The Bishop's Spouse

[Daniel]

Liberal- you mentioned that the Archbishop of Canterbury had not included the Canadian view of matters. It seems, according to an article on www.365gay.com, that they are in favor of William's proposal.

http://365gay.com/Newscon06/06/062806canada.htm

Canadian Anglicans Welcome Church 'Compromise'
by The Canadian Press

June 28, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET

(Toronto, Ontario) The Anglican Church of Canada ``thoroughly welcomes'' the archbishop of Canterbury's call for feuding Anglicans to develop a structure, or covenant, to deal with differences over the roles of gays and women and the authority of the Bible, Archbishop Andrew Hutchison said Wednesday.

............

In Canada on the other hand, he said, a moratorium was placed on such blessings at least until General Synod _ the church's governing body _ meets in June next year.

What's needed, said Hutchison, is ``a little more honesty from (the Church of) England. It needs to own up to what their operating policy is, not simply what their theoretical regulations are.''

As to what impact the international furor over the role of gays and women in the Anglican communion is having on the Canadian church, the impact isn't ``huge,'' said Hutchison.

``We've been in this discussion now for years,'' he said. But parishioners ``want to move on with what the church is really about.''

``I hear a lot of near burnout. People are very tired of the issue, very tired of the conversation.''

There's also a lot of pressure from abroad for the Canadian church to change course, said Hutchison.

[Liberal Crozier]

Daniel:

The Canadian denominational numbers reflect the Irish and Francophonne populations that produced the Roman Catholic majority in the country.

The irony is that Anglicanism is second to a group of evangelical bodies who formed the United Church of Canada - a gay-affirming group who supported the effort.

Canada has gone through many political changes since my birth in 1946. For example, from November, 1946 to January, 1947 - my nationality was British (domiciled in Canada). On New Year's Day, 1947, Newfoundland, a British colony became a province, and the Canadian Citizenship Act was established. On that day, the Church of England in Canada became a national church province, the Anglican Church of Canada.

(Skip this paragraph if it is too pedantic

The Episcopal Church USA was founded by Samuel Seabury first receiving Succession from the non-juror bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church - a Sarum rite or High Church and later Tractarian province. The succeeding bishops were consecrated by Church of England bishops who had reconciled with the new American nation and their right to establish PECUSA. The Church consequently established a very strong Evangelical and Hobartian High Church to Oxford Tractarian parties....that gave way to Broad Church spinoffs from both parties....Broad Low or Broad High. This migrated to the schisms for women issues in 1976 and for our issues today.

The Anglican Church of Canada was founded by the juror lords spiritual of the Church of England sitting in the House of Lords in London. The Georgian rite (named for the Low Church emphasis of the Hanoverian dynasty) predominates. There were more Canterbury caps worn than Roman birettas.
Today, the Canadian Church has an upcoming vote for a new archbishop-primate and it could be a woman as well. The very liberal Bishop of Westminster is the bishop who authorised the "blessings" initially after BC laws were changed - soon after ON.

The Canadian and American blurring of civil and spiritual definitions concerning marriage is a sticky wicket not experienced in continental Europe. It is a tradition migrated to North America because the C of E was the official religion of the state and Anglican clergy were paid councillors of state able to sign secular documents. Hence - the problem. In Continental Europe, you present yourself before the Mayor or his deputies, and marry legally and receive licence and certificate. You may then opt to receive the Sacrament of Marriage or whatever marriage blessing ordinance you wish. You receive no legal document, just the graces and a church unofficial document.

The Canadian blessing on hold because of the Nigerian blackmailers who wish to hijack episcopal oversight in other national churches with Cantuaris' assent and supra-oversight, albeit uncanonical went as follows:

1) a non-sacramental blessing rite or series of prayers were said over the couple in either a Eucharistic or stand-alone Prayer service. There were no exchange of vows in the Church, but merely an acknowledgement of their love and commitment to each other as members of the Parish faith community.

2) later, off-venue, or in some cases, on venue, a Justice of the Peace or Marriage Councillor would legally marry them according to the Canadian Marriage Act, providing them with federal and legal protections absolutely equal to opposite-sex couples.

Today, Canada is no longer a parliamentary but a constitutional monarchical democracy. Our twenty-one year old Charter of Rights and Freedoms has a neocon notwithstanding clause, but their minority government will last a month to a year and a half - the usual timeframe. We must put our Liberal house in order, and then proceed to retake government. But in the USA, the eighteenth century Bill of Rights, the model for ours and many around the world, is being rendered meaningless by neo-conservatives with a fascist global corporate agenda.

Between ECUSA and the ACC bending to pressure, I will wager that ECUSA will do so and the ACC will eventually not bend and accept the fact that their nation has made a decision to provide civil rights to all married couples regardless of sexual orientation, and that the provision excluding religious bodies to provide extra-spiritual covenants will be honoured INSOFAR as they, as in the United Church of Canada, find a clergyperson with a different reference who can marry them in that venue.

[Daniel]

Liberal- your detailed and lucid rendering of the inner workings of Anglican Church in Canada as well as the matter in general is much appreciated. I have a fascination with history, so your words are not pedantic in the slightest. In fact, the tenor of your posts have left me with one strong impression: what one reads in the media (and all too often can get upset about) frequently has a backstory and a good deal of nuance behind it which is hidden from view. Things are not always as they seem or are characterized. A case in point being today's article in the NYTImes on the impact of the Bishop of Canterbury's statement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/us/02episcopal.html

I glean from this story, as well as others, that the Bishop's words are, in essence, politically based. (In the theatre they call it 'stealing focus'. It's always done be the insecure who cannot hold the stage by honest means.) They certainly aren't based on the reality of GLBTAQ lives. He means to force the issue, that much is clear. Now, I'm no lamb in the woods, but I do appreciate the perspective that your words have given me, a perspective which advises more patience and less hysteria. All is lost in the latter.

[Liberal Crozier]

Daniel -

We fully support SOULFORCE because we realise that without the open and active support of gay-affirming Communities of Faith, the reality of same-sex marriage equality with opposite sex couples will remain a " secular political debate" that is doomed to failure because the majority oppose and the minority betray.

Please remember again and again, that it was GAY AFFIRMING CHRISTIAN BODIES who made SSM legal in Canada.. Yes, the secular activists did their part...but it was initiated and won by communities and faith activists who took the Roman Catholics and Fundamentalists to task, to court, and to the pulpit, and yes, to ultimate defeat of their homophobic theological views in the legal arena.

A "fundamental" weakness in the LGBT national strategy in the US, IMHO, has been the dominance of the secular and legal components and the relegation of the spiritual and religious LGBT support groups to the back of the bus. I guess the RIDE made a mockery of that strategy.

I truly believe as we did in Canada, that the religious forces allied against us can only be effectively rebuked by gay-affirming Faith Leaders.

Here is an easy truth. 1968 ( he was 22 and I was 17), Troy Perry,28, divorced husband and father Pentacostal minister brings twelve persons to his apartment and couch, and has a non-denominational service that blooms into the MCC and eventually the UFMCC worldwide. Perry marries many theological perspectives and liturgical modalities within the faith body.

In 2001, MCC-Toronto ON Canada, under Dr. Brent Hawkes, protected by armour and guards, finds a loophole with Church banns laws, and marries the first gay and the first lesbian couple of the modern era. Three other nations win total rights before the marriage is considered legal and more, the licence is correctly dated back to that 2001 event.

The Moderator of the United Church of Canada, the largest Canadian Protestant body, joins the chorus of the muffled Anglican bishop of Westminster, and along with many gay-affirming bodies, ACTIVELY AND OPENLY take spiritual arms against the Catholic Canadian Church and the Fundy Canadian groups.

Nothing infuriates the Theocon RightWing more effectively than to have MAINLINE Christian and other mainline spiritualities support the civil rights and theological diversity for us.

[LGBT FLIGHT ATTENDANT]

Bishop,

Your understanding of your and other denominations is insightful. I truly believe that God led you to his site. I love this site. Dr. White is truly an embodiment of Christ. So is Jeff Lutes, the new executive director, and his own special family. So is Jamie who hosts one of the best websites that I have ever maneuvered through.

Also, everyone here is diverse but share a common love and compassion for each other. I think Ghandi once said that he thought Christianity was merely an idea and not a real force for love in the world, or something like that.

Most gays, including myself, have been so hurt and damaged by the institutional Church of Exclusion and Hatred that it is difficult to join our voices to anything LGBT that is "gay affirming Christian."

WWJD - I believe that he would blog on Soulforce and take a bus ride or two

[LGBT FLIGHT ATTENDANT]

I spent the last few moments reading the many posts and find that the discussion of these issues should be extended.

[Liberal Crozier]

Dear FA,

Crozier and I appreciate your kind words and actions where you are concerned. We trust that many threads get the needed responses and then we naturally proceed to yet another topic without prejudice to the author or the topic discussed.

We say this to only suggest that all of us are fortunate to have a forum where we can support each other as we live and work to change hearts and minds who are ill-informed or have found what they feel is " Biblical approbation" for their natural impulses to exclude and villify other members of humanity they despise.

Thank you for your prayers for our family, and know that we pray for you, and wish you happiness.

[Liberal Crozier]

We are discussing many of these issues on the other threads dealing with the fact that a spiritual and moral crusade for Human Rights should be led by the spiritual forces of affirmation in our community, and supported by the secular legal and judiciary forces. They are often politically compromised and we are, if true to our vocations as Christians, must declare that love, compassion, revelation and inclusion is the potential definition of Christianity in the third millenium.

Crozier and I will now try to fall asleep.