View From The Pew
by Gerry Hunter
(Posted Mar 6th, 2001).
The
Fruits of Dialogue
I have watched this famous island descending incontinently, fecklessly, the
stairway which leads to a dark gulf. It is a fine broad stairway at the
beginning, but after a bit the carpet ends. A little further on there are only
flagstones, and a little further on still these break beneath your feet.
Sir Winston Churchill, While England Slept.
There is but one good; that
is God. Everything else is good when it looks to him and bad when it turns from
him.
C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce
The Diocese of New Westminster has descended into the dark gulf of dialogue for
two years now. June is fast coming upon us. Synod delegates have been chosen;
vestries have expressed their stands. As the synod approaches, one can well
understand the sense of desperation that seems to have reduced the diocesan
council to a gigantic angst trip.
Once, it was a simple matter to follow the proceedings of this body. Its
minutes were published regularly. Now it has gone quite dark, and the only
illumination of its deliberations comes from carefully spun articles in
controlled media organs. Still, if a recent posting on the diocesan website is
any indication, even this group has come face to face with its impotence in
dealing with the harm that the imposed process of the last two years has done.
The disarray may grow even further. The corporate structure which has turned to
devices of its own devising, rather than to the teachings of the one, holy,
catholic, and apostolic church, may well be unable to muster the fortitude to
even address the question it has thrust upon church members. Little by little,
the hints have been coming, and come yet again in this article, that the
coward’s way out will be chosen in June, and the question not even addressed at
Synod.
Meanwhile, there is, it appears, concern over unity. Now unity is a gift of God
the Holy Spirit, given to those who follow Jesus Christ. Let us be plain here;
this gift, like all the others He gives, is given to those who follow Jesus
Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, not Jesus Christ, the subject of
investigation by the Jesus Seminar. No unity we seek to manufacture by our own
devices can be a substitute for the true gift. Yet, by all appearances, the
main continuing governing body of our diocese has been reduced to a last ditch
attempt to grasp at a manufactured unity.
There is much cause for sadness here. One of the many things the crafters of
the imposed dialogue process overlooked was the basic and foundational
differences between the people on each side of the question at hand. The
dialogue process has certainly made it quite clear that on one side of the
question, we find people who would follow Jesus Christ as Lord, and those who
would accept him as a leader on his merits; those who receive the Word as
authoritative, and those who will take it into consideration; those who would
be obedient in hope of receiving the promised gifts of God the Holy Spirit, and
those who hold that those same gifts can be manufactured by our own corporate
efforts. A friend who attended the diocesan council meeting told me that the facilitator
admitted he was told, before the process even began, that it was a “lose -
lose” proposition. Hence, no doubt, the sadness.
What, one can only wonder, would such a “unity” achieve? Will it allow
believers who are caring parents to permit their children to visit parishes
that opt to “bless” the “unions” in question? Not likely. Would allowing each
parish to go its own way somehow bring them closer together? Only, it seems, to
the extent that covering ones eyes before stepping off the curb will permit one
to cross a street without being hit by cars. Can we really expect “conscience”
to be respected in this matter, when it never has, for long, on any other
imposed change, or is this but another “last territorial demand in Europe” by
those who would conquer? Are we to settle for the pretty metaphors of religious
pluralists as the substitute for the Lord’s promise that “by their fruit, you
WILL know them”? Will it be the unity of conspirators, or the unity received as
gift?
As the structures of the diocese manifest the bankruptcy of those who trust in
their own devices, there is cause for some hope. Some parishes have taken clear
stands for the faith once delivered. The parish I attend passed, for a second
time, a motion supporting the teachings on sexuality of our House of Bishops.
The first time, there were a handful of dissenting votes; this time, it was
unanimous. (And may I pause to note that if those mavens in mauve were as eager
as the parish to stand by their teaching, and not themselves so taken with
manufactured unity, we may not be in this state in these parts.)
Even as I write, the Primates in Kanuga are in the process of taking actions that will visibly demonstrate whether Anglicans in the Northern Hemisphere are to be a gifted or a “manufacturing” community. And in the end, believers have a faithful, Triune God to whom to turn, and from whom true unity will flow as gift to those who obey Him.
http://vancouver.anglican.ca/
Bishop insists: No same sex union blessings
without approval of motion by Synod
There will be no blessings of same sex unions in the diocese unless the
Diocesan Synod and the Bishop formally approve, Bishop Michael Ingham told
Diocesan Council last month. He turned down a suggestion that he might overlook
such blessings in the interest of diocesan unity.
The suggestion was put to him by the Rev. Trevor Walters of St. Matthew,
Abbotsford, a representative of the Yale deanery. Walter told Diocesan Council
that he "desperately" wants to avoid a vote on the blessings issue.
One way, he suggested, would be to "defer the authority [to conduct
blessings] to the parishes, without having a diocesan Episcopal policy.on this
topic."
The bishop replied that, while in some dioceses - especially in the Episcopal
Church of the USA - some bishops may allow blessings of same sex unions to
happen without their Episcopal (or, bishop's) approval, he does not want this
in his diocese. "Frankly it is not my preference," said the bishop,
"We do it by decision." The bishop added that it is possible the
Diocesan Synod may decide not to decide - to table the motion or refer it.
In 1998, Diocesan Synod narrowly approved a motion ('Motion 9') that called on
the bishop to authorize priests to bless same sex unions. At that time Bishop
Ingham withheld his consent, set up an extensive diocesan dialogue process, and
said that he would bring the motion back to Synod for another vote if there is
nothing in canon, civil, or common law that says a diocese cannot authorize
such blessing. A Legal and Canonical Commission is scheduled to give the bishop
advice next month.
He said that, if Synod and he were to approve the blessings, he would allow
them to take place only in parishes where both the rector and the church
committee request permission. No priest or parish will be required to conduct
blessings contrary to their consciences, he said.
The bishop repeated that "a clear and substantial majority" must vote
in favour of Motion 9 before he will accepted it. He told Diocesan Council he
feels this requirement weights the decision in favour of the status quo. When
asked, the bishop again refused to define the percentage required for the Synod
majority to be "clear and substantial." He said that would lead to a
debate over the number, "instead of us focusing on the people whose lives
we're talking about." He repeated his metaphor that a clear and
substantial majority will be like a "beautiful sunset." "It's
hard to define, but you know one when you see it."
Diocesan Council also discussed how pastoral care might be offered to those
disappointed or angered by the Synod decision - or lack of decision, if no
second vote is taken.