"One related motion was also proposed. It requested that all dioceses, the Anglican Council of Indigenous Peoples, the Military Ordinariate, and Religious Orders, engage in theological and scriptural study of human sexuality in the coming triennium. The motion was carried after some debate, and an amendment to add the phrase "In conversation with gay and lesbian voices, and with the full range of theological opinion in the Canadian Church".
- Anglican Journal G.S. Report -
At least there is some willingness on the part of the conservatives in Synod to open up the way of conversation (hopefully, dialogue) with lesbian and gays persons in the coming triennium. This is more than has yet happened in the Global South countries - where the very thought of conversation with the 'enemy' - as counselled by Lambeth - has been unilaterally rejected.
Canada may be a little slower off the mark than TEC on this important matter of affirming the full inclusion of LGBT persons within the family of the Church, but at least, it is a move in the right direction. While there is the possibility of dialogue, there is hope for a just resolution.
It was good to see the reluctance of General Synod to rush ahead with the process of affirming the proposed Covenant - especially when the ACO has moved ahead of the process, to exclude certain of the Provinces from representative membership of international ecumenical bodies. This will not, of course, prevent the Anglican Church of Canada, TEC, or any other Province from pursuing their own local talks with other Christian bodies.
Since thay have now pronounced concern at IDF tactics, just out of interest, has the CGS said much about the Canadian military's role in Afghanistan since 2001? Any comment ever forthcoming about:
I understand the sentiment behind “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice anywhere” but Afghanistan is hardly Canada's back yard.
At least they had the grace to recognise that Israel is trying to defend itself.
Afghanistan is not Canada's backyard. True. But Canadians are in Afghanistan's front yard. We've had about 140+ combat related deaths, plus one diplomat. The Anglican Church of Canada has been completely silent on the issue, silent about the abuse scandal, which has been a major domestic issue, silent about a war that has divided our country. Its what comes of being self absorbed and preoccupied with institutional survival.
>>>Its what comes of being self absorbed and preoccupied with institutional survival.
Some believe that is why the mainline churches in the U.S. have been under such a relentless attack by right wing extremists for the past three decades--to silence what had been America's leading voices for social justice.
Deliberate or not, it's certainly worked.
"Some" may believe it, but Jim Naughton's excellent "Following the Money" is a big part of making the case. http://www.edow.org/follow/
The so-called Institute for Religion and Democracy is an extremist organization that has financed destabalization efforts in mainline denominations that will not conform to the extremism of the religious right.
Jim Naughton should be highly commended for his "Following the Money" research. It makes the role of Rowan Williams in all of this intrigue a bit murkier. Is Rowan Willams afraid of these right wing extremists because of their NUMBERS or because of the huge sums of MONEY that right wing organizations contributed toward the destruction of progressive Christians? Based on the statistical evidence described in Naughton's brilliantly researched articles on this subject, it truly appears that Rowan Williams is at least indirectly cooperating with these right wing extremists and that is profoundly disturbing. Its' implications should lead to a serious discussion within The Church of England. I have no idea what, if any, procedures are necessary for removing an Archbishop of Canterbury. If Rowan has blood on his hands even if indirectly, or if he is cooperating with right wing organizations for the destabilization of other national Churches such as ECUSA shouldn't he be removed from the Throne of Canterbury? I ask this rhetorically, but I must say that after reading Jim Naughton's two-part article, I was stunned by the potential ramifications that may or may not lead to The Archbishop of Canterbury or his handlers.
Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.
Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to
the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill
the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select
'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No
third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical,
advertising, or other purposes.