Alpha launching new campaign, etc.

1) http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/040609briefs

Alpha Canada is launching a new public awareness campaign this summer with plans to 
double the number of billboard and transit shelter ads. The campaign also includes 
new church banners and car window and lawn signs. Canada now leads the world in public 
Alpha awareness. Prayer gatherings are planned for September 16 to prepare for the 
fall Alpha programs. For more information on church involvement, 
go to www.InviteTheNation.org or call the Alpha Office at 1-800-743-0899.

2) http://www.acicanada.ca/ Anglican Communion In Canada. 
ACiC Affiliation Documents in PDF Format:
1. Introduction to the Office of Leadership Development http://www.acicanada.ca/documents/Intro_To_Office_Of_Leadership_Development.pdf
2. Process For Affiliation to ACiC prior to Licensing http://www.acicanada.ca/documents/Affiliation_Info.pdf
3. Application for Anglican Clergy: Expedited Reception Process http://www.acicanada.ca/documents/Reception_Application_Overview.pdf
4. Application for Reception http://www.acicanada.ca/documents/Reception_Application.pdf
5. Referee Questionnaire http://www.acicanada.ca/documents/Referee_Questionaire.pdf

3a) http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.asp
http://www.churchnewspaper.com/?go=news&read=on&number_key=5721&title=Primates%20call%20for%20Canada%20to%20be%20expelled
Thursday, 10th June, 2004  No: 5721 Church of England Newspaper, UK Primates call for Canada 
to be expelled (…)The Eames Commission, set up to resolve the Anglican Communion's 
crisis over homosexuality, had called for a period of restraint, but one of its senior 
members, Archbishop Drexel Gomez, said the Canadian Church's action has destroyed this(…)

The answer is rendered even more dubious when we remember that, in the course of debate, an alternate reading (that called more generally for "love and support" of those in a same-sex lifestyle) was defeated.

Virtually every word, of course, has a "semantic range"-that is, a word is somewhat elastic, and means various things in various contexts. What can and does "sanctity" mean?

Let's consider how we use the word traditionally in our own English culture. "Sanctity," along with its synonym "holiness" has a quaint air in our postmodern environment. Anyone encountering the word finds himself or herself immediately thinking in terms of religion, cult, and morality. Because of the way that the word has normally been domesticated, that is, applied to the "purity" of human beings, we tend to forget that originally "sanctity" was attached to a sense of awe, or mystery. However, even with this loss of memory, there is a hangover-we speak of someone who has "the air of sanctity" and imagine, perhaps, a monk or a nun, someone separated out for God's service. So the standard concise oxford offers these synonyms for sanctity: "holiness of life, saintliness, sacredness, being hallowed, right to reverence, inviolability."

Sanctity, then, is the state of holiness, and can naturally be applied to anything that the adjective "holy" traditionally describes: "holy water," "holy" altar, a "holy" person, the "Holy Bible," "holy matrimony," the "Holy Spirit," the "holy God, " "the holy One of God." In the Latin, the word sanctus is used to translate the Hebrew term Qadosh, and three Greek terms, hieros, hosios (and most commonly) hagios. Greek, then, had several terms, with overlapping meanings, but used in particular ways. Hieros always referred to something or someone divine, or consecrated to the divine: Typically, the word referred to priests, cultic objects, and the like, as well as to the Lord God himself, but it is not a word used often in the Old or New Testaments. Hosios had more to do with the ethical dimension of "holiness," and referred to a duty to worship what is holy, to the quality of reverence or piety in the worshipper. However, the word hagios has the broadest range, and is used to cover the various other meanings, from "holiness" connected directly with worship and cult, to the absolute "holiness" of the Almighty God, to the "holiness" of his people.

The Old Testament, of course, with its emphasis on the tabernacle and the Temple (constructed in concentric circles of increasing holiness), considered "holiness" as referring to those things that are set apart, or utterly different from, the profane. One of the revolutions effected by the Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus, is that the earth, visited by God, is no longer "profane" by its very nature. "This is our Father's world." Concentration upon the Temple as the locus of God's holiness now gives way to the focus upon the "holy One" whose very body was and remains the Temple of God. The visitation of the Son to our world means that nothing is, by the mere fact of being "created," simply "profane"-all things created can be irradiated with the glory of God, and the breach between the holy and the profane can be healed.

But this does not happen automatically, especially where the will of human beings is concerned. Just as God placed Adam and Eve in a care-taking position in the pristine world of Eden, so now the redeemed humanity, in Christ, is called to respond to God's work in us, so that time and space are redeemed for the sake of holiness. This begins with, but does not end with, our own lives and our own relationships. We tread carefully here to avoid the impression that this relies upon us, for all of it comes from the initiative of God. Yet we are called, in a certain sense, to "co-operate" (and I use the word advisedly). Just as the God of the Hebrews said to his own people, "You shall be holy, for I am holy" (and assumed that this required a response), so the rhythm of the Pauline letters says, "God is like this and God has done this in Christ" "therefore present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy… (Romans 12:1)."

Jesus said to his listeners, "Be therefore perfect (teleioi, i.e., complete, with integrity, fulfilled) just as your heavenly Father is perfect." Yet it was not Christianity, but the Gnostic movement, that assumed its converts, the spirit-ones to be already perfect. The Incarnation, and God's reclaiming of the cosmos and of humanity, does not mean that we can claim an inner, inalienable "holiness." This is something held for us in trust as we are in Christ, and beginning an ongoing life of transformation in which we are called to participate. The advent of God the Son changed the whole of the fallen created order, so that, in a sense, the distinction between the holy and profane is abolished. This means that nothing is to be, by its inner nature, whether material, emotional, psychic, or spiritual, left outside of God's rule-but things, people and relationships are not automatically rendered "holy" just because they has some claim to existence. Some 20th century poets have thought this, but it is not a Christian idea. For Christians have an operative word that is matched to the idea of "sanctity"-it is the verb "sanctification."

Things and people need to be "set aside" (hazomai, hagiomai) for God. This work of sanctification began, of course, in Jesus, but it continues. This verb, we must remember, originally meant "to stand in awe of the gods (or one's parents). We are here in the domain of the burning bush, in the atmosphere of Isaiah's trisagion ("Thrice-holy") vision, verging on the realm of angels, into which we are called fully because of what Jesus has done and because of who he is-truly God and truly human. Sanctitas, in its fullest meaning, covers all the following: sacredness, inviolability, sanctity, moral purity, holiness, virtue, piety, integrity, honor, purity, chastity. How bizarre that the word should now be used to describe activities that are linked with impurity, lack of honour and lack of chastity in the whole of the Bible! Christians, after all, are called "holy" because they are in Christ, incorporated into "the Holy One of God" (Luke 1:35, Acts 4:27).

There is, of course, a rational explanation for why the term would have been applied, on June 4, 2004 to a "committed adult same-sex union." It is because the framers have, in the background, the arguments of the likes of Eugene Rogers, who has neutralized the Biblical proscriptions regarding homoerotic behaviour by leashing the meaning of the words used to describe this activity, and by appealing to "experience" as the arbiter of our decision. Rogers, after a skewed interpretation of the various Biblical texts that touch on same-sex activity, clinches his argument by asserting that same-sex couples "find" in their union "a means of grace," so it must be holy. This appeal to experience that contradicts the condemnation of Scripture is the most common revisionist position today. It says that we know better than St. Paul, because he just doesn't recognize the grace that characterizes the loving union of two men or two women.. Wasn't Jesus always welcoming outcasts from Israel among his followers? Now God is doing something similar, but new for the church. In that light, the church needs to recognize what is holy, and arrange for membership, ordination to office, the "blessing of unions" or outright "marriage" in order to celebrate the experience of those people who say they already find sanctity in the love they have for one another? The argument sounds like a new "sheet" let down before 21st century doubting Peters: but has God called this novel arrangement "clean"?

Douglas Farrow, in his article "Different Gods," explains that such reasoning "is to affirm the integrity and sanctity, the wholeness and holiness, of what he or she already is and has as a sexual being in a sexual relationship. Indeed, the amendment to Resolution A-134 implied that "Synod was being asked to affirm the presence of God that already inheres in every committed (homo)sexual relationship between Christians." In passing it, the ACC followed the tendency in our day to assume "that what we are in ourselves is already (potentially if not actually) whole and holy." Thus, "as sexual beings" (and perhaps not in any other part of our person) we do not "require any special justification, sanctification and transformation in Jesus Christ."

Jesus' death tells us otherwise, as do those who know how to follow in his pattern. John 7: 17, 19 and 10:33, 36, declare that the Holy One died a death separated unto God so that we can, in turn, be sanctified. 1 Corinthians 7 speaks of the marriage relationship, and how the sanctity of a believing partner hallows the whole marriage so that the unbelieving spouse may also come into God's holiness. 1 Thessalonians 5:23 tells us that it is God who sanctifies spirit, soul and body - not our own assertions, our own experience, or our own imaginations. We are called to such holiness by Jesus, who is faithful and, and who has promised to complete what he has begun in us, corporately and personally, through the Holy Spirit. But this he will not do against our wills, and certainly not if we assume that the work need not be done! ("But now that you say, 'we see,' your sin remains," John 9:41). As Hebrews 12:10 reminds us, there is a godly discipline laid down for us, so that we can indeed share in the holiness of the Son.

God himself enacted the first marriage covenant, bringing Eve to Adam, her partner. A marriage, like the relation of Christ to the church, is not finally a thing made with human hands. In contrast, homoerotic relations, whether "blessed" or not, point to our human willfulness and brokenness (Romans 1:21-24). By its nature, homoerotic activity cannot bear fruit or fulfill the ecstatic ("going out") role, the picture of Trinitarian life, that marriage is meant to dramatize.

What would a same-sex "blessing" or "marriage" supposedly show us? For one, the church would be giving thanks to God for the sexual union of two men, or two women - and declaring that in themselves they are pictures or icons of God's love, that they display in a certain mode the salvation story, and that they are glorified or taken up into God's own actions and being. It would declare that they have a significant and fruitful part in creation, and that they are symbols of the in-breaking and coming rule of God, in the holiness of Christ, in which the church now shares and in which we will eventually participate fully. It would be to "speak a good word" about this sort of relationship, explicitly declaring it to be a condition in which the way of the cross and the way of new life come together. It would thus claim that the relationship is conducive to repentance, healing, growth and glorification for the two men or the two women involved. Precisely here, the church would be saying, you can see the wholeness, the holiness, the love of God in human form, and the glory of humanity. Here would be a sacrament, an occasion where the holy God meets us.

A church doing this in reality is replacing God with an idol, and this before the whole world. It is claiming that God blesses an act for which repentance is required. It is commending to the family of God, and thus to the world, activities that lead to spiritual death. It is praying against its true nature, indeed, it is denying its true nature. Finally, the particular body (congregation or communion) is rending itself from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of the creed. As Karl Barth has observed, heresy raises the troubling question of the boundaries of the church. While the church may learn from its conflict with heresy, there is no "middle way" between faithfulness here and the revisionist position on homoerotic relations. It makes little difference whether we create rites to sanctify, or declare these parodic unions already sanctified. "Little children, keep yourselves from idols!" (1 John 5:21)

3c) http://rathernot.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=31#comments - ANOTHER recent comment by Dr. Edith Humphrey on current matters: (…)Clearly, the church is called not to let happen what we have allowed to happen in the ACC and ECUSA. The likes of Peter Elliott and Michael Ingham should have been disciplined along analogies of 1 Cor. 5:1-13 (here clear TEACHING to not associate with one who calls himself a brother) and 2 Peter 3:14 (with regards to 2 Peter 2:1-3, 17-22). In the first place, such discipline should have been for the sake of our erring brothers; failing repentance, their exclusion is for the sake of the Church, and in the name of Jesus who has given to the church the keys(…) Last week we stood by in Canada while Anglicans selected an erring and arrogant Primate, the whole affair moderated by a "prolocutor" entrenched in a life of sin, and celebrating the whole debacle as the new Primate was himself consecrated by another leader who has "approved" these practices (Romans 1:32). Those 9 who tried to stand were criticised for being divisive. The ACC stands, as a body, condemned under the Word of God, and under the tradition of the historic truth. It has called darkness light, and claimed not to have made a theological statement.

So, then, what do we make of Paul's call not to associate with those who call themselves brothers but are engaged in, or approving of immorality? What do we make of the call in 2 Cor 6 "not to be mismated with the faithless" and to " come out from them and be separate from them?" (Paul is not here talking about unbelievers, it seems, despite the usual translation of apistoi. For what he says here is connected with his beef against the pseudoapostles, and he has already told Christians in 1 Cor that they cannot leave the world. Again, there comes a time when those who are institutionally in the "church" are really in Babylon, and so may be called "apistoi"-those without the faith of Jesus. We are called to wait for God's action in such times, yes, for he is the deliverer. We are also called to "cleanse ourselves" -not just individualistically, but as a body.

I believe that to ask faithful Anglicans to continue in "dialogue" over this issue after all that is happened is abusive, though I understand the good-will of our 9 faithful bishops. I have myself talked and talked, and know now that for most on the "other side" this is not a free and open dialogue, but a carefully-strategised exercise in persuasion(…) So much is at stake here, that if we ask our people to continue, business as usual, we are endangering them, both body and soul. And we are endangering those who are in error here, as well, because we signal to them that this really is something over which faithful Christians can differ(…)

3d) http://www.therez.on.ca/
Reflections from the Rev. Duke Vipperman+
Anglican Church of the Resurrection, Toronto
SANCTITY
Sanctity means holiness, saintliness, sacredness, purity, virtue, & inviolability; a term associated with marriage, Baptism & Holy Communion. How can something St. Paul insists is out of order with nature be holy? (Romans 1:18-2:4)(…)

What might a non-doctrinal definition of "sanctity" be? I asked my friends in the Anglican Essentials, Toronto network for help. Among them were six individuals with doctorates. Here is our collected wisdom (or lack thereof).

Does it mean "inviolable," as in "we should not mess with it" anymore than one should tear asunder a marriage? But that meaning also has definite doctrinal implications. The word is obviously borrowed from the church's doctrine of marriage.

One said sanctity might mean just that there is "a provisional good" in these relationships: stable long term relationships are better than promiscuity.

Another opined that what the dictionary says about "sanctity" has little relation to how it is used. You have to suspend belief. If it is just pastoral - in spite of the words - it's a sort of pat on the back for gays & lesbians who have to wait once again. It would be "pastoral" in the sense that it makes us feel good, with only a fuzzy memory of theological content. Francis Schaeffer once warned that this is what would happen to Christian words when they fall into liberal hands.

But it is, in fact, strange to think that there can be Christian pastoral care that is not grounded in theology!

It is impossible to get around the fact that sanctity implies holiness which expresses God's apartness from sin. Yet, that is the very question before the church! Perhaps those who voted for the motion, and those who support it, are just muddled in their thinking.

WHAT TO DO?
The Anglican Bishops of the Global South interpret "sanctity" in the classical sense, the same way the Nine protesting Anglican Bishops and many of the irate read it, including me. "Look at the record of the church: it has not disciplined those who have acted without reference to the rest of the Church. Now it asserts that this state is blessed, set up a constitutional quibble about whether this is a doctrinal issue, and maligned those who dissent from the decision, because they agree with the Holy Spirit - these acts are deadly" (Dr. Edith Humphrey).

Some say this is beyond the pale and it is time to find shelter from such confusion. Others are asking if it is worth walking out of the communion because someone else is muddled.

Challenge?
If it is merely pastoral in meaning, no one seems to know precisely what it means. I appreciate that the Bishops of Toronto, Ontario and New Westminster do not think "sanctity" is something doctrinal. I agree with the Nine Bishops that what General Synod has done has bought confusion into the church: "Our God is not a God of confusion but of peace. " 1 Cor. 14:33.

In that there is confusion around the meaning of the word, Robert's Rules of Order are clear that the meaning of a motion may not be confusing. A strong case therefore can be made that the motion is illegal and someone(s) should challenge it in the appropriate venue.

If the motion was declared out of order or illegal, the Primate could still ask his Theological Commission to do the work in the necessary time frame, dioceses will do what they do anyway (but some will likely withhold consent since if SSB's are ruled as touching on doctrine, dioceses would have to reverse any progress made) and the Primates of the Global South would interpret that as a form of repentance and cease their call for the expulsion of the Canadian Church from the Communion. Pastor Duke Vipperman+, Church of the Resurrection, Toronto, therez@on.aibn.com

3e) http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/122/52.0.html
Home > Christianity Today Magazine > Weblog
Christianity Today, Week of May 31
Weblog: Canadian Anglicans defer on gay marriages, but say gay sex is sacred

4a) http://fredericton.anglican.org/bishop/0406_pastoral.html To the People of the Diocese of Fredericton (New Brunswick, Canada) June 7, 2004 (…)A member of General Synod asked the mover what was meant by the word "sanctity." He replied "I didn't mean the word in the technical theological sense as much as in a pastoral sense." He cited a parishioner who, testifying to his own experience of his life with his lifetime partner, said that he knew that blessings flowed to him and to others because of that relationship. I fully understand the resultant confusion, but I would add that all earthly relationships are less than what is holy in God's eyes, and that at best we share a journey in the quest for holiness(…)
+Claude, Bishop of Fredericton
http://fredericton.anglican.org/bishop/bishop.html
The Rt. Rev'd Dr. Claude W. Miller claude.miller@anglican.nb.ca

4b) http://caledonia.anglican.org/PastLet2004GS.htm
Diocese of Caledonia
Pastoral Letter To All Parishes Excerpt:(…)One of the Anglican Communion's most respected theologians stated that the motion, "… puts such relationships on a par with marriage." I know that some within our diocese will rejoice at this news. Others will weep. Still others will be either confused or indifferent (…)
+William Anderson, Bishop of Caledonia

4c) http://gs2004.classicalanglican.com/modules/news/ (CaNN News, June 10th 2004) -Excerpts from the Niagara and Toronto
Dioceses Clone Letters
4d) http://www.niagara.anglican.ca/bishopStaff/Bishop.cfm
Bishop Ralph Spence Niagara Letter

(…)Third, while deferring consideration of blessings, General Synod affirmed "the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same sex relationships". It was clear that this was a pastoral not doctrinal response to our faithful gay and lesbian church members(…) It is clear that in the Diocese of Niagara, we are further along than some in our study and consultations concerning these issues, but we are committed to continuing this process as we move towards our Diocesan Synod in November.
4e) Toronto Bishops Letter
http://www.toronto.anglican.ca/index.asp?navid=2&csid=32&csid1=1&csid2=16&fid1=10&fid2=-888&fid3=187&layid=18
(..)Thirdly, while deferring consideration of blessings, General Synod affirmed "the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same-sex relationships." It was clear to us that this was a pastoral not doctrinal response to our faithful gay and lesbian church members(…)It is clear that in the Diocese of Toronto, we are further along than some in our study and consultations concerning these issues, but we are committed to continuing this process as we move towards our November Synod(…)

5a) http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/040609news
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3777599.stm
Canadian Anglicans dismay conservatives
By Jane Little, BBC religious affairs correspondent, June 4th

5b) http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/news164.asp
http://anglicanessentials.org/Are_Same-Sex_Unions_Holy.htm
http://stgeorgeslowville.org/Are_Committed_Same-Sex_Unions_Holy.htm
10th June 2004 by Rev. George Sinclair, St. Alban's Ottawa, National Essentials Chair 
"Are Committed Same-Sex Relationships Holy?" 
Excerpts: (…)1. This is a terrible decision.  It is unbiblical and nonchristian.  
It should not be affirmed even if "heterosexual" replaced "same-sex".  It is actually 
far worse than the desire to "bless" same-sex unions.  It is made worse by the context of the decision(…)

The Christian world is right to worry that in this decision, the General Synod of the 
Anglican Church of Canada has not just made one bad decision, but has signaled that it 
has turned its back on the Bible and authentic Christian teaching-that it has turned 
its back on the Anglican Communion - and is now walking in the opposite direction(…)

5c) Confusion in Canada as sex decision is deferred http://www.churchtimes.com/80256E4E00384246/httpPublicPages/7553B8813A4A6BC680256EAF00398D03?opendocument
by David Harris, in St Catharines, Ontario, June 10th 2004 (…)On Sunday, after the 
(General) Synod had ended, a lesbian couple had their relationship blessed in one of 
Toronto's most liberal parishes. The acting diocesan bishop could not be reached for 
comment. The diocese elects a new bishop on Saturday.

5d) http://renforth.net/remnant1.htm
The Rev. Eric Phinney, St James the Less Anglican Church, Renforth, New Brunswick 
"The end of the Anglican Church of Canada as we know it" Yesterday a motion passed at 
General Synod that will likely be the
demise of the Anglican Church of Canada as we know it.    In the
aftermath of the motion to defer the whole issue of a local option for Same sex Blessings 
for two years for study, another amendment was
introduced.   It was in fact far worse than the first one.  Despite the
strong objections from conservatives and others, especially the first
Nations,  it was put to a vote and passed.   The motion I believe has
the effect of actually blessing every same sex relationship
automatically.   It reads:, "we affirm the integrity and sanctity of
committed adult same-sex relationships."  

So what will this mean to us?   It is a bit like the Titanic hitting the
iceberg… in the very short term things will not look different at all… It may actually 
seem like something fun…. After all it is an unsinkable
ship!...   look here is some ice and snow to play with..     The band
will continue to play.    But as we move along it will be apparent that
something very devastating has happened and there is not a thing that we
can do about it.    Something of  great pride is about to go to the
bottom of the ocean only to become a memory and a think of museums and nostalgia.

But what of us.. the passengers.   We do have to be wise.   Jump too
soon and you will be lost as well.   Wait too long and your fate will be
sealed.   Now is a time for deep wisdom.   Prayer and good counsel are
the order of the Day(…)
Faithfully,  Eric+

5e) http://www.fotf.ca/familyfacts/tfn/2004/060804.html
SAME-SEX "SANCTITY" DRIVES ANGLICANS APART
Focus on the Family Canada, June 8th 2004
The international Anglican Communion appears to be closer than ever to collapse after 
300 representatives of Canada's Anglican churches voted last week to "affirm the integrity and sanctity" of same-sex unions(…)

5f) http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org/articles/farrowgods.htm
Different Gods, by Dr. Douglas Farrow*, June 11th 2004
(…)The theologically illegitimate distinction between a "theological" and a "pastoral" 
motion is a form of prevarication that cannot cover up the  radical break that the 
Anglican Church of Canada has made with the Christian faith and the Christian tradition 
- indeed, with the very baptism to which A-134's first clause appeals(…) It is time to 
face reality.  I for one find myself, post General Synod 2004, utterly divided from the 
Anglican Church of Canada in its present form.  Utterly divided not over issues of sexuality, 
as some vainly imagine, but over something much more serious, as the primates of the global 
south have recognized.  To those responsible for this situation, it is time to say:  
We have different beliefs, different spirits and different Gods.

6) http://www.virtuosityonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=905
Posted by dvirtue on 2004/6/9 8:40:04
ENGLAND: St. Albans' parishes prepare action plan over Jeffrey John appointment

7a) http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/040609conspiracy
Comment: Da Vinci Code is Holy Blood conspiracy revisited By Dr. Ward Gasque
7b) http://www.christianity.ca/entertainment/books/2004/05.002.html
A Dangerous Code  by Dr. James Beverley, June 11th 2004


Next Ed-Mail

Same-sex Blessings