felix hominum

General Synod 2007 - a delegate's live blog

I'll be arriving in Winnipeg in a few hours for the Anglican Church of Canada's General Synod 2007.  For those looking for news and info there are a few sources, official and unofficial.

The official Anglican Church of Canada GS page here.  There is also supposed to be an official webcast as well.

Peter from The Age to Come will be doing some blogging here.

I think that there might be an update of two on  E: \mmaus, which brought us the candidates' profiles earlier.

Other than myself, I'm not sure if there are any other delegates who will be blogging from Winnipeg.  If you run across any, let me know.  I'll keep my eyes open for anyone else carrying a laptop around...

Re-tired Archibishops speak out against prayer book revision

In a surprise move, several retired archbishops of the Anglican Church of Canada spoke out against resolutions at the upcoming General Synod 2007 regarding revision of liturgical texts:

“We are deeply concerned that ongoing study … will only continue to draw us away from issues which are gradually destroying God's creation – child poverty, racism, global warming, economic injustice, concern for our aboriginal brothers and sisters, and the growing disparity between the rich and the poor.”

from the Globe & Mail

Speaking of a resolution which would have directed the Faith, Worship and Ministry Committee to engage in preparing principles and an agenda for revision of liturgical texts [Resolution 226], the Archbishops were concerned that ongoing study of such matters as the size and colour of prayer books, along with the expenses involved in such a project, would seriously hinder any Faith or Ministry, leaving out 2/3 of the Committee's mandate.  Rev. Eustace Smithley-Jones, the Communications Officer for the Anglican Church of Canada, clarified comments which were misconstrued by the Globe and Mail.

"What they were really saying, you see, was that if you want to do something about all this important stuff that needs doing, but which people like myself only hire other people to do, you see, if you know what I mean, is that the general principle should apply across the board, in such a way that all that sort of study stuff really prevents us from carrying on the mission of the church to the world, which is in desperate need of new Anglican Prayer Books and BAS's and more liturgical texts in order to cure systemic problems of injustice and having a bunch of eggheads sit around and design dance patterns for newly ordained deacons just won't cut it in this age of the information highway and postmodernism and all that sort of thing", said the Communications Officer in a clarifying statement.

Many members of the Liturgical Text and Dance Revision Ensemble were sorry to hear the news, and expressed dismay that the Liturgy for the Blessing of a Mini-Van would be put on hold for another three years.  However, they also understood the logic of the Archbishops' request:  thinking causes poverty.

Interview with George Bruce & Victoria Matthews

This blog was set up as a meeting place for the youth delegates to Synod in Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador. This was meant to be a place to find out more about what will be happening at Synod, and to discuss issues from a youth perspective.

from the Emmaus blog, which has interviews with 2 of the Primatial candidates at the upcoming General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada:

Interview # 1

...you’ve got to give brownie points to the Rt. Rev’d George Bruce for his willingness to play along with E:\mmaus’ Primates’ Profiles. We sent him the questions for the profile yesterday afternoon, and we had a response within 6 hours.

For your information and entertainment, then, here comes the first of our four profiles of the bishops nominated for election as the next Primate.

Name: The Rt. Rev’d George Bruce
Bishop of: The Diocese of Ontario

What accomplishment are you most proud of in your ‘normal life’ outside the church?
I think that I am most proud of the fact that with my wife of 42 years we have successfully raised five children and consecutively raised teenagers for a period of 25 years.

What’s in your CD player or iPod right now?
In my MP3 player at the moment I have some Taize chants, some classical music and a Beatles anniversary CD.

If they made a movie out of your life, who would you want to play you?
First they wouldn’t, it would lose money. But if they did I would want George Clooney to play me because he has hair and of course his first name is George!

What’s the most amazing thing you’ve seen on YouTube/Google Video, etc.?
To be honest I don’t often watch You tube, but someone sent me a takeoff on the Primatial Election called Survivor -Primate

What do you think the Primate should be doing for young Anglicans in the Canadian church?
This is a really good question. I believe that my task would be to convince adults to listen to the views of young Anglicans. In my own diocese it is the young people who have taken the lead in creating awareness amongst the adults of the diocese about the AIDS/HIV/malaria pandemic affecting children in Africa and also the dangers of global warming.


Aside from the obvious issues around sexuality that the whole Anglican Communion is facing, what is the next biggest challenge that you think the Anglican Church of Canada will have to face in the next few years?
I believe that the church will need to find a way to avoid being marginalized and considered irrelevant by an increasingly secular and agnostic society. We see that already when politicians tell the church to back off advocating for the poor and needy, something Jesus told us we must do! It doesn’t however mean that we have to bend to every whim of culture just to try and attract people

Interview # 2:

Name: The Rt. Rev’d Victoria Matthews
Bishop of: The Diocese of Edmonton

What accomplishment are you most proud of in your ‘normal life’ outside the church?
I love physical activity and over the years I have pursued swimming, horseback riding, hiking, etc. I am most proud of having walked the 800 km pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela two years after having surgery and chemotherapy for breast cancer.

What’s in your CD player or iPod right now?
Celtic music and Taize.

If they made a movie out of your life, who would you want to play you?
My life sometimes seems like a movie and I am stuck with playing myself. Fortunately it is only a supporting role. The lead is played by Christ.

What’s the most amazing thing you’ve seen on YouTube/Google Video, etc.?
Now you are challenging me. I think the only thing I’ve seen is Survivor: the Primatial election.

What do you think the Primate should be doing for young Anglicans in the Canadian church?
Listening, sharing Christ and hanging out, unless they’d like to go on pilgrimage to Taize and Santiago de Compostela with the Primate.

Aside from the obvious issues around sexuality that the whole Anglican Communion is facing, what is the next biggest challenge that you think the Anglican Church of Canada will have to face in the next few years?
The Stewardship of Creation.

From the Emmaus blog, which has submitted interview questions to the 4 primatial candidates.  So far only George Bruce and Victoria Matthews have responsed to the questions.

Zacchaeus Fellowship Open Letter to the Members of the General Synod

From here.

June 9, 2007

Dear Members of General Synod:

As men and women who have experienced same-sex attraction in our own lives and who still strive to live chastely in accordance with traditional Christian teaching, the members of Zacchaeus Fellowship are gravely concerned by the motions before Synod that would bless and affirm same-sex unions.

Contrary to what is implicitly suggested by the recent direction of our Anglican Church of Canada, not all persons with same-sex attractions want these attractions affirmed. We are especially concerned for those whom we describe as “silent sufferers” in the pews. These are the many individuals who adhere to the traditional Christian teaching on sexuality and wish for the church neither to condemn them as persons nor to encourage them to act on those same-sex attractions. To approve Resolution A186 or A187 would pull the rug out from under such people.

Please be warned that the current controversy is not simply about inclusion of those who are in same-sex unions. While we concur with the consensus to include all persons in our church, we believe a misperception has arisen, namely, that accepting persons of homosexual orientation must lead to the accepting of same-sex unions/marriages. In fact, no one is excluded from our church because of sexual orientation; the rite of baptism includes us all.

Recently the Reverend Canon Michael Patterson, director of evangelism in the Diocese of Niagara, was quoted in the Toronto Star (June 2, 2007) as indicating that same-sex marriage is the law of the land and that the church needs to accept that reality or risk becoming irrelevant. He also said, “We need to be the face of the church in the world, and I fear that we are losing that opportunity.”

In fact, to be the face of the church in the world, we need to be proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ and his transforming power in people’s lives. The church should focus on what God accomplishes through the person of Christ and not let secular law dictate church discipline. While same-sex marriage is the law of the land, it is contrary to Scripture, Tradition, and good solid Christian reason.

In Romans 12:2, Paul said, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect.” Jesus was counter-cultural. He proclaimed God’s will and God’s ways, even if contrary to worldly views or practices.

By conforming to the world, the church risks becoming truly irrelevant in our world, because then it would be no different from the world and would have nothing to offer those who are seeking!

We understand how powerfully appealing it can be for loving and well-meaning people to see themselves in the role of defender of an underdog, especially one perceived to be unfairly maligned. But we also consider it necessary to ask if you are aware of the gay activist handbook After the Ball, published in 1989. It shamelessly describes manipulative tactics such as its Principle 6, “Give Potential Protectors a Just Cause,” which recommends “casting gays as society’s victims and inviting straights to be their protectors.” It explains, “For this to work, however, we must make it easier for responsive straights to assert and explain their new protective feelings. Few straight women, and fewer straight men, will be bold enough to defend homosexuality per se. Most would rather attach their awakened protective impulse to some principle of justice or law, some general desire for consistent and fair treatment in society” (p.187).

The apostle Jude warned against “malcontents” who indulge their own lusts; “they are bombastic in speech, flattering people to their own advantage.” Many of us in the Zacchaeus Fellowship were gay activists and played that card ourselves in our unreformed lives. So while we do not question the sincerity of the compassion that many have expressed towards our brothers and sisters who openly espouse gay or lesbian lifestyles, we urge extreme caution, lest legitimate sympathy distort the interpretation of Scripture as properly grounded in the tradition and history of the Anglican Church.

We urge you, as the delegates voting on this matter, to weigh the evidence very carefully and prayerfully before making a decision that will affect the whole church.

In the name of Jesus crucified and risen,

The Rev’d C. Dawn McDonald, Chair of the Zacchaeus Fellowship,
    priest in the Diocese of Yukon
The Rev’d Dr. Don Alcock, Vice Chair of the Zacchaeus Fellowship,
    priest in the Diocese of Huron
On behalf of the Zacchaeus Fellowship

General Synod 2007 digs & blogging

While the ancient desert fathers used to retire to places like this in order to pray and discern the will of God, I'll be basking at the Radisson for the upcoming Anglican Church of Canada's General Synod 2007.  The majority of the meetings will be in the Marlborough.

Both places apparently have decent internet connections, and in the Marly it's wireless.  So here's what you can expect in the way of General Synod blogging:

1.  overview of the healthy breakfast I intend to eat each day ("gimme a coffee, and ya got a light fer my smoke?").

2.  summary of our morning "bible study" groups.  ("I never knew that was in there!!")

3.  Winnipeg pubs, of which  Preston has given us a list to peruse.  ("Steve, you're buying.")

4.  my responses to the various goings-on at the big Sigh-Nod.  I intend to use a standard response format to everything, in the tradition of the great blues artists of years gone by:  "If this resolution passes, then I be fixin' to die."

Theologians' letter to Canadian General Synod delegates

You can see a copy of the letter, dated Pentecost 2007, here.

Commentary will follow later;  as it stands, I don't want spending time on such issues as this to take away from my real ministry in the church.  You know, like photocopying bulletins or making sure there's toilet paper, or something like that...

Update:  it seems to me to be a well written and well reasoned document.

Here's the text for your perusal:

Pentecost 2007

Dear General Synod Delegates,

We are a group of academic theologians serving in parishes or theological institutions who are committed to the welfare of the Anglican Church of Canada, and we are writing to you out of grave concern for the integrity of our Christian community.

We are disturbed by the proposed motions coming out of the Council of General Synod’s March meeting. We believe that these motions do not reflect the implications of the St Michael Report, and that even to treat them as legitimate options is to neglect the kind of discussion the Report encourages and our Church deserves. In particular, we affirm the following:

1. Sexual ethics is a doctrinally serious matter. Bishop Ingham has recently said, ‘Christianity as a religion stands in need of a better theology of sexuality, a better understanding of the complex role sexuality plays in our human nature, and of the purposes of God in creating us as sexual beings, [. . .]’ (address delivered in Ottawa on 7 March 2007). The St Michael Report could have been cited in support of this statement, and the question of ‘the purposes of God in creating us as sexual beings’ is the subject of over half of the Report. Indeed, the Report identifies six central doctrines that must be engaged in any discussion of sexual ethics, and it classifies the matter of the blessing of same-sex unions as doctrinally ‘important’ (§ 3). We submit that a matter of this gravity should not be dealt with in the manner of a simple resolution.

2. That the way this matter is treated is ecclesiologically significant. Here we are thinking beyond the certain political and legal ramifications nationally and internationally if the Canadian Church is perceived to be ‘walking apart’ from the Anglican Communion. Our concern to maintain our communion with the historic see of Canterbury is not rooted in our fidelity to the Church’s constitution or in nostalgia, but in the awareness that the path of divergence is the path to North American Protestant sectarianism. Episcopacy is a sign of the Church’s catholicity. We believe that it is therefore incumbent upon bishops who bear a particular responsibility for guarding the unity of the Church to ensure that this issue and the way it is handled in our councils does not subvert koinonia or the peaceable intentions of the Windsor Report.

3. That there has been no sustained debate on this matter in the Church. Twelve years ago a group of British academics published ‘The St Andrew’s Day Statement’, a non-polemical document identifying some of the important theological matters raised by the Church’s response to those living in same-sex relationships. As recently as this past January, one of the document’s authors, The Rev. Professor Oliver O’Donovan, maintained that the Statement has been largely ignored. Bishop Ingham’s assertion that the Church ‘stands in need’ of a better theology of sexuality is itself an affirmation that the doctrinal character of this matter is something that has yet to be worked out. For him, this would involve ‘of necessity an entire reappraisal of Christian tradition, going right back to the Bible itself’. It is true that consultations have been held on the St Michael Report across the country. But, with the exception of the ‘Faith Seeking Understanding Conference’ held at Huron University College this past January, most of these consultations have been given over to hearing points of view and not to a critical exchange of ideas. Quite simply, what is lacking is a biblical and theological justification for changing the Church’s teaching.

4. ‘Core doctrine’ is problematic. The term ‘core doctrine’ is not drawn from the Principles and Canons of our Church, and is therefore confusing to those who appeal to the Church’s incorporating documents for direction in how to deal with this matter. In truth, the standard to which we are called in these documents is not ‘core doctrine’, but doctrine as understood by the Solemn Declaration: ‘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 in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion; [. . .].’ The jurisdiction of General Synod includes the ability to define doctrines of the Church ‘in harmony with the Solemn Declaration’, but these definitions must be resolved in a constitutional fashion, rather than through simple resolution. Moreover, we worry that not to treat this matter in a constitutional fashion could be to invite a petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

In making the above affirmations, we are conscious of some of the arguments that are made in support of treating this more as a matter of discipline than doctrine. We would like to consider these briefly.

1. That this is an urgent matter of justice. We agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve protection under the law in our civil society, and we support the Church’s ongoing advocacy wherever human dignity is ignored or threatened. All human beings are created in the divine image and are entitled to exercise their human rights responsibly. But in saying this we are recognising that justice is rooted in the being of the one God in whose image we are made, and not in social convention. Richard Niebuhr warned us long ago of the danger of worshipping the ‘Christ of culture’, and most Anglicans agree that the ‘just us’ attitude of much of Protestant individualism is not the same thing as the justice of God. Real justice is to be found where human beings order their common life according to the values and principles of the gospel as revealed in Scripture.

2. Serious theological matters have been determined in the past by simple resolution. The argument has been made that since such matters as the ordination of women, the admission of children to  communion before confirmation, the removal of the filioque (the phrase ‘and the Son’ in the Nicene Creed in the BAS) and the adoption of the BAS did not require motions treating them as doctrine, neither should the matter of the blessing of same-sex unions. Some of these matters are sufficiently contentious even now that it may be asked whether the Church was wise to dispatch them so readily. Nevertheless, we forget that in each of these actions a developed biblical and theological case was available. The ordination of women had been a matter of discussion in the Church ever since the first deaconess was ordained in the Church of England in 1862. And incidentally, it took the Canadian Church two General Synods to ratify its adoption. The BAS was not presented as an innovation, but is alleged to be a return to more catholic, pre-Reformation forms of liturgy. The impetus for this was Dom Gregory Dix’s Shape of the Liturgy, which was a standard textbook in theological colleges soon after its publication more than sixty years ago. The matter of the filioque has been debated since the Council of Toledo in AD 589, and it remains a creedal doctrine for more than 220 million Orthodox Christians. Similarly, the practice of paedocommunion goes back to the earliest period of Church history and is still observed by Orthodox Christians.

3. One of Anglicanism’s most noble traits is its inclusivity. Anglican comprehensiveness does seek to include as wide a cross-section of theological insight and secular opinion as possible. But even as it ‘draws the circle wide’ it does so articulating both the centre of agreement and the limits of diversity. We worry that inclusivity is comprehensiveness without articulation. Furthermore, we cannot escape the fact that a circle is still a circle, meaning that some will inevitably be excluded. We hope that the Church will listen carefully to the voices of many from our aboriginal and ethnic communities, as well as those from traditional parishes, before it makes a decision that will exclude them from the Anglican circle. The noblest liberalism is one that insures truly fair process so as to include precisely those toward whom we do not feel an affinity.

For these reasons we believe that the motions proposed by the Council of General Synod are entirely inappropriate for a Church contemplating such a fundamental change in Christian teaching. Not to give this matter the level of discussion it deserves is to fail the whole Church, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters who are owed a theological rationale for the way the Church understands their life as an appropriate or inappropriate expression of Christian discipleship.

Respectfully in Christ,

The Rev. Stephen Andrews, PhD (Thorneloe University)
Gary Badcock, DPhil (Huron University College)
The Rev. Chris Barrigar, PhD (Diocese of Montreal)
The Rev. Canon Timothy Connor, ThD (Diocese of Huron, Wycliffe College)
The Rev. Canon Robert Crouse, PhD
The Rev. Robert Derrenbacker, PhD (Regent College)
George Egerton, PhD (University of British Columbia)
The Rev. Walter Hannam, PhD cand. (College of Emmanuel & St Chad)
The Rev. John Harvey, PhD (Diocese of Algoma)
Ian Henderson, DPhil (McGill)
Bruce Hindmarsh, DPhil (Regent College)
The Rev. Ranall Ingalls, PhD (Diocese of Fredericton)
Norm Klassen, DPhil (St Jerome’s University)
Walter Klassen, DPhil (Diocese of Saskatoon)
The Rev. Ron Kydd, PhD (Tyndale Seminary)
Don Lewis, DPhil (Regent College)
Joseph Mangina, PhD (Wycliffe College)
Darren Marks, DPhil (Huron University College)
The Rev. Gregory McVeigh, PhD (Diocese of Montreal)
The Rev. Canon John Mellis, PhD (Queen’s College)
The Rev. Dean Mercer, ThD (Diocese of Toronto, Wycliffe College)
The Rev. John Oakes, PhD cand. (Diocese of New Westminster)
The Rev. James Packer, DPhil (Regent College)
The Rev. Ian Ritchie, PhD (Diocese of Ontario)
The Rev. Peter Robinson, PhD (Diocese of Toronto, Wycliffe College)
The Rev. Robert Sears, PhD (Diocese of Ottawa)
Robert D. Sider, DPhil (University of Saskatchewan)
The Rev. Catherine Sider-Hamilton, PhD cand. (Diocese of Toronto)
The Rev. David Smith, PhD (Diocese of Saskatchewan, Wycliffe College)
The Rev. Canon George Sumner, PhD (Wycliffe College)
The Rev. Canon Gary Thorne, PhD (King’s College and Dalhousie University)
The Rev. Lisa Wang, PhD (Diocese of Edmonton)
Bruce Ward, PhD (Thorneloe University)

the Pyramid scheme - governance & the Anglican Church of Canada

I made my way once through all the various materials sent to me as a delegate to the Anglican Church of Canada's General Synod next month.  There is a line up of the usual suspects - you know, abolish nuclear weapons, have a pesticide free garden (which I have had for years), same sex stuff, the church is broke & your money will fix it.  All of this stuff comes to me on the photocopied 81/2 by 11 stuff which is the foundation of all church committee work.  I swear the gospels were first written down on 3 hole punched paper, ready for a binder.

Of all the materials I and the other delegates received, only one thing came wrapped up as a fancy-schmancy DVD. 

"Governance".

No photocopied white or even green paper for this baby.  Video production.  Nice packaging.  A purer form of Anglicanism:  appealing to as many of the senses as possible.  I'm not one to jump to conclusions, and I have no fondness for conspiracy theories (even though I know you are all out to get me), but it seems to me that this is a fairly high priority for the powers that be.

I have a friend, let's call him Joe, who thinks that what some folks really want is a change in the structure of governance for our church.  More power and authority being moved to the central office;  that is after all, the first option presented in the proposed move.

Or, to put it another way, if you can't get what you want this way, eventually you can get it that way.

Wonder what the disc cost to produce and distribute? 

I will continue to offer baseless speculation as I see fit, as opposed to the thoughtful stuff out there.

Sameo also has a report on the session I missed while I was smoking sheesha on the banks of the Nile leading a Christian Pilgrimage through the Holy Land.

On the other hand, we finished planting the vegetable garden this evening.  I'm trying a new variety of sugar snap peas.

A big bottle of Jack Daniels

and the convening circular for General Synod 2007.

What better way could there be to spend an evening?

Zacchaeus Fellowship writes the Canadian House of Bishops

An open letter to the Canadian House of Bishops from the Zacchaeus Fellowship:
(I'll fix up the links in the document later)



May 14, 2007

To the National House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada:

We write to you out of our painful sense of rejection caused by the statement in the name of  the Bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada issued on April 30. Our response to your statement has taken two weeks as we have needed to recover from our shock and discouragement. One of our members wrote, “When I first read the HOB statement, it felt like someone had just spit in my face! I was not angry; just gravely disappointed and yes, surprised.”

What little comfort we can take is in the knowledge that some of you have encouraged us in the past and continue to assure us of your support. We thank you for standing with us. Sadly, though, it seems we are now the new marginalized minority.

On October 27, 2005, several members of the Zacchaeus Fellowship made a presentation to the House of Bishops (available at www.zacchaeus.ca/hob.html), in which we spoke about our pasts, our struggles, our hopes and our hurts. Every member of the House of Bishops has also received a copy of our booklet Transformed by an Encounter with Christ.

Your statement has betrayed our witness to the House of Bishops. You bent over backwards to express sympathy for our brothers and sisters who openly espouse the gay lifestyle, yet your statement held not one word of pastoral sensitivity towards us. In the name of pastoral care, you have left us feeling spiritually bulldozed and utterly deserted by our church. We are not at all able to agree with the statement’s claim to consistency with paragraph 143 of the Windsor Report, which affirms “the duty of pastoral care that is laid upon all Christians to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations.” We point to your lack of so much as an acknowledgment that the Anglican Church of Canada contains a constituency of individuals who are ex-gay, ex-lesbian, or living chastely with same-sex desires.

We remind you that this is not the first time such rejection of this constituency has taken place. At General Synod 2004, Resolution A134 was passed, intentionally involving gay and lesbian persons in the dialogue and study. Yet, a second amendment which was proposed to include “those who identify themselves as ex-gay or ex-lesbian” was defeated.

The Anglican Church of Canada decided at that Synod that we are non-entities, not deserving an equal voice alongside that of gays and lesbians. May we suggest that if a motion of this nature with regard to people of colour had been defeated, the cry of protest would have been loud enough to bring down the house. In any case, when we were rebuffed in 2004, our fellowship decided to turn the other cheek.

We have repeatedly asked that our voice representing this constituency be heard, in particular at this upcoming General Synod. This request has been rejected by the agenda committee. We want to be allowed to sit at the table with our church family in order to share our experiences. We plan to appeal to the Primate for the opportunity to address General Synod from the floor. We ask you to prayerfully consider supporting us in this appeal.

As we have stated before, not all persons with same-sex attractions want these attractions affirmed. We are concerned for those whom we describe as “silent sufferers” in the pews. These are the many individuals who adhere to the traditional Christian teaching on sexuality and wish for the church neither to condemn them as persons nor to encourage them to act on those same-sex attractions. Who shall support them? Such individuals need pastoral care – towards which goal your statement offers empty wind. And on moral direction as called for by Lambeth Resolution 1.10(c) your statement is silent.

We implore you in the strongest possible terms to ensure that all persons experiencing same-sex attraction are offered biblically sound pastoral care.

In the name of Jesus crucified and risen,

The Rev’d C. Dawn McDonald, Chair of the Zacchaeus Fellowship,
    priest in the Diocese of Yukon
The Rev’d Dr. Don Alcock, Vice Chair of the Zacchaeus Fellowship,
    priest in the Diocese of Huron
On behalf of the Zacchaeus Fellowship

statement from the bishops of Rupert's Land

which would cover a bunch of anglican dioceses in canada.  fwiw:

In the course of our prayers for General Synod in Winnipeg in June 2007, the Bishops of the Province of Rupert’s Land wish to draw the wider Church’s attention to two concerns regarding the resolutions which the Council of General Synod (CoGS) is forwarding to General Synod about the blessing of same-sex unions.

Our first concern is with Resolution #3—“that the blessing of same-sex unions is consistent with the core doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada”, and thus consistent with Christian core doctrine. In the two months remaining before June, we do not believe that it is possible for members of General Synod—or the broader Church—to undertake the required education and discussion to be in a position to determine whether the blessing of same-sex unions is scripturally sound and theologically consistent with core doctrine. While there has been a huge amount published on these matters from both sides of the question, there is no one Canadian Anglican position paper that we as a Church own and can use to help others engaging this question. If the blessing of same-sex unions is consistent with core doctrine and right, then it is incumbent upon us to help educate Anglicans, and other Christians, in Canada and around the world. Accordingly, we request General Synod to direct the Primate’s Theological Commission (PTC) to prepare a report that answers this important question. This request to the PTC needs to be carefully worded and more comprehensive than the 2004 request about whether the blessing of same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine.

Our second concern is that the set of resolutions which CoGS has drafted does not squarely address the effect of passing those resolutions on our membership in the Anglican Communion. If the blessing of same-sex unions proves to be scripturally sound and consistent with core doctrine, we believe that General Synod needs to develop a vehicle for considering whether it is better for us to stay at the table and insisting on ongoing conversation with all of the other parts of the Communion—particularly those where gay and lesbian relationships constitute illegal or even criminal activity—or to walk away now from our Anglican brothers and sisters, and our ecumenical partners, thereby communicating that “I have no need of you” (1 Cor. 12:21).

We are deeply mindful that these concerns and requests will cause great frustration within the Canadian gay and lesbian community. However, we believe that it is important to be sure of our doctrine, and not to unduly quickly walk away from the international table, especially as the Canadian Church has a unique contribution to make to the Communion in light of the developing experience of civil same-sex marriage within Canada.

We offer these comments in the name of the Risen Christ.

[statement posted here, along with some other stuff over here]

HT:  Statguy

Primates' Theological Commish responds to Council of General Synod

It's all rather confusing.

The story appears in Episcopal Life online (which is a'murkan), but for some reason I could not find it on our own Anglican Church of Canada site.  Or maybe I'm not looking in the right places.

ht: Steve London

Update:  here's the story

The Council of General Synod, meeting in Mississauga, Ontario March 7-11, 2007, decided to forward to General Synod in June a number of resolutions relating to the blessing of same sex unions. These resolutions have been publicly identified with the St. Michael Report. The Commission would like to clarify that with the exception of the first resolution ('That this General Synod accept the conclusion of the Primate's Theological Commission's St. Michael Report that the blessing of same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine, but is not core doctrine in the sense of being credal.'), these resolutions are not directly related to the St. Michael Report. In the interest of clarity, we respectfully request that in the future only resolution #1 quoted above be named as relating to the St. Michael Report.

The St. Michael Report highlights two crucial matters for the Anglican Church of Canada. The Commissioners continue to judge that these matters are of sufficient importance to bear re-emphasis. The first is cited in the last sentence of the Report and succinctly states the doctrinal issue before the Anglican Church of Canada:

• "It is now for the Church to decide whether or not the blessing of same-sex unions is a faithful, Spirit-led development of Christian doctrine."

In its report the Commission has drawn attention to a range of theological and biblical matters relating to how the Church determines whether such a matter is "a faithful Spirit led development of Christian doctrine."
The second is a pair of questions from paragraph 16 of the Report. These questions are of similar theological significance to the life of the Anglican Church of Canada as the doctrinal issue itself:

• "Is it theologically and doctrinally responsible for one member church of the Communion to approve a course of action which it has reason to believe may be destructive of the unity of the Communion?

• Is it theologically and doctrinally responsible to accept unity as the value which transcends all others, and therefore for a member church of the Communion to refrain from making a decision when it believes it has an urgent gospel mandate to proceed?"

The commissioners believe that these questions should be considered by the church, and most certainly by delegates to General Synod prior to General Synod's discernment and determination on these matters.

Update on Parson Preston's Pub list

Preston has started to give us his list of pubs to frequent during General Synod.

That is, when the Synod is not in session.  So let's make sure we don't skip anything...

I hereby appoint Preston as the Public Parson of Pubs (in Plenary).

Update:  the list is coming together. 
I still think there should be an official drinking song for GS 2007.

This was a bit of an unfinished project, but, based on Stan Rogers' classic Canadian folk song

Oh the year was 1778
(how I wish was in Sherbrooke now)
when a Letter of Marque came from the King
To scummiest vessel I'd ever seen

(chorus)
God- *amn them all, I was told
We'd cruise the seas for Lutheran souls
We fired no guns, shed no tears,
Now I'm a broken man on a Winnipeg pier
The Last of Cranmer's Privateers...

verse:
Well 'General' Synod cried the town,
(how I wish was in Sherbrooke now)
For twenty brave men, all Liturgists who
Would make for him the Anglican crew...

From the beginning it was not so: a response to Bradley J. Willis

Church must do what is right for homosexuals:  Bradley J Willis

Mr. Willis:  greetings in Christ’s name.  I trust that your ministry at St Luke’s parish is going well. It is obvious to the readers of the Edmonton Journal how passionate you are about his particular topic.  As you have placed your thoughts out there in the public sphere, allow me the opportunity to dialogue with you.  There are a number of assertions in your opinion piece which I think need to be addressed in the spirit of genuine dialogue.  I, too, like very much the text which you quoted:  John 16:12-13: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now."  Let me address just a few things for starters, and the rest when I have another moment or two.

“Christ left no recorded comments about homosexuality, but the analogy of his openness to the despised and ritually impure has been convincingly pressed in support of our real tradition. Opponents are reduced to relying on two irrelevant passages from Leviticus, and three equivocal extracts from the letters of Paul.”

Surely this is the Wizard of Oz:  the Straw Man / Scarecrow par excellence.  What you are attempting to argue is that you have the teachings of Christ to support your opinions, while those who are “opponents” get the scraps that fall from the Master’s table:  a few dry bones from Leviticus and Paul.  Why no mention of Jesus' appeal to the creation story of Genesis, thus tying together in His own teaching both the witness of God’s intention in creation and the reassertion of what God intended “from the beginning”?  What Jesus has done is set out a standard for human relationships by appealing to the original intention of God in creation.   It is Jesus himself who reminds us of this continued theme, unbroken in the witness of the two testaments.  Jesus has enumerated what is good; he does not need to list all else that is a falling short of that good.

You also seem to be operating from the position of a “canon within a canon”:  the ace of Christ trumps the full house 3 Pauls and a pair of Leviticus.  This of course has already been answered in my preceding statements, but it also raises the question of just how “we Anglicans” read Scripture.  And what do we mean by tradition?

"Almost all discussions I have read or heard concerning "What To Do" start by assuming that in the Anglican tradition, persons actively homosexual are in need of repentance and reform, and are definitely excluded from priestly office.

Wrong. All this time the real Anglican tradition has been that homosexuality -- and I mean sexually active homosexuality -- has been not only tolerated but also tacitly accepted."

Well, I suppose I would have to begin where many of us Anglicans begin every Sunday:

Almighty God,
unto whom all hearts be open,
all desires known,
and from whom no secrets are hid:
cleanse the thoughts of our hearts
by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit,
that we may perfectly love thee,
and worthily magnify thy holy name;
through Christ our Lord.  Amen.

Our liturgy continues to remind us precisely of the dangers of what is tacit. 

Your understanding of “Anglican tradition” is quite interesting, as is the rhetorical twist of meaning, while keeping to same vocabulary.  It somewhat reminds me of Churchill’s comments regarding the great traditions of His Majesty’s Navy:  the traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, buggery and the lash.  While I enjoy the rhetoric, the reductionist shift of taking the word “tradition” from it’s usual theological meaning to become a sort of “what everybody knows, wink, wink” doesn’t really move the dialogue forward.  The question is not "what happens behind the sacristy door", but "what does our God ask of us in the area of sexuality?"  That is the real matter under consideration.  I suggest a thinking again of the what the word tradition (things handed on) means for "us Anglicans" in the oft repeated phraseology about Scripture and reason.

There is another jump in language made when you state:  "we are left with a long tradition of acceptance of homosexual priests and bishops".  Indeed we are, and if further statements in your article are correct, that category is just as irrelevant as saying we have a long tradition of heterosexual priests and bishops.  The question is whether we have a common understanding, based on revelation, the faith handed on (tradition) and the use of our faculties of discernment as to what constitutes the way of living to which Jesus calls us.

There is probably much more to say on the "risk of schism" which you mention in the first paragraph.  I suppose few folks in ministry get to experience the full breadth of the Anglican Communion.  I can only share my experience of ministering with International Students at the University of Alberta:  it was a delight to share Christian fellowship with Anglican students form around the world.  To many folks in thew pews, "those Africans" are reduced to one or two persons "over there". 

I appreciate your forthrightness in sharing concerns which are obviously important to you, and I wish you God's grace in the fulfilling of the duties and responsibilities to which he has called you.  I do hope that you, and many others, can make it out to one of the Diocesan consultations prior to General Synod 2007.  The information is available (scroll down a bit) on the diocesan website.

ps:  If you'd like to get together for lunch, I'll buy.

"Other Voices" on the Anglican Church website

A friend and I had a bit of a 'laugh' over the latest "headline" on the national Anglican Church of Canada website: 

Other Voices of Our Church

In the interests of sharing the variety of voices across the Anglican Church of Canada this page offers information relating to discussions of the blessing of same-sex unions, homosexuality and the church from as [sic] variety of sources.

Of course, the question is, other than what? 

Other than what has been presented on the website and in Church press so far?  Other in the sense of alternative, cutting edge even, outside the mainstream of Christian faith as expressed in the Anglican way of following Jesus?  Other than what is normative for us to teach, uphold and believe?  Other than the voices of the website editors?  I'm sorry, it just does strike me as a bit of an odd headline...

I get an image of disembodied spirits, hovering around a sacristy or old set of vestments or something.
[insert wooooooo sound here, and jingle some chains or something]

"Other Voices":  Dr. Brett Cane, St. Aidan's Anglican Church, Winnipeg, gives us a pdf.  As well, we have other voices from The Zacchaeus Fellowship, which they spelled wrong on one line and then had the correct spelling on the next.  But that's okay, I don't always spell check stuff.  In fact, I don't think I ever do.

And say, does anyone read the Edmonton Journal these days?

Winner of Anglican Hymn Competition Announced

[Toronto, Church House]

In a remarkable move, an early winner has been declared in the Anglican-Lutheran Hymn Text Competition for the upcoming General Synod 2007, to be held in Winnipeg this June.  The Communications Officer for the Anglican Church of Canada has formally awarded the prize to the the Central Planning and Peasants' Collective of the ACC.

"What the Collective has done," said the Rev. Eustace Smithley-Jones in a prepared statement, "is to blend into one organic musical whole the vision of the Church, the work of the Primate's Theological Commission, and the official theme of General Synod ('Draw the Circle Wide, Draw it Wider Still!').  The award winning text is entitled:  Canon Fodder , and the lyrics recount the journey of the idea of SSB into the circle of creedal doctrine."

"In a way, the journey of this idea parallels our own spiritual walk - from the adiophora of life of being a thing indifferent to God, to ourselves being core to the very being of the divine, if you know what I mean.  It is a grand project both in scope and depth, at once bold and innovative, and yet at the same time following traditional church practice of skipping over verses 3-4 as unnecessary, and completely changing the key at the end.  I look forward to the harmony that will ensue."

bisexual unions: a response to "Living God's Blessings" I

Dear Integrity:

In your open letter to the General Synod 2007 of the Anglican Church of Canada, you listed five keys points as a basis for further reflection and action.  I want to thank you for drafting and circulating this letter, and for your patience as you will no doubt hear various responses to its content.

The first point you raise is vital:

Silence contributes to the injustices experienced by gays and lesbians.

I would have to wholeheartedly agree with you that silence can and does contribute to injustice experienced by many peoples, including gays and lesbians.  It is my sincere hope that as a church we can have discussions which preclude the silencing of voices.  And it is my hope that as a church we can hear, even if we do not agreed with what we hear.  So bear with me as I explore some of the questions I have regarding these issues.

I note that the language of the open letter speaks of only of gays and lesbians,  while the Integrity website references also those among us who are bisexual.  I must admit that one of the questions which comes to my mind is:  what kind of unions are "just" for those who are bisexual?

My question arises from various arguments I have heard and read over the years.  Let us agree, as a presupposition, that this form of sexual preference/orientation is innate, "God-given", or some other such positive value is attributed to it.  If a person is attracted to both genders, what constitutes a just relationship?  Male only?  Female only?  If I accept that the variety of human sexual orientations and preferences are God-given, by what justice can I then limit the bisexual person to only one gender in a union?  Or is it the case that persons with bisexual orientation tend to have a "gender preference", and thus the position of Integrity would be that blessing of their unions would be limited to one person of their preferred gender?  As in, most people would not fall on the exact 50/50 line, but be somewhere on either side.  Yet this to me seems to contradict the notion that bisexuality is God-given.  I will continue to explore this particular aspect of the question.

Please note that this is not the full extent of my response, and if anyone wants to comment, we will try to observe a degree of charity towards each other, God being our helper.

related post:  "Living God's Blessing" - an open letter from Integrity Toronto to General Synod 2007

"Living God's Blessing" - an open letter from Integrity Toronto to General Synod 2007

From the Integrity Toronto website:

The place of GLBT persons within the life of the Anglican Church of Canada will be debated again at General Synod 2007 this coming June. We have prepared an Open Letter to be sent to all members of General Synod. We would ask that you visit our Living God's Blessing website and add your name to those supporting our Open Letter.

The text of the open letter:

Anglicans of homosexual orientation have formally, by episcopal decision, been accepted as equal members of the Anglican Church of Canada since 1979. However, that acceptance did not include accepting any form of sexual expression for homosexual persons, who therefore have never been treated as equal, embodied persons. Though celibacy is understood in scripture to be a vocation (Matt. 19:12), it has been imposed on gays and lesbians, making it not vocation but compulsion, and denying them any sanctioned form of sexual intimacy.

The affirmation in 2004 by General Synod, the church's highest governing body, of "the sanctity and integrity of committed, adult same-sex relationships" was a step towards real equality. However, since then, there has been a moratorium on further use of blessings outside New Westminster. In the face of the growing split in the Anglican Communion, General Synod 2004 referred the question of blessing same-sex relationships to the Primate's Theological Commission. Its St. Michael Report has recommended that such blessings are a question of doctrine, but not of core doctrine. This means that General Synod will be able, in 2007, to affirm the blessing of same-sex relationships.

We believe that:

1. Silence contributes to the injustices experienced by gays and lesbians.
2. Truth, love and justice are biblical imperatives not to be jeopardized by clamours for unanimity disguised as "unity". Unity in Christ, proclaimed as Lord, requires truth and justice for all.
3. We have the obligation to use reason to interpret scripture in the light of new knowledge and understandings.
4. It is unbiblical, unjust, ethically wrong, and morally unsound to impose celibacy on gay and lesbian clergy.
5. Because the core of the gospel message is covenant with God, with family, and with community, the covenants between same-sex couples should be affirmed and blessed by the church, as is the case for heterosexual couples.

The church has acknowledged the sanctity and integrity of adult committed same-sex relationships. Civil marriage for same-sex couples is now the norm in Canada. Thus it is time for the church to accept as valid all marriages performed in Canada, and to bless the marriages and unions of all who request such a blessing. This can happen while the discussion continues about the possibility of the solemnization of same-sex marriages in the church.

The Open Letter to General Synod 2007 invites those in agreement to sign, and includes a list of those who have already added their signature.

The list includes Anglican laypersons, clergy, and (retired) bishops.

The Anglican-Lutheran Hymn Text Competition for General Synod

And here I was wondering what I was going to do over the Christmas holidays...

You just know the creative juices are going to be flowing on this one.  I invite you all to consider submitting your entry.

Canadian response to the Windsor Report

Caution:  Anglican family matters follow:

Summary of a Draft Response to the Windsor Report

The Windsor Report Response Group

The Windsor Report Response Group was asked to prepare a draft response to the Windsor Report on behalf of the Anglican Church of Canada. The members of the group were chosen in 2004 from the Partners in Mission Committee, the Faith Worship and Ministry Committee, and the House of Bishops, with staff support.

Following the publication of the Windsor Report in October 2004, Canadian Anglicans were asked by the Primate to send in responses to it. The Windsor Report Response Group read the responses and recorded opinions and concerns. A report was prepared for the Primate to take to the Primates’ Meeting in Dromantine in February 2005.

The group has been called together again and has prepared a draft response for the Council of General Synod to consider. The final response will be brought to the General Synod for approval and forwarding to the Anglican Communion in June 2007.

A Summary of the Draft Response
    •     As Canadian Anglicans, we are committed to our membership in the Anglican Communion
    •      We see our response as part of a process of exploration and discernment, as we work with other Provinces to understand the nature of the Communion we share. The Windsor Report is an important contribution to this process

In the report, we find much to affirm and celebrate:
    •     Our unity based on “our common identity in Christ”
    •     Our commitment to “the furtherance of God’s mission within the world”
    •     Our growing understanding of that call to unity in diversity
    •     The importance of Scripture and our commitment to exploring Scripture together
    •     Our commitment to the Lambeth Quadrilateral
    •     The role of bishops in the Anglican Communion and our concern over the intervention of some bishops in Provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own
    •     The Shared Episcopal Ministry scheme as an appropriate model of supplementary episcopal oversight
    •     Our commitment to the listening process
    •     Our concern for the human rights and pastoral care of all
    •     An acknowledgement that our processes of synodical decision-making take time

We outline recent events and actions in the Anglican Church of Canada relating to the blessing of same sex unions, noting the expression of regret of the Bishop of New Westminster in response to the call of the Windsor Report. We await the discussion of the Windsor Report and the St. Michael Report at General Synod, 2007.

We find some areas where we feel more work needs to be done in our own church and in the Communion:
    •     A deeper understanding of how reports and statements of international Anglican bodies are received and made effective in each member Province
    •     Further discussions on the authority of Scripture
    •     More exploration of how authority is exercised in the Communion
    •     A recognition of the importance of providing opportunities for laity and clergy to share in decision-making at all levels
    •     Further work on the development of an Anglican Covenant, exploring a variety of models.

Conclusion

We affirm our willingness to work with other Provinces to develop a relationship of trust in the Anglican Communion.

Possible Resolutions to Consider at General Synod
    1     A motion to forward the response to the office of the Anglican Communion.
    2      A motion to affirm the commitment of the Anglican Church of Canada to membership in the Anglican Communion, and our willingness to participate in ongoing discussions about life in the communion.
    3      A motion expressing regret at the hurt felt as a consequence of actions taken by our church.
    4      A motion affirming our resolve to maintain and increase at a variety of levels partnerships and visits, exchange and communication, in order to foster communion relationships.
    5      A motion to affirm our commitment to the Lambeth Quadrilateral, noting with appreciation the statement of the primates in 2000.
    6      A motion affirming our willingness to enter into the process of developing an Anglican Covenant

Membership of the Windsor Report Response Group

Dr. Patricia Bays, Diocese of Ottawa (Chair)
The Rt. Rev’d Michael Bedford-Jones, Bishop of Trent Durham, Diocese of Toronto
The Rt. Rev’d Peter Coffin, Bishop of Ottawa
Canon Dr. Timothy Connor, Diocese of Huron
The Rt. Rev’d James Cowan, Bishop of British Columbia
The Ven. Peter Fenty, Diocese of Toronto
Ms. Cynthia Haines-Turner, Diocese of Western Newfoundland
The Rt. Rev’d Colin Johnson, Bishop of Toronto
Staff: Canon Dr. Alyson Barnett-Cowan, the Ven. Paul Feheley

Please send responses to Canon Barnett-Cowan, 80 Hayden St., Toronto On M4Y 3G2,

Conference: call for papers

Faith Seeking Understanding:
The Windsor Report, The St Michael Report & the Challenge Ahead

January 12-13, 2007
Huron University College
London Ontario

some details here

My submission for an academic paper is here.

Sacred Expressions, Art, and Anglican Videos

He was busy makes notes for a little thesis pointing out the superiority of his photographs of  Byzantine Mosaics to the originals.

or some such thing, from a character in Evelyn Waugh's "Brideshead Revisited"

Well, I must consult my artist friends over at studiosavant on this initiative for General Synod 2007:

Lots to chew on, from any number of acute and obtuse angles.

Introduction

“Sacred Expressions” is an initiative of the Worship Committee of General Synod 2007 and Anglican Video.  The goal of this initiative is to showcase the work of Anglican Artists from across Canada at the next General Synod, to be held in Winnipeg in June 2007.

Digital photographs of the art work that is selected by the Committee will be shown on a large screen throughout the meeting to some 400 Anglicans and visitors.  The group seeks submissions in every medium – painting, sculpture, drawing, ceramics, quilt-making, fabric art, even photographs.  Only digital photographs of the work will be featured.  The actual piece of work does not need to be submitted.

Theme

The theme of Sacred Expressions is “Draw The Circle Wide; Draw It Wider Still.”  This is also the theme of General Synod.  Artists are asked to submit work that they believe reflects or expands on this theme.  Selection of the theme was based on the following rationale:

“Draw the Circle Wide… Draw It Wider Still”, the theme for General Synod 2007, incorporates concepts of inclusivity: language, race, culture, theology and the dignity of all people.  The circle, with Christ as its centre, can be infinitely wide and draws all to Christ.  The circle, a symbol of creation and life, is significant to Indigenous people representing healing, sharing and teaching.  The inner circle, the Medicine wheel, contains the words of patience, humility, hope and respect. The inner circle shows how we need to be with each other for the circle to be wider. The circle never blocks anyone out and we continue to learn as the circle goes round, ever widening. We hope that graphic representation of the theme can be an open circle, so that the Church is never seen as closed but open and inclusive of all.

A few initial observations.  Good for saying art is a Good Thing, and that to make art, to engage it, and all that stuff is Good.

Tongue in cheek, sort of:  since the submissions are only digital photographs of the works of art, this shows the inherent "dimensionalist prejudice" of this sort of approach.  By the way, I just made up that phrase.  Is it possible for a photo to capture the artistic merit of sculpture?  Let alone other forms of art which are more than 2 dimensional.  Well, I suppose unless you have a few flatbed trucks, you do what you can.

The selection process:    

    •     the piece reflects or expands on the theme “Draw The Circle Wide; Draw It Wider Still.”
    •     the piece is represented well in a high resolution j-peg of a digital photograph
    •     the piece has been created by an Anglican artist (you do not have to be active in your church – you just have to consider yourself a member of the Anglican community).

church anger management

While Paul was looking intently at the council he said, ‘Brothers, up to this day I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God.’ Then the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near him to strike him on the mouth. At this Paul said to him, ‘God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting there to judge me according to the law, and yet in violation of the law you order me to be struck?’ Those standing nearby said, ‘Do you dare to insult God’s high priest?’ And Paul said, ‘I did not realize, brothers, that he was high priest; for it is written, “You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people.” ’Acts 23: 1-5

I find this one of the most challenging passages in the New Testament.

It is too easy to express anger at the various targeted leaders of our churches because, well, we all know that God should surely strike them, they are doing things contrary to the law, and they are whitewashed walls.  (You can read that previous sentence as literal or as tongue in cheek, depending on the day of the week, the particular leader you want to talk about, or your sensitivity to any particualr issue being discussed).

Paul exhibits an extraordinary amount of grace in this episode.   Here he is, being treated unjustly by the high priest.  Paul knows that the high priest is breaking the law.  He knows that the high priest is not on "his side".  So how does Paul respond?

...it is written, “You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people.”

I suppose there are really only two options.  First, I can say that Paul was being sarcastic;  he didn't really mean what he was saying.  So of course this is not an example to follow.  Surely leaders who are in "violation of the law" need to be called out as "whitewashed walls".  The well being of their flocks is at stake.   Secondly, I can say that he actually means it.

I am confronted by Paul's response.  If he really means it, well, that shows an extraordinary amount of grace.  Perhaps Paul really does have the Spirit of Christ in him.

It seems to be a course in miniature for church anger management.   I'm just sayin', that's all.

That night the Lord stood near him... 23:11

Dame Julian, Jesus and procreation

How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings…   Luke 13: 34

What I want to talk about is this:  in our anglican discussions‚ around marriage & blessings and all that good stuff, there is a not much discussion about the place & purpose of children in this whole marriage thing.  Now I’m not going to say there is cause to coin a term like paedophobia – the irrational fear of bringing children into the world.  But I want to gently remind myself that whole business we so technically term “procreation” is a means of grace, an opportunity to imitate God, and a part of the order of creation as intended by the Trinity – Father, Son and Spirit.  I want to explore some of this in our current approach to marriage as articulated in two documents which I am slowly trying to wrap my head (and heart) around:  more a "voyage of discovery" than a set treatise.

…procreation is no longer portrayed as the primary end of marriage in our Anglican liturgies of holy matrimony (Book of Common Prayer, p. 170; Book of Alternative Services p. 528)

St Michael Report

That the procreation of children has become a bracketed option is telling. Whereas the 1662 liturgy had listed procreation of children as the first purpose of marriage, and the 1918 version had moved it into the second position  (following “the hallowing of the union betwixt man and woman,” no  less), the Book of Alternative Services lists it as the third, and clearly optional, place. This speaks, of course, to the  current pastoral realities of remarriage and blended families, as well  as to the marriage of older, post-menopausal persons. It also reflects,  however, the fact that even younger couples may choose to forge a childless  marriage; it reflects this, but neither the liturgy itself nor the introductory  rubrics offer any reflection on the meaning of such a monumental shift… 

Rev. Jamie Howison, in Thinking Faithfully about Sex and Marriage

In the two papers recently posted from members of the Primate’s Theological Commission, there is much reflection on the relational nature of marriage, with emphasis upon the two individuals who comprise the relationship.  In both of these papers, and in the St Michael Report itself, the language around the relationship of the adults in question has been fairly positive.

The language used of children, while accurate, is not nearly so involved, personal or appealing to the emotions.  The texts speak of “procreation”, and the possibility of how “procreation” (it’s actually people we are talking about here) form a fundamental aspect of the broader experience and intention of human sexuality is often left unexplored.

There are probably several reasons for this.  First is that the writers recognize that not all marriages will produce children.  Fair enough; and I don’t have much to add just yet to observations already made on that particular aspect of the topic.  Second, children as seen (or at least written of) in a fairly “objectied” manner.  They are not actually spoken of as persons with whom one has a relationship that can be transformed into something “God-ish”;  that kind of language is reserved for the sexual partner.  And that is something that troubles me.

What is missing from the addendum of children, what Jamie Howison notes as the “bracketing” of this in the BAS, is the essentially relational quality of the act of procreation. Just as the Eucharist is not simply the objects “bread” and “wine”, so procreation (such a technical piece of terminology) is not simply the act of having sex and producing a small copy of something that looks like a human being.  It is the creation of life with a view to a new kind of relationship – parent/child; mother daughter; father/son.   And it is not a “one off” event.  It is a transformative event stretched out over a lifetime (and beyond). 

AND thus I saw that God rejoiceth that He is our Father, and God rejoiceth that He is our Mother, and God rejoiceth that He is our Very Spouse and our soul is His loved Wife. And Christ rejoiceth that He is our Brother, and Jesus rejoiceth that He is our Saviour. These are five high joys, as I understand, in which He willeth that we enjoy; Him praising, Him thanking, Him loving, Him endlessly blessing.

Julian of Norwich, in Revelations of Divine Love

Lady Julian recognized something in Jesus that “mothers” us, as the Church has discovered in the language of Jesus, via the Scriptures, a God whom we call “Abba”.  The relationships within the Trinity of the Father and the Son are themselves revealed to us in terms which are given meaning only as we know (either specifically in our own experience or generally by observing such relationships in the wider community) what the relationship of father and son is, or, (to take up Lady Julian’s imagery and that of Scripture) of mothering and nurture.

Why are children not primarily a “bracket” in marriage?  Because the having of children expands the relationships within the marriage.  And in so doing these persons (yes, children are persons) give us insight into the Fatherhood of God, into the Sonship of Jesus, and into the imitation of the creative and life giving God which is offered us through relationship with these people.

How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings…

"The Grace of Eros"

"The primary question which the church must decide, then, is whether it  can recognize, in the phenomenon of two people of the same gender falling in love, a potential gift and sign of God’s grace."

from the Rev Paul Jennings of the Primate's Theological Commission.

find the links listed here.

update:  It seems that upon a re-reading of the Rev Jennings paper, his bottom line is really this:  that the idea of "falling in love" should propel us to

…new emphases for our understanding of what the marriage liturgy is  about. Firstly, it suggests that one purpose of the wedding is an  act of celebration and thanksgiving for the love that the couple has found.

I will have a bit more to say about this paper and the other papers produced by the PTC sometime in the future.  But for now let this suffice.  It appears that the theology of marriage, based on what the Rev. Jennings is writing about, is focused on bringing a blessing on that which is already, naturally present.  The focus is not on what God brings by grace to the couple, but on the church blessing whatever phenomenon is already present and active in the lives of the people there.

It is in some ways attractive:  who doesn't want to say that being in love is a good thing?  Especially if it's with your wife or husband?  Of course, many people have left their spouses because they have fallen in love, but that is another story.

What is a sacrament, and what has all this to do with our sacramental notions of marriage?  Is baptism only a celebration of what I bring to it?  Is the Eucharist only a celebration and thanksgiving for the communion I already have with Christ and with His people?  Is marriage only a thanksgiving for a kind of love which is already present?

Or is marriage something more?
 

Democracy in action at General Synod?

The number of delegates a diocese elects is based on the number of licensed clergy in the diocese. In 2004, for instance, heavily-populated Toronto sent 24 delegates.

from the Anglican Journal

Now I haven't really looked into this very much, but is this the case?  Or am I missing something in translation?  So if you have 100 clergy and 100 people in the pews, you get more representation than if you have 10 clergy and 10000 people in the pews?  Seems odd to me, and doesn't make sense given the second line, which would seem to indicate proportional representation.  Will have to look into this a bit at some point.

New Prayer Book on the way for Canada?

According to stuff at the bottom of the Faith Worship & Ministry page, it looks like GS 2007 will see a resolution caling for some work toward a new prayer book for the Anglican Church of Canada.   Some notes from the national website:

Prayer Book Revision  The committee decided to bring the following resolution to the General Synod of 2007 (through the Council of General Synod):  “That this General Synod directs the Faith Worship and Ministry Committee to prepare principles and an agenda for prayer book revision.”

Adam Fell: Splinters, Ministry & Same Sex Blessings

an occasional reflection on the family that I love

One of the oft repeated phrases in our church’s discussions around same sex blessings is “there are more important things to focus on.”   On some levels I agree with that statement.  On other levels I disagree with that statement.  There are certainly areas of ministry and mission which I believe should be commanding our attention and resources – material and spiritual and emotional.  If you take even a brief glance at a variety of diocesan websites you will see more resources listed under issues of sexuality than under evangelism, ministries of healing, social justice, outreach to youth, programs for children, and (gasp) college and university ministry.

We are well into the season of spring.  Which means something called yard work.  A few days ago we were outside, attempting to do our part to raise the neighbours’ property values.  Cutting, pruning, picking the first few weeds that always pop up in the same spot every year.  Adam, helpful chap that he is, spent considerable effort dragging around a few small branches pruned from one of our lilac trees.  Much effort, grunting, falling, getting up.

A few minutes later we were back in the house, ready to reward ourselves with sustenance.  Adam started to grab his cup but then stopped.  He wanted to, but somewhere in the course of “helping dad”, he got a splinter.  You know the kind of splinter:  small and strategic.  At just the right angle and depth so that your finger can’t move in the direction you want it to, and so your hand can’t quite hold on as tightly as it should.  Hold your hand this way, and you don’t even notice it.  Hold your hand that way; and it makes itself abundantly clear.

It’s hard to get a toddler to hold still while trying to deal with such a thing. I understand that there are three possible outcomes:  the splinter works its way in or out on its own with no harm done;  the thing becomes infected;  the thing is removed by a delicate process, much fussing, and reassuring words and postures.  I opted for course of action # 3.

Perhaps it is true – there are more important things to focus on.  But I wonder if we, like Adam, are at present prevented from moving our hands in certain directions.

I commit our church to  prayer.