinks that such things are helpful, then go and read them all and report back here.  BTW, just in case you had not guessed, they are all around THE topic.  Which is an area where good reflection is needed.

As an underlying principle, the notion that questions are 'open' is going to continue to be quite exciting.  Or, to put it another way, the notion that there are less absolutes than the church thought is working itself out in many ways.  Some say that we need to rethink our 'absolutes' in terms of ethics;  others say that we need to rethink our 'absolutes' in terms of polity. 

From a purely speculative point of view, the one gives permission to the other.  It is the same principle, only applied to a different category of church life.  One should not find it surprising that at the same time as there is a restructuring of ethical order, there is also a restructuring of ecclesiastical order within Anglicanism.

If it's all too much, take a break and go here:

What's wrong with the Rothesay Report: Part 1 of Many

The Faith, Worship and Ministry committee has released a paper entitled the Rothesay Report.  Good that this group has put some things down on paper and offered it up for consideration to the Anglican Church of Canada.  So let me pull up a chair and a latte, and have a bit of conversation with this Report and its authors.  Bravo for putting in the effort, honestly, I mean that.  Yet, having read through the report twice, there are numerous points in it which need to be addressed.  I might go so far as to say there are things which are at least a bit unclear, and some which are just plain wrong.  It will take some time to go through it all;  we'll do this with a few lattes and beers over the next little while...

First, let me begin with your footnotes.  You know, the place at the end where you tell us what sources you used for research, for informing interpretation, for exegesis, for theological reasoning.  Let me simply start by asking this:  is every author you reference pro same sex marriage?  I know you are hoping to "make a case" for the rationale of same sex marriage.  But making a case is not the same as making up a case.  Let me give one simple example: 

24:   Romans 1 refers either to a form of behaviour which Paul thought ought to be avoided because it was characteristic of the heathen Gentiles; [9] or to heterosexual individuals who engage in homosexual activity (since homosexuality is ‘unnatural’ for them; [10]); or to behaviour that amounts to little more than a Jewish taboo and needs therefore not to be regarded as ‘sin’ by those who don’t share the same cultural outlook [11].

[9]  John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality
[10]  Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality: contextual background for contemporary debate
[11]  William Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today

That's it?  I mean, let's have an honest conversation here.  These are the three options that you come up with for interpreting Romans 1?  James Dunn, Kasemann, Hengel, Ziesler, Sanders, Ridderbos, Keck, Donfried, Fitzmyer -- and that's just off the top of my head.  Let alone anything like what's his name - Robert Gagnon, but in case anyone thinks he's a red herring, leave him off the list.  If you are going to offer an honest theological rationale for same sex marriage, I think you need to address the flaws pointed out in the positions of the 3 authors you quote.  Making a case for something involves addressing the opposition to it; making a case involves addressing the exegesis of serious scholars who interpret Romans 1 quite differently, and for very sound reasons.

Faith Worship and Ministry first sought, and then received, clarification from CoGS that the subject is the marriage of same-sex couples, not all legally qualified persons. The church wants to reserve the right to define for itself who the proper subjects of marriage are, rather than leave this to the state.

Faith Worship and Ministry’s response is The Rothesay Report. This is a study paper, which was offered to the Council of General Synod in the course of their discernment. The Council has referred it back to Faith Worship and Ministry for further work, "to expand it to include a broader spectrum of theological thought on the question of the marriage of same-sex couples."

I am somewhat pleased that the paper got sent back for "further work", it certainly needs it.

Canadian Anglican General Synod won't consider same sex marriage in 2010

Well, at least according to a paragraph in the Anglican Journal:

Council of General Synod (CoGS) wrestled with the blessing of same-sex unions and marriage when it met here May 8 to 10 and in the end decided not to ask General Synod 2010 to amend the marriage canon to allow for the marriage of same-sex couples.

CoGS had a recent meeting;  some of the official notes are here, here and here.  The Primate's Theological Commission has put out a paper or two (alluded to earlier on this blog:  Galilee Report, updates & papers here).

So what exactly does any of this mean in terms of the ongoing stuff in the Canadian Church?  Not sure.  There are several possible outcomes.  Various bishops and dioceses continue to offer same sex blessings, while others (Ottawa, Toronto, Niagara) appear poised to begin doing so, regardless of any request for "moratoria" from the wider Communion.

Somewhere along the line, there is the possibility that someone will introduce a motion to amend the marriage canons anyway, or something to such effect.  CoGS says it won't ask General Synod to entertain  a motion regarding same sex marriage, but that doesn't mean that anyone else is prevented from introducing such a motion.  My money is on the latter option.  Actually, I anticipate something along the lines of what was introduced 2 synods ago; eg:  this General Synod recognize the integrity and sanctity of those baptized persons who have entered into civil marriage.

Anyone who wants to figure out how the recent Big Anglican Meeting shakes down is welcome to try.  We are all being processed to death. Here's what Bishop Mouneer Anis, President Bishop of the Anglican Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East had to say about the most recent international gathering to discuss the "Anglican Covenant":

There was manipulation. We had  deliberated long about section 4.  They put resolution A to detach section 4 and ask ABC to put a committee.   When the resolution was put for voting, we praise the Lord it was rejected.

Then it was like a shock to bring the two main clauses of the resolution we rejected and put it in the resolution we wanted to vote on. It is absolutely wrong.  We as members of ACC had decided that we do not want this resolution. We wanted the covenant to go straight to the provinces.  This led to what seemed to me to be a lot of confusion on the role of the ACC.  The ACC is not a synod to take decisions like this.  All we are asking for is that this covenant be sent for a further three years, until 2012, so that every province will have plenty of time.   The provinces can make amendments as well after it has passed.  There will be time for discussion and reflection. There will be objections and amendments.  Yet this body does not want to send it.  It was very clear from the rejection of Resolution A they way that the majority in the house wanted to go. This was a shock and confusion and a manipulation.

This was deliberate.  Resolution A was rejected and yet was brought back.   Even if it is legal I see it as wrong.  Also in the last few days, all of us were clear about section 4.  Even the Church in Canada had said for the sake of the communion and unity we will receive this covenant.   I personally think it is unfair to appoint people from three different provinces who are known to reject the covenant, - New Zealand, the United States and Scotland, - on the resolution committee.  Part of this crisis is due to distrust. I must say that all what happened increased the distrust.

On another front, I had a conversation not that long ago in which someone tried to offer the reassurance that of course clergy wont' be required to officiate at same sex blessings/marriages.  Well of course they won't.  That assurance is actually, in my opinion, precisely not the point.  Canon law already allows clergy to refuse sacraments on the basis of conscience.  And yes, I have had a few couples to whom I've said that I would not be willing to officiate at their wedding.  So saying clergy won't have to do SSM is really just an extension of what is already there.

The real question is this:  if and when (and I'm assuming a when) SSM passes in the Canadian Anglican Church, will any voice of theological opposition to the practice be allowed/tolerated? 

That to me is the real question.

What is the point of Anglicanism?  Ruth Gledhill has an interesting column in the Times regarding Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, who recently resigned his post in order to do more work with persecuted Christians.  The Bishop himself hails from Pakistan originally.  Here's an interesting part of the interview:

Bishop Michael spoke about the equal and opposite pulls in Anglicanism, towards the 'logic of Catholicism' or the 'logic of fragmentation'.

'The question now arises, which logic will prevail. It is quite possible that the logic of fragmentation will prevail and people will go their own way. Or it may be that the Anglicans will see their way to the Catholic Church, to God's will as expressed in Christ's highly prescient prayer for the unity of Christians across the ages and throughout the world.

'Anglicans to their credit have never claimed to be the one, true Church.' He noted that successive Lambeth Conferences had accepted that Anglicanism stands ready to disappear in the cause of Catholic unity, 'that is, it [Anglicanism] is not an end to itself but a means towards the greater Catholicism which is  God's will.'

A quote from the Archbishop of Canterbury

That pestilent and most wretched John Wycliffe, of damnable memory, a child of the old devil, and himself a child or pupil of anti-Christ…crowned his wickedness by translating the Scriptures into the mother tongue!

Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury (d 1414), on the Synod which condemned Wycliffe's supervision of the translation of the Bible into English.

Wycliffe’s “Wickett” (small and narrow gate) - his defense of the enterprise...

[God] shows everywhere that all men should repent, and because of this all the legalistic clerics which have been ever against God the Lord, both in the old law and the new, find it necessary to kill the prophets that speak to them the word of God. You see that they spared not the Son of God, when the earthly judge would have released him (Matt 27) and in the same way they treated the apostles and martyrs that have truly spoken the word of God to them.

And they say it is heresy to express the holy scripture in English, but in saying so they would condemn the Holy Ghost who gave tongues to Christ’s apostles so they could speak the word of God in all languages that were ordained of God under heaven.

On Tuesday evenings we are doing a course on the Reformation and its antecedents.  I'll be putting up the choicest highlights every once in a while.

I emerged as the champion

of Sunday evening's speed air hockey tournament with the youth group, individual challenge final round.

I'm just sayin'...

But apart from air hockey, we did an interesting exercise in which we looked at the prayers we use during communion and asked two basic questions:  what do these prayers say about God, and what do these prayers say about us?  The way we pray often has much to tell us (and others) about who we think God is, and who we think we (individually and collectively) are. 

a terribly uncomfortable solution to Anglican lawsuits

From time to time, as part of my Lenten discipline, I will look in on the rest of the Anglican family and see how things are going.  If you look through the curtains, you will see any number of lawsuits going on:  diocese of Niagara, British Columbia, New Westminster.  I'm sure I have missed a few, or at least there will be more by the time you read this.

Perhaps because it is Holy Week, I am going to suggest a very simple but uncomfortable solution.  It is merely based on a parable in Luke's Gospel.  You all know it, it starts out like this:

Jesus continued: "There was a man who had two sons. The younger one said to his father, 'Father, give me my share of the estate.' So he divided his property between them.

You see, I propose that the Dioceses act like the Father in the parable.

I know it needs work, but I'll keep at it and add more details when they come to me...

the Barnabas Initiative

It's a project in the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton, focusing on new ministry initiatives.  There is a website up and running (in its infant stages) where Thomas Brauer has begun to post a few items.  Head over and have a look.

St Mary's Nanoose Bay (BC) leaves ACoC

The parish has removed all links from their website pointing to anything "Anglican Church of Canada"-ish.  According to an Anglican Network in Canada news release, the parish has

voted overwhelmingly on Sunday, February 8, to come under the episcopal oversight of Bishop Donald Harvey, Moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC), and under the Primatial authority of Archbishop Gregory Venables of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.

Now here is where it gets interesting:

St Mary’s rector, the Rev Guy Bellerby, met today with the bishop’s commissary from the Anglican Church of Canada BC Diocese to request an amicable arrangement that would enable the congregation to remain in the church building pending a mediated process. This is in the spirit of the request made by the Primates (leaders of Anglican Churches worldwide) at their recent meeting in Egypt. The Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada said earlier this week that he would like to participate in such a mediation process.

I will be more than curious to see how the mediation process mentioned will work itself out.

Anglican Primates' Meeting: a "fog of confusion"

The 2009 Primates’ Meeting in Alexandria, Egypt, has opened in a fog of confusion with little expectation the five day meeting will resolve the Anglican crisis...the primates appear exhausted and frustrated, unsure of their authority within the Anglican Communion and the purpose of the meeting.

article by George Conger, at religious intelligence

Paul Feheley, Principal Secretary to the Primate, is accompanying Archbishop Fred Hiltz to the Primates' Meeting in Alexandria, Egypt.  He has a report here.

I've never had the opportunity to worship in the Anglican church in Alexandria, but I have some wonderful memories of worshiping with the congregation in the Anglican cathedral in Cairo.  If I dig out a pic or two I'll post them.  There is also an article at the Anglican Journal, in which we learn that the Archbishop of Canterbury was greeted by the Coptic Pope, Shenouda III.  Personally, I think the Copts are where it is at.

The Anglican Church as the monastery of this age

I've had this thought tumbling around for some time.  It's still tumbling.

Once upon a time a culture collapsed.  I, like many who have a fondness for dates, would suggest the deposition of the last Western Roman Emperor (476) as a nice symbolic event.  The responses to this collapse were varied;  one response was the rise of communal monastic life.  Within several decades of each other, Benedict could form his monastic community, and Boethius could use the figure of Lady Philosophy to drive home an essentially Christian message.  In chalkboard level history, one was forming a community in order to survive the shift in culture, while the other was freed to look around and take from the culture something which could be of service to the faith. 

I propose that there were two unthinkables at work here.  The first is that it would have been unthinkable to Christians only 400 years prior that a community cut off from the world would have been a desirable goal for the church.  The second is that it would have been unthinkable for Christians only 400 years prior to suggest that the figure of Lady Philosophy could play the role of handmaid to the faith.

All of this overly simplistic analysis is merely to say this:  the Anglican Church of Canada as we know it is, I submit, mostly like the monastic community of old, even while it struggles to engage the culture in which it finds itself.  This is not in and of itself a bad thing.  The monastic tradition has been (in either solitary or communal form) a vibrant part of Christian tradition from earliest times.  When the culture shifts, there is a certain comfort in knowing that certain things are being preserved;  that treasures are being safely stored; that at least some of the "things that were" are still preserved in ritual and in particular places.  Yet it was never a simple task to join the community.  In some traditions, the would-be novice had to stand at the door and knock for some days (in order to test his perseverance, we are told).  The community was a "solid" place, to which those who were destined were called.  And once inside, the novice found himself subject of a particular way of doing things, under an hierarchical structure which sought to bring order to a society in which chaos had come to be the norm.  The monastery had walls, it had order.  It was, in many ways, a self contained community.  Perhaps too many of our parish churches have become Benedictine in their construction and outlook:  we are a safe haven against the changes and chances of this fleeting world.  Those who would become members must essentially become novices, and then find their place within the established order.

All of this at some juncture has to do with being a monastic or a missional kind of community, or at least being able to combine the best of both.  When I have that figured out, I'll sell you the book and become a celebrity.

Bishop Ron Ferris joins Anglican Network in Canada

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 23 January 2009

Bishop Ronald Ferris, recently retired Bishop of Algoma (in Ontario), has announced that, effective immediately, he will minister as part of the Anglican Network in Canada under the Primatial jurisdiction of Archbishop Gregory Venables, Primate of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.  Bishop Ferris is the third Canadian bishop to be received under Archbishop Venables for ministry in the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC).

While Bishop Ferris will focus primarily on church planting in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, he will be available to assist Bishop Donald Harvey in episcopal ministry.

“Bishop Ferris has been an unwavering advocate of orthodox Anglican and Christian beliefs and practices within the Anglican Church of Canada’s House of Bishops,” said Bishop Harvey.  “He has always supported the stand taken by the Anglican Network in Canada, even when the vast majority of his peers opposed us. Bishop Ferris is a gifted man of God who is highly respected in his former diocese and throughout Canada.  He has a true pastor’s heart and is wholeheartedly dedicated to Christ’s ministry and service. I am grateful for the privilege of ministering together.”

“After 28 wonderful years as Bishop, first in the Yukon and then in Algoma, I am delighted to embark on a new challenge – new church development,” said Bishop Ferris.  “My decision to relinquish the licence I held for so many years within the Anglican Church of Canada was not taken quickly or lightly. My wife and I deeply value our many years in Algoma and the Yukon and are thankful that during our time in Algoma the diocese remained united as a “communion partner diocese” and committed to upholding the teachings and disciplines of the Anglican Communion.”

Bishop Ferris retired September 30, 2008, having served as Bishop of Algoma since 1995.   He had previously served as Bishop of the Yukon from 1981 until 1995.  Bishop Ferris holds a Doctorate in Sacred Theology (1995) from Thorneloe University in Sudbury, Ontario, a Doctorate of Ministry (1995) from Pacific School of Religion in the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California, as well as a Doctorate of Divinity (1982) from Huron College in London, Ontario.  In 2004, Bishop Ferris was a candidate in the election for Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada.

A growing number of biblically faithful Anglicans in Canada, distressed by the seismic shift in the theology and practice of the Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC), have joined ANiC in order to remain in the mainstream of Anglicanism globally and historically.  Today, ANiC numbers three bishops, 66 priests and deacons and 26 parishes with about 3200 Canadians in church on an average Sunday.

ANiC is under the Episcopal authority of Bishop Don Harvey and the jurisdiction of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone (based in South America) – one of the 38 Provinces in the global Anglican Communion.  The Anglican Church of Canada is also one of these 38 Provinces.

Members of the Anglican Network in Canada are 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 the vast majority of Anglicans around the world.

from Essentials

The Anglican Journal has a story on Bishop Ferris' move here.

The Anglican Planet on the web & the death penalty

is located here.

In unrelated news, I've been tossing around various statements by anglican church leaders on the question of the death penalty.  Does anyone have a take on this issue?

And, in keeping with the meandering nature of this post, one day soon I'm going to try to update the links with a number of interesting blogs which have never made it into the sidebar for some reason or other. 

Conservative Anglicans Create Rival Church

In a history-making gesture, conservative evangelical Anglicans, deeply alienated by the decline of the U.S. denomination, sounded a shofar to herald the creation of the Anglican Church of North America.

On a snowy Wednesday evening, about 1,000 worshipers, mostly from the U.S. and Canada, gathered in Wheaton, Illinois, for a worship service to celebrate the creation of the new entity, which comprises 656 congregations, 800 clergy, 30 bishops, and 100,000 people in regular worship. They represent the evangelical, charismatic, and Anglo-Catholic traditions within Anglicanism.

read the whole article at Christianity Today

Related articles from the Anglican Journal:

Anglican Church in North America: new church or new province?

Creating a new province will take years, says Archbishop of Canterbury

"Conservative Anglicans determined to stay within church"

About 50 conservative Anglican leaders, including eight young theological students, gathered in Toronto for a one-day consultation on Nov. 25 and emerged with a determination to remain within the Anglican Church of Canada. They came from 16 dioceses across the country.

Rev. Brett Cane of St. Aidan’s Anglican Church in Winnipeg is chair of Anglican Essentials Federation who was quick to point out that the organization is going through a name change. He said that the “Essentials” label has negative connotations in some parts of the country. He said that the federation is loosening its connection to the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC). “We will still maintain links of fellowship with the network but we will not be organizationally tied together.”

ANiC includes 23 congregations, 14 of which are churches that left the Anglican Church of Canada, and the rest are new church plants. They are under the episcopal oversight of Bishop Donald Harvey, formerly of the Anglican Church of Canada, and under the primatial authority of Archbishop Gregory Venables, primate of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.

Mr. Cane said that the federation will continue to meet together with those involved in ANiC, “being together in preaching, youth work and mission.” “We are all still brothers and sisters in Christ; we need to recognize their pain because it isn’t easy to leave the denomination you love.”

He said that the one day consultation dealt with “reformulating our vision” rather than issues around structure. He said he saw this conservative federation as more of a movement within the Anglican Church of Canada than an organization.

The concerns of conservative Anglicans reach beyond the blessing of same-sex unions, he said. There is a need for theological reflection on the uniqueness of Jesus, biblical interpretation, marriage, and the rights of children. Mr. Cane says the federation – whatever its new name – will be encouraging theological students to become engaged in these conversations...

...Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, sent a lengthy pastoral letter to the consultation in which he acknowledged differences in biblical interpretation and expressed appreciation for the fellowship’s determination to work within the Anglican Church of Canada...

from the Anglican Journal

Letter from the Bishops of the Ecclesiastical Province of Rupert’s Land

[ed note:  published with permission]

Message to the Church in the Ecclesiastical Province of Rupert’s Land

Greetings in the name of the risen and ascended Lord, whose return in glory we await.

We, the Bishops of the Province of Rupert’s Land returned from the Lambeth Conference, profoundly moved by our encounter with the other bishops of the worldwide Anglican Communion and deeply committed to our continuing life together.

As we and the other bishops at Lambeth sought to discern God’s call to us, we discussed many painful and complex issues on which we had deep and intense differences. Yet these differences were surpassed by the unity we discovered as we worshiped, prayed and studied the Scriptures together. One of those issues on which we sought God’s guidance was the blessing of same gender unions.

A significant majority of the bishops gathered at Lambeth requested that as part of our discernment process the moratoria proposed in the Windsor report continue to be honoured.

These moratoria mean that all bishops are asked to refrain from
1. Authorizing rites for the public blessing of same gender unions
2. Participating in the consecration of a bishop openly engaged in a same gender relationship
3. Engaging in cross-border pastoral interventions

Our Primate, The Most Reverend Fred Hiltz, has requested that we enter into a time of ‘gracious restraint‘ by honouring these moratoria.

We, the bishops of the Ecclesiastical Province of Rupert’s Land, give thanks for the courageous and pastorally sensitive leadership of our Primate. We commit ourselves individually and collectively to honour the moratoria. We do so with the clear understanding that in so doing we are not in any way prejudging the results of the discernment process.

Having committed ourselves to entering into the time of ‘gracious restraint’ requested by the Lambeth Conference, the Archbishop of Canterbury and our Primate, we call upon all those who consider themselves members of the Anglican Communion to honour this request. We especially call upon those bishops from outside of our Province who have chosen to interfere in our dioceses to immediately cease their activities. We call on all individuals within our Province who have aligned themselves with outside groups to return to their parish family and enter into open and respectful dialogue with us about how their concerns can be addressed and their gifts utilized more fully in the proclamation of the Gospel and the building up of the Kingdom of God.

May the Holy Spirit fill your hearts and lives with joy as you prepare for the season of Advent when we anticipate the celebration of the birth of our Lord Jesus as Saviour of the world and await his return in glory as the Judge of that same world.

The Bishops of the Dioceses of
The Arctic
Athabasca
Brandon
Calgary
Edmonton
Keewatin
Qu’Appelle
Rupert’s Land
Saskatoon
Note: There are currently no bishops in the Diocese of Saskatchewan


[if you desire to make a comment, please exercise charity & clarity]

Statement from the Anglican Church of Canada House of Bishops

excerpt:

One of our main topics of conversation was the agreement by many bishops at Lambeth on three moratoria: on the blessing of same-sex unions, on the ordination to the episcopate of people in same-sex relationships and on cross-border interventions. This discussion was in the context of decisions made recently by several diocesan synods in the Canadian Church that asked their bishop to prepare and authorize rites for the blessing of same-sex couples.

Our discussion initially comprised two parts. The first consisted of reports to the House from several bishops of whom such requests have been made -- Ottawa, Montreal, Niagara, Huron, and the Anglican Parishes of the Central Interior -- as well as bishops from other dioceses who anticipate such requests in the not-too-distant future and bishops whose dioceses have received unnecessary and unwelcomed "cross-border interventions."

For the second part, we formed an indaba group to reflect on what we had heard in the previous session. (Indaba -- a model for discussion used at Lambeth -- is an African word meaning "a gathering for purposeful conversation among equals.") Several themes emerged in this discussion.

Some dioceses have not yet engaged in the listening and discernment process and some are just beginning;
Some have been listening and discerning for many years and have reached differing conclusions;
Even in the face of difference, there was a desire expressed to "stay at the family table."
It became clear during this process that many individual bishops wanted something from the House as a whole "to take home" with them to share with members of the church.

In response to that request, we added to our agenda a third session on this vitally important topic. In April, 2005 at its meeting in Windsor Ontario, this House responded to a number of requests made in the Windsor Report including a commitment to the moratoria proposed in that document until General Synod makes a decision.

full text here

Anglican Journal story here. 

excerpt:

Bishop Clarke acknowledged, however, that he is “not sure” if he can manage to hold the moratorium, as affirmed by the other bishops, until the 2010 meeting of General Synod, the church’s governing body.

The “large majority” of Canadian bishops also said they would accept the request made at the recent Lambeth Conference of bishops for moratoriums on the ordination of gay bishops in same-sex relationships and on cross-border interventions.

I do have one quick question about the Journal's reporting:  are there any other bishops out there to whom the Journal staff could turn for some comments?  It seems to me that over the long course of following Journal articles on these topics, the same people are always the go-to bishops for quotes. I mean, if a "large majority" of bishops support such and such a position, might the average Anglican get to read a bit more of the thoughts of the individual members of this large majority?

Just a thought.

Affirming Laudianism - your best Anglican resource

Since today we are commemorating the Saints of the Reformation, I thought it only fitting to share this invaluable resource with my readers. (Via Tim and Dave Keen)

You have found the website of Affirming Laudianism:

Affirming Laudianism, much like another organisation in the Anglican Church, does not expect its members to have any firm beliefs or doctrinal commitments but is solely concerned with:

• The externals of religion

Our primary aims are to encourage:

• The wearing of copes at the Holy Communion;

• The application of Laudian frontals to Altars;

• The use of silver candle sticks and incense at divine worship, in accordance with the principles of The Parson’s Handbook;

• Bowing at the Holy name and during the Gloria Patri;

Our secondary aims are:

• The discouragement of male puritans (Baptists, Evangelicals, et al) from wearing hats during divine worship;

• The cult of His Late Majesty King Charles I, King and Martyr.

‘Old Wine Skins’ is a new movement in the Church of England which seeks to renew the Church as she used to be for our own age. They believe:

1.  That it is better to patch the old than embrace the new;
2.  That where decline is inevitable it is better to die valiantly than to lose what has been cherished;
3.  That vitality in Church life can co-exist with decadence and hypocrisy.

‘Old Wine Skins’ is affiliated to ‘Regress’, a grouping of Church people who seek to enthusiastically embrace the ways of the past, applying them to new situations.

The Vibrant Cathedral Church of Affirming Laudianism:
 

photo felix hominum 2008 (Central Turkey)

You see, it's not really about what you think it's about...

I suggest that God was so disappointed with our convoluted thinking that he inspired another messenger to make us think again. The doctrine of the Trinity had already confirmed the Jews that Christians were barking up the wrong tree and now they were confusing possible converts, so God sent a new messenger to proclaim that "There is only one God, Allah". Of course, his disciples added "And Mohomet is His prophet".

...Islam recognises Jesus as a prophet. Let us start there and show how great a prophet he is. He is the model, the ideal that God had in mind when he caused the development of the first human ancestor.

From an article in the November 2008 Niagara Anglican (pdf)

Susan Westall has written a very interesting piece for the Niagara Diocesan newspaper - "Has Christianity Blown It?".  The article seems to be a rejection of a Trinitarian understanding of God, and specifically of the divinity of Christ.  I tend to think those things are important, or at least "core doctrine in the sense of being creedal" as GS 2007 phrased it.  The article is a continuation of a bit of back and forth which started when the newspaper's editor suggested that no one knows who was really right in the 3d century christological controversies.  There was a reply by John Bowen, and now this seems to be another volley.

Does it matter whether or not Jesus is God?

Update: not that it answers the question, but it's kinda cool:

The Solemn Declaration of 1893, and the Dioceses of New Westminster and Athabasca

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.

We, the Bishops, together with the Delegates from the Clergy and Laity of the Church of England in the Dominion of Canada, now assembled in the first General Synod, hereby make the following Solemn Declaration:

We declare this Church to be, and desire that it shall continue, in full communion with the Church of England throughout the world, as an integral portion of the one Body of Christ composed of Churches which, united under the One Divine Head and in the fellowship of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, hold the one Faith revealed in Holy Writ, and defined in the Creeds as maintained by the undivided primitive Church in the undisputed Ecumenical Councils; receive the same Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as containing all things necessary to salvation; teach the same Word of God; partake of the same Divinely ordained Sacraments, through the ministry of the same Apostolic Orders, and worship one God and Father through the same Lord Jesus Christ by the same Holy and Divine Spirit Who is given to them that believe to guide them into all truth.

And we are determined by the help of God to hold and maintain the Doctrine, Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded in His Holy Word, and as the Church of England hath received and set forth the same in “The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the Use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter or Psalms of David pointed as they are to be sung or said in churches; and the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons;” and in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion; and to transmit the same unimpaired to our posterity.

So what exactly was that, you ask?  Why, it was the Solemn Declaration of 1893.  And why, exactly, does it matter?  Well, depending on who you ask, that question should be relegated to the past tense:  it used to matter, but doesn't so much anymore.  Or at least not in the way people might think.  Here's an interesting excerpt from the New Westminster website, regarding their position in the ongoing difficulties (eg lawsuits and such) of the ACoC:

The 17 Plaintiffs also claim that what is known as the 1893 Solemn Declaration, one of the foundational documents of what the Anglican Church of Canada, requires a diocese to “maintain and defend historic, orthodox Anglican teaching and practice.” They say the Diocese of New Westminster violated the Declaration by establishing a rite for the blessing of same sex unions.

In its statement of defense, the Diocese notes that Bishop Ingham has always acted in accordance with the Diocese’s Constitution and Canons, and his actions have been properly ratified by Diocesan Council.

The statement adds that the term “historic, orthodox Anglican teaching and practice” has no basis in law or in Anglicanism, and that “the Solemn Declaration does not constrain the evolution of doctrine.”

The Diocesan statement filed in court also notes, as the Bishop has said from 2002 onwards, that no person, parish or priest in the Diocese will ever be required to perform blessings of same sex unions against their conscience. None of these former priests had ever been required to do so.

full article at Diocese of New Westminster website (h/t Scott)

That last paragraph might be seen as a possible red herring.  For the underlying issue is not whether anyone is presently compelled to perform such a rite, but whether one will be allowed to speak against such rites, or in good conscience to protest against them in the proper manner.  The phrasing sounds "generous", but I suggest it betrays a fundamentally relativistic approach to the question:  you do what you want and I'll do what I want.  

The position of the Diocese of New Westminster might appear at odds with the position of another diocese in the Anglican Church of Canada.  In 2008, the Diocese of Athabasca passed the following resolution:

Resolution #2008-16 - BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Diocese of Athabasca reaffirm and uphold its foundational theology as expressed in The Solemn Declaration of 1893 as complete and accurate in every part,  and consequently,

That this synod repudiates those actions of the Anglican Church of Canada and its constituent parts which are contrary to the Solemn Declaration in any way; 
That this synod affirms and encourages the stand of those who have declared a like understanding of Anglican theology as expressed in the Solemn Declaration;

That this synod directs the Secretary of Synod to memorialize Council of General Synod of this motion.

So we have one diocese saying that the Solemn Declaration does not "constrain the evolution of doctrine", and another diocese apparently affirming that the Solemn Declaration indicates "a like understanding of Anglican theology".

the state of evangelism in the Anglican Church can be explained by this:

can mostly be surmised by this: the Liturgy of the Notices

Funny, and all too true in so many ways.
via Bosco Peters, the naked liturgist.