Dear friends in Christ,

As we grieve for the significant 'walking apart' shown by the ACC General Synod, let us compassionately hold in prayer those orthodox Anglicans who are still currently within the ACC, and are being traumatized by these decisions. To many of us, the writing seems on the wall.

I remember well how difficult it was for us five years ago when we walked out from the Diocese of New Westminster Synod. We have discovered from personal experience that there is indeed a way forward. Let us offer hope with gentleness and humility.

Blessings, Ed Hird+

Communications Director, Anglican Coalition in Canada

Member of the Anglican Mission in the Americas

http://www.theamia.org/ http://www.acicanada.ca

1a) http://www.anglican.ca/gs2007/rr/resolutions/b001.htm

ACC Resolution B001:

Subject: Blessing couples in covenanted same-sex unions

Moved by: Mr. Stephen Schuh from the Diocese of New Westminster

Seconded By: The Rt. Rev’d Michael Ingham from the Diocese of New Westminster

Note: The mover and the seconder must be members of the General Synod and be present in the House when the resolution is before the synod for debate.

BE IT RESOLVED:

Notwithstanding any decisions taken by this its 2007 Synod, the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada affirms that the present practice of the Synod and Bishop of the Diocese of New Westminster in authorizing the blessings of covenanted same-sex unions in eight (8) Parishes of that Diocese shall continue in the Diocese of New Westminster pending further resolution by General Synod.

Referred to Council of General Synod (as time ran out)

EXPLANATORY NOTE/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The Diocese of New Westminster’s engagement with issues of human sexuality, extending over many years and numerous Diocesan Synods, has resulted in a rite for blessing couples in covenanted same-sex unions.

This process has involved:

Votes at three Diocesan Synods (1998, 2001, 2002), each with an increasing majority in favour; with the Bishop withholding his assent until 2002;
The affirmative conclusion of a national legal consultation into the authority of a diocesan bishop to authorize a rite of blessing of covenanted same-sex unions;
A three-year program (1998-2001) of extensive, diocese-wide parish dialogues to explore theological issues surrounding human sexuality and to hear the stories of gay, lesbian and ex-gay Anglicans, and to consider a proposed rite of blessing;
The careful development of a rite for blessing couples in covenanted same-sex unions;
The provision that no individual, clergy or lay, must participate in any such rites;
The development of a process and protocol for parishes to seek the Bishop’s authorization to conduct such blessings;
The provision of an episcopal visitor for parishes and individuals opposed to the blessing of same-sex unions.

The provision of this rite has enabled gay and lesbian people to feel safe, respected, and included in the full life of the church and that the sudden withdrawal of this rite would seriously undermine the progress that has been made.

In view of the deliberative process leading to a rite of blessing couples in covenanted same-sex unions in the Diocese of New Westminster, and the potentially damaging effects if this rite is abruptly withdrawn, and given affirmation ¶12 of the St. Michael Report that “history … demonstrates that clarity emerges when thought and action occur simultaneously,” the Diocese of New Westminster needs to provide ongoing pastoral care and continuity for its people and parishes within its existing practice.

Source: Diocese of New Westminster
(name of committee, diocese, etc.)

Submitted by: Diocese of New Westminster

1b) http://www.anglican.ca/gs2007/rr/resolutions/a186.htm

Resolution Number: A186

Subject: Blessing of Same Sex Unions - Core Doctrine of ACC

Moved by:

Seconded By:

Note: The mover and the seconder must be members of the General Synod and be present in the House when the resolution is before the synod for debate.

BE IT RESOLVED:

That this General Synod resolves that the blessing of same-sex unions is consistent with the core doctrine of The Anglican Church of Canada.

Carried on Sunday June 24th 2007

EXPLANATORY NOTE/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Source: The Council of the General Synod
(name of committee, diocese, etc.)

Submitted by: The General Secretary

1c) http://www.anglican.ca/gs2007/rr/resolutions/a224.htm

Resolution Number: A224

Subject: House of Bishops Statement on Pastoral Care of Same-Sex Couples

Moved by: The Rt. Rev. Michael Bedford-Jones from the Diocese of Toronto

Seconded By: Mrs. Suzanne Lawson from the Diocese of Toronto

BE IT RESOLVED:

That this General Synod welcome the statement of the House of Bishops of October, 2006 urging the church to show pastoral understanding and sensitivity to all same-sex couples, including those civilly married, and committing the House to develop pastoral strategies to give effect to the acceptance of gays and lesbians to whom we are already committed by previous General Synod and CoGS resolutions, House of Bishops guidelines, and Lambeth Conference statements.

CARRIED June 25th 2007 Monday

EXPLANATORY NOTE/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The House of Bishops statement is as follows:

Statement of the National House of Bishops
Anglican Church of Canada
October 26, 2006

We believe that as bishops we are called to exercise special responsibility in maintaining the unity of the church. We seek to provide leadership as we grapple with the issues posed by our continuing debate around human sexuality.

We believe that the Canadian Church will be looking for one or more significant decisions on these matters at General Synod 2007, and that further inaction, or the perception of stalling, may result in widespread disobedience in many parts of our Province and possibly further impair our relationship with the Anglican Communion.

We are aware that we occupy different places in the spectrum of convictions and hopes in the Canadian Church. We are happy to share the experience of affirming much that is common between us.

We welcome the work done by the St. Michael Report and the Windsor Report, particularly their identification of the nature of the doctrinal issues involved. We believe General Synod resolutions on these matters that engage their recommendations seriously will increase our credibility both within the church and within the communion. We believe the converse will also apply.

Our assessment of the current situation is that, doctrinally, there is no common mind in the church concerning the grounds for giving or withholding the blessing of same sex unions. Substantial numbers of our church, however, believe passionately that those doctrines have already been decided. We believe that further argument alone is unlikely to move people from their positions at this time. We believe the task of General Synod 2007 is to find an appropriate course of action for our situation. Paradoxically, if a way to live together as a church can be found, a theological consensus might develop within a framework of stability.

We advise against a change in the marriage canon at this time.

We believe that we should undertake intentional diplomacy in our international relationships within the Anglican Communion.

We urge the Church to show pastoral understanding and sensitivity to all same-sex couples, including those civilly married. As the National House of Bishops we agree to develop pastoral strategies to give effect to the acceptance of gays and lesbians to whom we are already committed by previous General Synod and COGS resolutions, House of Bishops guidelines, and Lambeth Conference statements.

We recommend the following processes for the consideration of the 2007 General Synod:

We believe that it is essential that there should be adequate time to consider what will be on the table. To assist in promoting useful discussion, we recommend substantial use of the Synod sitting as Committee of the Whole.

We share great wariness about the possibility of surprise motions, and urge attention and sensitivity to energy levels and emotions around important issues, and an avoidance of the passage of contradictory motions.

Source: Faith Worship and Ministry Committee
(name of committee, diocese, etc.)

Submitted by: Michael Bedford-Jones (Ch

1d) http://www.anglican.ca/gs2007/rr/resolutions/a189.htm

Resolution Number: A189

Subject: Revision of Canon 21 on Marriage

Moved by:

Seconded By:

Note: The mover and the seconder must be members of the General Synod and be present in the House when the resolution is before the synod for debate.

BE IT RESOLVED:

That this General Synod request the Council of General Synod to consider a revision of Canon 21 (On Marriage) including theological rationale to allow marriage of all legally qualified persons and to report back to General Synod 2010

CARRIED June 25th Monday 2007

EXPLANATORY NOTE/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Source: The Council of the General Synod
(name of committee, diocese, etc.)

Submitted by: The General Secretary

1e) http://www.anglican.ca/gs2007/rr/resolutions/a190.htm

Resolution Number: A190

Subject: ACC-13 Resolution 4

Moved by: The Rt. Rev. Susan Moxley, Diocese of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island

Seconded By:

Note: The mover and the seconder must be members of the General Synod and be present in the House when the resolution is before the synod for debate.

BE IT RESOLVED:

That this General Synod does not ratify the changes in the Schedule of Membership in the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council as proposed in ACC-13 Resolution 4.

CARRIED June 25th Monday 2007

EXPLANATORY NOTE/BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

ACC-13 Resolution #4 is attached.

Source: The Council of the General Synod
(name of committee, diocese, etc.)

Submitted by: The General Secretary

1f) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/

Globe Poll

Yes

(88%) 31359 votes

(12%) 4109 votes

Total votes: 35468

1g) http://www.anglicanjournal.com/canada/gs2007/003/article/emotions-run-high-after-blessings-defeated/

Emotions run high after blessings defeated

Marites N. Sison
staff writer

Jun 25, 2007

Winnipeg

There were tears in the eyes of some, others bowed in prayer, and some quietly walked out of the plenary room shortly after the defeat on June 24 of the motion to allow the blessing of same-sex unions, only to face church and secular media who wanted to know how they felt about the decision.

“I think they (bishops) were trying to respond to what they heard in Synod, people wanting more study, time for discernment,” said Bishop Fred Hiltz, primate-elect of the Anglican Church of Canada, who had voted in favour. “I have my own personal opinion, as you know, but my responsibility is now to work with this decision. There needs to be a pastoral response. We have a very divided church, and no doubt many, many people will be disappointed by this vote. I will try and reach out pastorally to those who are disappointed.”

Bishop Michael Ingham, whose Vancouver-based diocese of New Westminster authorized rites for same-sex blessings in 2002, said, “No one can take comfort from this vote because the majority voted in favour of local option. For many, there would be a sense of betrayal.”

Bishop Sue Moxley said she was “just really disappointed” that the house of bishops “would be holding back when it’s clear other people are ready to go.” She said some dioceses might simply go ahead and allow same-sex blessings.

Bishop Victoria Matthews of Edmonton, chair of the Primate’s Theological Commission, said, “I don’t think there were any winners. We know that people on both sides … leave tonight with a profound sense of sadness that the body of Christ is broken.”

Hugh Matheson, of the diocese of Keewatin, said, “It was in some sense a predictable decision. The house of bishops indicated that there wasn’t enough support for it in their house. I thought that the discussion that we should go ahead was more articulate, this Synod. It will come up again.”

Bishop George Bruce of Ontario said, “The bishops didn’t have enough of a sense of the house. In New Westminster, Michael Ingham didn’t consent until he had 60 per cent (approval).”

Other reactions:

Canon Garth Bulmer, diocese of Ottawa
I’m delighted that the first resolution passed. I think it was another big step in terms of protecting and affirming gay people in their relationships. (I’m) disappointed obviously that General Synod decided not to include the method of implementing it. I think it was a big mistake on the part of the bishops because I think it’s going to happen anyway. I believe there’s an interpretation that it’s not core doctrine and the diocese can decide it.

Canon Murray Still, Diocese of Rupert’s Land
“There’s going to be disappointment on both sides. I think in large part we’re trying to wrestle with our relationship with the Anglican Communion. We voted for the Communion and our relationship with the global Anglican family.”

Rev. Jamie Howison, Diocese of Rupert’s Land
“I was not surprised. They (bishops) do function as the sober second thought. (The motion) was approved by a decent majority by clergy and laity, so the conversation continues.

Bishop Phillip Poole, diocese of Toronto
I think the synod considered the issue very carefully, thoroughly and very respectfully…The house of bishops has said that it’s not prepared to move at this time.

Bishop Anderson, diocese of Caledonia
I think that the bishops have recognized that our church is really divided, that before we do anything to implement the provisions of this motion we have to build consensus and have further conversation, otherwise it’s simply too destructive. I doubt that the bishops are going to be very popular because of this (discussion), but they displayed a lot of wisdom and courage on their part.

Richard Leggett, diocese of New Westminster
I was encouraged by the votes of the laity and clergy but I understand the difficult position the bishops are in. The clergy are representing the people on the ground, but the bishops are providing for the needs of the wider church.

Steve Schuh, diocese of New Westminster
I was extremely disappointed with the bishops. We had a good debate, it was very respectful and I very much appreciated it.

Bishop Barry Clarke, diocese of Montreal
I’m disappointed. However, this is democracy in some way, shape and form and it worked. We’ll work through it and see where it leads us. At the moment I know that I have to provide pastoral care for my delegates here because some of them are hurt and my responsibility is to care for them at the moment. When I return to the diocese I will be facing, like many bishops, the real challenges as was mentioned.

Bishop Jim Cowan, diocese of British Columbia
I think there are people who know that I’m in favour of same-sex unions, but that I’ve been asking for the theological rationale for it to be an issue of justice. Justice is a theological issue, let’s name that and get that all on the table and bring along as many people as possible in this and I think in 2010 we can do that and we can also take it to Lambeth and see how many in the Communion can bring it along as well.

Gordon Youngman, Diocese of BC
I’m disappointed. I was pleased to see at least that the debate was more civil and respectful than three years ago. The House of Bishops has been sent a very strong message that the clergy and laity want to move ahead. The Anglican Church of Canada is effectively paralyzed for the next three years.

Bishop John Privett, Kootenay
It was a vote to continue the (worldwide Anglican) Communion conversation and it was a vote of support for those bishops who said they face difficulty in their dioceses. It puts us in a position of being asked to wait.

Archbishop John Clarke, Athabasca
It was a recognition that the effect is not only in our diocese, but in the worldwide Anglican Communion. It should have been addressed as a matter of canon law, not a justice issue. Every time we try to do things that are not part of the process, we get in trouble.

Ron Chaplin, an observer who is a member of the Ottawa branch of Integrity, a gay Anglican support group
My only real surprise is that the bishops’ margin was as narrow as it was. I hope now the bishops will be able to go to Lambeth and speak with their colleagues and say this is where our church stands. I am not upset. The tide is moving (toward approval). The first motion (concerning doctrine) makes a theological space for gay and lesbian people in the church. We now have that doctrinal space. What we have seen is the leadership

2a) 'She flies on" by Bishop Gordon Light: "A beautiful hymn" says ACC Archbishop-elect Fred Hiltz twice in his General Synod online-talk.

http://www.stjudeschurch.net/news/newsletters/pent_06.htm

On the Feast of Pentecost, we will probably dust off "She Flies On", a hymn of the Holy Spirit composed by Bishop Gordon Light of the Common Cup Company, a group of contemporary Christian musicians. The hymn traces the activities of the Spirit throughout salvation history, in creation, in Israel, in the ministry of Jesus, and in the church's continuing that ministry throughout its history. "She flies On", because the Hebrew word for Spirit, "Ruach" is a feminine noun that means "breath", linking up a very old and a very new hymn. She Flies On

She comes sailing on the wind, her wings flashing in the sun, on a journey just begun, she flies on, and in the passage of her flight, her song rings out through the night, full of laughter, full of light, she flies on.

Silent waters rocking on the morning of our birth, like an empty cradle waiting to be filled, and from the heart of God the Spirit moved upon the earth, like a mother breathing life into her child.

Many were the dreamers whose eyes were given sight when the Spirit filled their dreams with life and form, Deserts turned to gardens, broken hearts found new delight, and then down the ages still she flew on.

To a gentle girl in Galilee a gentle breeze she came, a whisper softly calling in the dark, the promise of a child of peace whose reign would never end, Mary sang the Spirit song within her heart.

Flying to the river, she waited circling high above the child now grown so full of grace. As he rose up from the water, she swept down from the sky, and she carried him away in her embrace.

Long after the deep darkness that fell upon the world, after dawn returned in flame of rising sun, the Spirit touched the earth again, again her wings unfurled, bringing life in wind and fire as she flew on.

-excerpts from 'Battle for the Soul of Canada'

2b) Renouncing the Eve god/dess at Ephesus (1 Timothy 2:9-14)

In Acts Chapter 19 and 20, the Ephesians were so upset by the impact of the gospel that they chanted for two hours “Great is Artemis/Diana of Ephesus”.[i][i] The Temple of Ephesus was one of the seven wonders of the world[ii][ii], being not only a worship centre, but also a banking centre[iii][iii] and a centre of temple prostitution.[iv][iv] So many Ephesians were choosing to follow Jesus Christ that the idol-making business dried up.[v][v] When Christianity ‘interferes’ with a local economy, you can be certain that there will be some pushback, and there was! Whenever there is trouble, as one wag said, ‘follow the money.’ This is as true today in Canada as it was back in Ephesus.

Some of the early Ephesian elders slipped back into idolatry, greed, and immorality, attempting to mix the temple worship of the mother-goddess Diana with Christianity. This was particularly unhelpful because Diana/Artemis was blended with Eve of the Garden of Eden. It appears that Mother Eve began to be referred to as the mother goddess, the Authentia, the Author of life.[vi][vi] I believe that Paul was warning Timothy in 1st Timothy 2:12 against this ‘usurping of authority’ by the Authentia,[vii][vii] this counterfeit mother Eve. At the Temple of Ephesus, they taught that Eve pre-existed Adam and was even Adam’s mother before being his wife.[viii][viii] That seems to be the reason why Paul reminded Timothy in vs. 13 that Adam was created first.[ix][ix]

The Temple of Diana also taught, similar to Mormon Temples and Free Masonry Temples, that Eve entered into ‘gnostic’[x][x] knowledge and godhood by eating the fruit in the garden of Eden. Rather than falling, Eve allegedly ascended! No wonder the Temple of Diana was heavily involved in the worship of serpents. Lucifer the Garden snake was resymbolized in the Temple of Diana as a hero, the bringer of light! This makes sense why Paul reminded Timothy in vs. 14 that Eve was actually deceived in the Garden of Eden. Eve was not the infallible mother-goddess of the Ephesian temple. Rather she was an ordinary sinner just like Adam.

It must have been very traumatic for Paul to have to remove the Ephesian elders who had fallen into idolatrous mother-goddess worship, and then have Timothy replace them with brand-new elders. Paul had to pay the heavy price of beginning all over again in Ephesus, from the ‘ground level and up’. It is not by accident that virtually every new-age fad, including the DaVinci Code deception, sooner or later draws people into mother/father god/dess worship and sexual immorality.[xi][xi] I have found that idolatry and immorality are identical twins that always hang out together, especially around god/desses.[xii][xii]

The current crisis in the Anglican Church in North America is no exception. I know of Anglican Cathedrals in Canada that both endorse the pan-sexual agenda and twist Jesus’ own words to pray “Our Father/Mother in Heaven, Hallowed be Your Name”. As Jesus clearly taught us, God’s name is Father, and He likes His name.[xiii][xiii]

Paul also alerted Timothy against the false teaching by the Ephesian elders that Eve/Artemis was the goddess of childbirth, and the only way to keep safe through childbirth was to ask for the goddess’ protection.[xiv][xiv] Many of the new Christian converts were particularly vulnerable to be re-entangled in the ‘Temple of Ephesus’ worship during times of pregnancy. The occult loves to re-hook ‘ex-new agers’ during the ‘hatched, matched, and dispatched’ transitions of life. That is why Paul taught Timothy so clearly in vs. 15 that Jesus is the key to keeping safe during childbirth, not by relying on occult techniques.

2c) The Anglican Church has Changed (2 Timothy 1:13-14)

I have been ordained now in the Anglican Church for 26 years, and still love my Anglican brothers and sisters deeply. But I must say, similarly to my grandmother’s comment about England, that the Anglican Church in the West has changed. This is no longer the Church to which I signed up. I value healthy, necessary change, but I grieve when the core values of the Anglican Church are discarded in the relentless search for temporary relevance. I have sadly had to face the reality that we are now dealing with another gospel, another religion, another faith than the biblical Anglican Christianity for which my dear Nana stood. The Anglican/Episcopal Church in North America has not “held fast the form of sound words, the pattern of sound teaching” which Paul exhorted Timothy with his dying breath. Paul, in 2 Timothy 1 vs. 14, clearly challenged us to

guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.

We in the West have been tested and found wanting. Lord have mercy upon us.

One of my mentors, Dr. E. Stanley Jones, holds:

The difference between a river and a swamp is that one has banks and the other has none. The swamp is very gracious and kindly, it spreads over everything, hence it is a swamp. Some of us are moral and spiritual swamps. We are so broad and liberal that we take in everything from the shady to the sacred. Hence we are swamps. A river has banks - it confines itself to its central purpose. The civilizations of the world organize themselves not around swamps, but around rivers.[xv][i]

To me, the Book of Common Prayer and the Bible are rivers. The recent ACC (Anglican Church of Canada) Common Praise hymn book in contrast, with its invocation of the mother/father god/dess, is a gracious and kindly swamp. One of the greatest challenges facing the Anglican Church, particularly in North America, is well-meaning interfaith syncretism. In our worship of newness and inclusiveness, we are rushing to replace the riverbanks of our Book of Common Prayer with the neo-gnostic swamp of centering prayer/mantra yoga,[xvi][ii] enneagram workshops,[xvii][iii] labyrinths,[xviii][iv] Jungian-based personality tests,[xix][v] and invocations of "God our Father and our Mother". The ACC Common Praise hymn book (1999) tragically altered the much-loved "Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee" hymn from

God our Father, Christ our Brother

God our Father and our Mother

I am convinced that we need to ask the Lord’s forgiveness in the Western Church for our naïve worship of the seemingly new and trendy, and for our disrespect for the wisdom of our Anglican forebears. I am convinced that genuine renewal is actually about renewing the riches of our inheritance in Christ Jesus, not about uncovering secret "new revelations". (Ephesians 1:18)(...)

[i][i] Acts 19:28, 34: NIV: “When they heard this, they were furious and began shouting: "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!" Soon the whole city was in an uproar...But when they realized he was a Jew, they all shouted in unison for about two hours: "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!"

[ii][ii] “The Temple of Ephesus”, Seven Wonders of the World”, http://www.cleveleys.co.uk/wonders/templeofartemis.htm

[iii][iii] http://www.focus.org.uk/history.pdf Blaiklock, 64; Mussies, 178; Meinardus, 51. Trebilco, 326, notes, “It is clear that Artemis of Ephesus exercised a great deal of influence on the economic activity of both Ephesus and Asia Minor of our [firstcentury AD] period, and greatly contributed to the financial welfare of the region.” Oster, “Ephesian Artemis,” notes this is evidenced by the fact that the Temple was the beneficiary of vast legacies and donations and was, thus, able to dominate the banking system (and, therefore, Asian life and culture).

[iv][iv] http://www.gracevalley.org/sermon_trans/1999/Pauls_Miraculous_Ministry_in_Ephesus.html “It was also the capital of the Roman province of Asia and a center for all sorts of superstitious religious practices as well as temple prostitution and emperor worship.”

[v][v] Acts 19:24-27

[vi][vi] 1 Timothy 2:12 Richard and Katherine Clark Kroeger "I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking I Tim. 2:11-15 in light of the Ancient Evidence", (Baker Book House, 1992); There is much scholarly controversy over this text, but it is clear that as Gnosticism continued to develop, it did link Mother Eve with the mother goddess, much like the DaVinci Code does nowadays for Eve and Mary Magdalene.

[vii][vii] Strong’s Concordance: 831 authentein (used only once in the Bible)

AV - usurp authority over

1) one who with his own hands kills another or himself

2) one who acts on his own authority, autocratic

3) an absolute master

4) to govern, exercise dominion over one

[viii][viii] "The refutation in I Tim. 2:13 declares that Adam was created first and then Eve. The Gnostic stories envisioned things quite differently, for Eve pre-existed Adam and was responsible for infusing him with life. This pre-existent Eve was engaged in all sorts of exciting activities before the creation of Adam. " (Kroeger, p. 120-121) http://christdot.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=5361

[ix][ix] On the Origin of the World has this account of things: "After the day of rest, Sophia sent Zoe her daughter, who is called Eve as instructor so that she should raise up Adam, who had no soul in him, so that those whom he would beget should become vessels of the light...When he saw her, he said "You will be called 'the mother of the living' because you are the one who has given me life." http://christdot.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=5361

[x][x] I realize that full-blown Gnosticism was not in evidence until the 2^nd century, but many scholars would agree that the New Testament epistles warned against the incipient early phases of gnostic thought and practice.

[xi][xi] William Barclay, Daily Study Bible: The Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, p. 2“The Cambridge Companion to St Paul 1 and 2 Timothy, along with Titus, are known as the Pastoral Epistles. The title ‘Pastoral Epistles’ was birthed in 1726 when a great scholar, Paul Anton, gave a series of famous letters on them under that title.” Dr. William Barclay commented about the apostate Ephesian community: “It is an extraordinary thing that in the non-Christian religions time and time again, immorality and obscenity flourish under the very protection of religion. It has often been said and said truly that chastity was the one completely new virtue that Christianity brought into this World.” (p. 39)

http://cco.cambridge.org/extract?id=ccol0521781558_CCOL0521781558A014

[xii][xii] A good example of idolatry and immorality as twins is Romans 1:22-25, NIV: “Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.”

[xiii][xiii] “The God Who Likes His Name”, Alvin Kimmel, Theology Matters, Vol 12, No. 3, May/June 2006, http://www.theologymatters.com/TMIssues/MayJun06.pdf

[xiv][xiv] “Artemis: goddess of transitions”, http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa041701a.htm

[xv][i] The Prayer Book: Yesterday, Today And Tomorrow, May 1^st 1999, Prayer Book Society of Canada, Toronto Branch, http://www3.telus.net/st_simons/arm06.htm ; Dr. E. Stanley Jones, Pentecost: the Christ of Every Road, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1930), p. 227

[xvi][ii] Rev. John D. Dreher, This Rock, Vol. 8, No. 11, November 1997. Published by Catholic Answers.

[xvii][iii] “Gurdjieff and the Enigmatic Enneagram”, The Rev. Ed Hird, Anglicans for Renewal Canada magazine, http://www3.telus.net/st_simons/arm04.htm

[xviii][iv] “Dr Jean Houston & the Labyrinth Fad,” May 2,000 Anglicans for Renewal Canada magazine, http://www3.telus.net/st_simons/arm08.htm

[xix][v] “Carl Jung, Neo-Gnosticism, and the MBTI” report by Rev. Ed Hird, Former National Chair of ARM Canada (revised March 18/98), http://www3.telus.net/st_simons/arm03.htm.

Next Ed-Mail
Same-sex Blessings