The Anglican Church of Canada's top Cornwall priest says despite the church's weekend decision to forbid priests from blessing same sex unions, the issue will not be going away.
"It's a very deep and complex conversation that takes time," said Archdeacon Ross Moulton, of Trinity Anglican Church, this afternoon.
1. DonGander wrote:
“It’s a very deep and complex conversation that takes time,” said Archdeacon Ross Moulton, of Trinity Anglican Church, this afternoon.
Yes, and the conversation continues until the Revisionists get their way and then the law-suits come down upon any who would dare to disagree.
No, conversation with Satan didn’t help Eve and will not help anyone else, either. Only the damned or the damned-to-be have such conversations.
June 26, 6:58 pm | [comment link]
2. RoyIII wrote:
The issue has already gone away for me; I really don’t care about it.
June 26, 7:19 pm | [comment link]
3. Philip Snyder wrote:
It’s time for the ACoC to move on and stop talking about blessing same sex unions. GS has spoken and any further fighting about it (or violating the will of GC that local option is not an option) will only take away from the witness and mission of the Church.
So, if you support blessing Same Sex Blessings, its time to move on.
For TECUSA, we discussed and made a decision in 1991. That was the time to move on for us. We should return to what GC said on behalf of the Church in 1991 (B020).
June 26, 7:36 pm | [comment link]
4. dwstroudmd+ wrote:
Oh, Phil, that was so then, this is so TODAY! Lost their chance to upstage the USA again… . Always a wedding guest never a partner.
June 26, 9:23 pm | [comment link]
There’s a lot of humour here amongst the irony and lipservice, especially after Hutchison’s “we’re behind you” to PB Schori. God indeed sits upon the circle of the world and laughs in derision of those opposing Him. (Maybe that Psalm should be excerpted, it doesn’t seem to reflect an all-inclusive deity-of-the-zeitgeist.)
5. robroy wrote:
“The Anglican Church of Canada’s top Cornwall priest says despite the church’s weekend decision to forbid priests from blessing same sex unions, the issue will not be going away.” A lie than a truth. There was no decision to forbid priests from SSBs. It will not go away. Probably quite a few SSBs will occur this weekend and next month and next year.
The whole thing was couched in terms of the usurpers. Why wasn’t there a proposal that forbid SSBs instead of one that allowed SSBs? What would the outcome have been?
June 26, 10:49 pm | [comment link]
6. robroy wrote:
Should be “A lie then a truth.” Doggon’ it. Makes me look like a bumpkin.
June 26, 10:51 pm | [comment link]
7. NigelNicholson wrote:
Right before I deleted the link, I read this weeks editorial on the front page of Anglicans Online:
“It’s become common for Anglicans who are not comfortable with the contemporary church to refer to themselves as ‘orthodox’. That venerable word when applied to Christians has several meanings in the dictionary, but the generally accepted meaning of that word seems to be ‘Of or relating to any of the churches or rites of the Eastern Orthodox Church’.
“The Anglican churches that we know are not churches of law or Biblical literalism but of living liturgy in communion with the Saints, balanced among scripture, tradition, and reason. We wouldn’t presume to use the word Orthodox to describe them; it’s already taken to mean something else, after all, but we think that we oughtn’t let our present-day squabbles interfere with our understanding of what the word Orthodox really means, and meant to the generations of saints who spent their lives preserving that tradition of the Liturgy.”
I wonder why these same people would presume to use the word gay to describe sodomy; it was already taken to mean something else, and quite an innocently delightful something else, before they stole it. Perhaps sodomites ought not let present-day squabbles interfere with our understanding of what the word gay really means, and meant to many generations.
June 26, 10:55 pm | [comment link]
8. The_Elves wrote:
In response to TPaine’s #8
TPaine, yes I looked at the comment you’re citing after our e-mail exchange. But it was general enough to pass muster for me. We allow folks here to state their beliefs as long as that does not cross over into a direct and specific attack on another individual.
What you cite seemed to us to be more a theological statement than a specific attack calling others “damned.” Oh yes, there was a strong warning implied that to continue the current course would lead to damnation, no doubt. But that’s a real belief among many reasserters.
Maybe your questions will elicit some good answers if folks are still reading here and choose to respond. But our counsel, once again would be: please don’t personalize so much of what’s written here. Blogs are not genteel speech some of the time. We try to rein in some of the “venting” and the worst of the anger and sarcasm. But it is here because this is a level-5 conflict. It’s pretty much open and ugly warfare for the future of the Anglican Communion and Anglican identity in North America at this point. Folks are hurt and confused. On both sides. The comments are going to reflect that reality, and we’re not going to pretend otherwise.
So. We will allow folks to be heard. On both sides. Our role is to prevent the kinds of personal attacks that intimidate and preclude free speech. We will also to try and keep threads from being “hijacked” and taken off topic. But we try to let folks speak their mind. Hope this helps.
June 27, 8:51 pm | [comment link]
9. Deja Vu wrote:
June 27, 8:57 pm | [comment link]
You seem to be very upset by the eschatology implicit in the comments of #1 DonGander.
Isn’t it true that only the damned or damned to be have conversations with Satan?
Well, okay, Jesus handled it in the three temptations in the wilderness, but isn’t it generally acccepted that most people prefer to avoid temptation from Satan?
So, if people believe that an effort is being made to seduce them into denying God’s Word and accepting sexual immorality in the churches, don’t they have a right to refuse the seduction?
It seems like you are objecting to one or more of these basic premises:
1) hell exists,
2) some will be damned to hell,
3) denying God’s Word may lead to damnation.
Is that right?
Perhaps you would like to share with us a brief overview of your Eschatology?
10. Deja Vu wrote:
I personally love TPaine because he understood my post about the Hitchens book and the poem about “She of the Dancing Feet Sings”.
June 27, 10:45 pm | [comment link]
I am amazed that he felt so hurt by the comments on this site that he rapidly turned to doing exactly what he was accusing others of doing: hateful name calling and damning people to hell.
A UU Minister I love says “Salvation is a Team Sport”. He believes we only all get there together when the last soul is saved. That’s not my eschatology, but an interesting approach.
11. Sarah1 wrote:
I thought TPaine was never coming back to this blog, as of June 4, 2007.
You said on that date: “As for me, I won’t be back. Life is too short and I have far better things to do that revisit this board. Ta-ta.”
Interested commenters may find the link here:
The really amazing thing is that TPaine originally posted under the name Henry Vincent . . . made his “I’m leaving and never returning” comment . . . then proceeded to change his blog name to TPaine and start posting again.
Only problem is . . . that when he changed his name to TPaine it changed all of his previous comment signatures to TPaine . . . which was the only way that any of us commenters noticed.
TPaine/Henry Vincent/??? seems to have a problem with getting enraged at the challenges by other commenters and then announcing that he’s leaving periodically.
June 28, 1:37 am | [comment link]
12. Larry Morse wrote:
Fortunately, TPaine’s attitude is uncommon here, which makes t19 worth reading. Whether we are bigots or not is beyond determination. But as to being judgmental, he is of course entirely correct.
We are judgmental, elves and all, because standards have been set and this establishment means that (a) it is possible to be excluded by a refusal to abide by these standards and (b) it is necessary to see that there are “police” whose care it is to see that the standards are not abrogated without just cause.
For my part, I have grown weary of seeing “judgmental” used to mean “your judgments don’t agree with mine and are therefore iniquitous.”
June 29, 8:42 am | [comment link]
Jesus was Himself judgmental, and I think we may assume that this is a warmup for what’s coming in the 9th inning. LM