I found this on Mark Harris' site, Preludium. It's Canadian so I figured I would link it here.
Canadian Primatal Election
Enjoy,
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Lambeth 2008
I have been watching the various blog sites and reading the reactions to the ABC's invitations for Lambeth. I have to admit to being disappointed with many of the responses - basically saying that people should stay home. I certainly sympathize with those who feel that someone they support has been slighted. I would have loved it had Gene Robinson been fully invited. I would not have been pleased (not that my opinion holds any weight) had Marty Minns been invited. Even though Gene Robinson has not received a full invitation I do not echo the voices of those who say that the TEC bishops should stay home. I understand all the reasons why and I agree with most of them. But for Tec and its supporters to stay home means that certain voices will not be heard. I have grave concerns for the impact on the Anglican Communion if that happens.
Don't get me wrong. If it came down to having to abandon our GLBT brothers and sisters to stay in the AC, I would let go of it in a second with sadness but without qualm. But to not be there for a voice of possibility and hope for the future seems like abandoning GLBTs as well.
While I strongly disagree with those who speak of exclusion, I do value diversity. The recent statement from the global centre leaves me with some hope for the future of the AC. I have to admit to an ulterior motive. My hope would be that if we continue in the AC we can see a future where full inclusion will be a practice in all provinces. If we leave, or if TEC leaves, that full inclusion, if it occurs, will that much longer in coming at the expense of many throughout the AC.
Statement from Latin América and Caribbean Anglicans Bishops
Recently gathered in San José, Costa Rica, Latin America and Caribbean Anglican Bishops signed a Statement in which some of the more important points that characterize the anglican tradition were reaffirmed.
Among them I point some highlights of this Statement below:
We exhorted our Communion to preserve its partaking nature, diversified, wide and inclusive, characteristics that we consider essential to our Tradition and that constitute our main contribution to the Christian tradition.
......
At our meeting fellowship, we perceived that we defend different positions on the issues that today are discussed within our Communion. However, we also experienced our plurality and diversity like wealth and growth sources, and not as controversy and division causes.
......
We invite all our brothers and sisters in the bishopric, as well as to all the clergy members and lay people that are identified with this vision, to unite us to work indeed by the reconciliation, interdependence and unit in the diversity in our faith family, and thus to preserve the valuable legacy of which we are trustees and guardians.
This Statement constitutes in an innequivocal call to the whole Communion to overcome the intolerance and rediscover the richness of our diversity. Distinct perceptions concerning the human sexuality are not essential to define who is or not ortodox. We cannot let the fundamentalism destroy the Spirit - who is dynamic and updates every time and every generation the God's project for the world.
The Anglican Communion survival - if it still exists - will depend on our capacity of recovering the unity in the diversity. We are responsible in continue Jesus's ministry who always welcomed all people. We need remind that orthodoxy became the biggest opponent of Jesus de Nazaré and the fundamentalism condemned it!
Don't get me wrong. If it came down to having to abandon our GLBT brothers and sisters to stay in the AC, I would let go of it in a second with sadness but without qualm. But to not be there for a voice of possibility and hope for the future seems like abandoning GLBTs as well.
While I strongly disagree with those who speak of exclusion, I do value diversity. The recent statement from the global centre leaves me with some hope for the future of the AC. I have to admit to an ulterior motive. My hope would be that if we continue in the AC we can see a future where full inclusion will be a practice in all provinces. If we leave, or if TEC leaves, that full inclusion, if it occurs, will that much longer in coming at the expense of many throughout the AC.
Statement from Latin América and Caribbean Anglicans Bishops
Recently gathered in San José, Costa Rica, Latin America and Caribbean Anglican Bishops signed a Statement in which some of the more important points that characterize the anglican tradition were reaffirmed.
Among them I point some highlights of this Statement below:
We exhorted our Communion to preserve its partaking nature, diversified, wide and inclusive, characteristics that we consider essential to our Tradition and that constitute our main contribution to the Christian tradition.
......
At our meeting fellowship, we perceived that we defend different positions on the issues that today are discussed within our Communion. However, we also experienced our plurality and diversity like wealth and growth sources, and not as controversy and division causes.
......
We invite all our brothers and sisters in the bishopric, as well as to all the clergy members and lay people that are identified with this vision, to unite us to work indeed by the reconciliation, interdependence and unit in the diversity in our faith family, and thus to preserve the valuable legacy of which we are trustees and guardians.
This Statement constitutes in an innequivocal call to the whole Communion to overcome the intolerance and rediscover the richness of our diversity. Distinct perceptions concerning the human sexuality are not essential to define who is or not ortodox. We cannot let the fundamentalism destroy the Spirit - who is dynamic and updates every time and every generation the God's project for the world.
The Anglican Communion survival - if it still exists - will depend on our capacity of recovering the unity in the diversity. We are responsible in continue Jesus's ministry who always welcomed all people. We need remind that orthodoxy became the biggest opponent of Jesus de Nazaré and the fundamentalism condemned it!
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Canadian Bishop's Pastoral Statement
Responses
Integrity Canada
Essentials Canada
I am still in the process of thinking about the bishop's statement. Of course, I don't think it goes far enough but maybe it is all we can get for now (not that I think we should settle for that).
One of the things that struck me was the statements that children should not be denied baptism because of the marital status of the parent/parents and that couples should not be denied marriage because they have been living together. Until a recent event, I hadn't realized that had been happening. To see it confirmed in the bishop's statement makes me realize how much further we have to go until we fully practice the way, the truth, and the life that is Jesus.
I really think that we need to take a good strong look at sexuality and marriage. We have made the institution of marriage the idol rather than looking at the reality that the marriage is. You want to have sex - get married! I get so frustrated with that attitude - marriage is not soley about sex. There is so much more. But that may be a topic for a different time.
The same thing is held true for the family institution. Not to mention that the child is not responsible for the parents decisions and actions.
I remain torn over a tension that in a number of ways this marks a step forward and yet in spite of that we are still so far.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Responses
Integrity Canada
Essentials Canada
I am still in the process of thinking about the bishop's statement. Of course, I don't think it goes far enough but maybe it is all we can get for now (not that I think we should settle for that).
One of the things that struck me was the statements that children should not be denied baptism because of the marital status of the parent/parents and that couples should not be denied marriage because they have been living together. Until a recent event, I hadn't realized that had been happening. To see it confirmed in the bishop's statement makes me realize how much further we have to go until we fully practice the way, the truth, and the life that is Jesus.
I really think that we need to take a good strong look at sexuality and marriage. We have made the institution of marriage the idol rather than looking at the reality that the marriage is. You want to have sex - get married! I get so frustrated with that attitude - marriage is not soley about sex. There is so much more. But that may be a topic for a different time.
The same thing is held true for the family institution. Not to mention that the child is not responsible for the parents decisions and actions.
I remain torn over a tension that in a number of ways this marks a step forward and yet in spite of that we are still so far.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Shawn
The Anglican Journal has this update on Shawn.
This issue has hurt so many people. Shawn had an amazing ministry with Saskatoon Native Ministry and with Integrity. I know that these minsitries will continue but there is certainly great loss in Shawn's lisence not being renewed as he has a way of reaching out to people with compassion and total acceptance (although not lenience) of who and what they are as children of God without trying to reform them, leaving the transformation up to God. His gift of affirming the specialness of individuals who are struggling with finding/loving themselves is strong and empowering.
Many might comment that he could have backed down and not have left these ministries. How would he do so without violence to his own soul? How could he continue to be the gifted priest he is if he continued to be restricted in his ministry to the very people he needed to serve.
Shawn has given us many gifts - I don't know how I would have survived some of my own moments of crisis without his strong friendship, support, wonderful words of wisdom, and amazing spirituality (which fortunately don't stop just because he is not lisenced). My sorrow is that the opportunity is not there for others to receive those gifts in their fulness because of our human inability to see with other than our own eyes.
If only our eyes would open to see that these relationships we refuse as a church to bless, have already been blessed by God. I think of the couples I have been blessed to know and see more of the Christian ideal present in their relationships than I see in many hetero marriages that I know. How can we be so blind to God's presence and blessing in these relationships? Even worse, how can we take note of the goodness of these relationships but, because of a few words of scripture which are written in the context of a culture's struggle to survive and define itself, deliberately close our eyes to the reality that these relationships could not be good without God's presence and blessing?
This issue is not just about Shawn. It is also about our inability to reach beyond our own need for definition and security to reach out into the chaotic world that is the continuing work of God to complete the kingdom. The gospels are clear that Jesus does not call us to the easy way but rather to a life where we are not in control - where we can give up that need for control, for certainty, to work with God in the reshaping of that chaos into the kingdom.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Updated: Shawn did an interview on CBC. Hopefully this link works.
This issue has hurt so many people. Shawn had an amazing ministry with Saskatoon Native Ministry and with Integrity. I know that these minsitries will continue but there is certainly great loss in Shawn's lisence not being renewed as he has a way of reaching out to people with compassion and total acceptance (although not lenience) of who and what they are as children of God without trying to reform them, leaving the transformation up to God. His gift of affirming the specialness of individuals who are struggling with finding/loving themselves is strong and empowering.
Many might comment that he could have backed down and not have left these ministries. How would he do so without violence to his own soul? How could he continue to be the gifted priest he is if he continued to be restricted in his ministry to the very people he needed to serve.
Shawn has given us many gifts - I don't know how I would have survived some of my own moments of crisis without his strong friendship, support, wonderful words of wisdom, and amazing spirituality (which fortunately don't stop just because he is not lisenced). My sorrow is that the opportunity is not there for others to receive those gifts in their fulness because of our human inability to see with other than our own eyes.
If only our eyes would open to see that these relationships we refuse as a church to bless, have already been blessed by God. I think of the couples I have been blessed to know and see more of the Christian ideal present in their relationships than I see in many hetero marriages that I know. How can we be so blind to God's presence and blessing in these relationships? Even worse, how can we take note of the goodness of these relationships but, because of a few words of scripture which are written in the context of a culture's struggle to survive and define itself, deliberately close our eyes to the reality that these relationships could not be good without God's presence and blessing?
This issue is not just about Shawn. It is also about our inability to reach beyond our own need for definition and security to reach out into the chaotic world that is the continuing work of God to complete the kingdom. The gospels are clear that Jesus does not call us to the easy way but rather to a life where we are not in control - where we can give up that need for control, for certainty, to work with God in the reshaping of that chaos into the kingdom.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Updated: Shawn did an interview on CBC. Hopefully this link works.
Fuddy Duddies
Below is an essay my younger daughter wrote last summer. While there may be portions I would have worded differently, it does reflect the thoughts of many of our young people. In a few generations there will only be wonderment at how we could possibly deny that God has truly blessed a number of relationships that we as Christians have condemned. It is my children's generation and their compassion and acceptance of the love between two people who happen to be the same sex that gives me hope for the future each time I see my own generation placing barriers in the way of full acceptance.
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Fuddy-Duddies
Have you ever met a fuddy-duddy? They’re really quite common and can be found in almost every aspect of the human life. They are people who are old-fashioned in the extreme and refuse to change their minds about opinions formed centuries before they were born. I know that a person should be compassionate and not judge anyone, but I find it extremely hard to do this with certain fuddy-duddy viewpoints. The main viewpoint of theirs that angers me most is the one on homosexuals.
In the Bible, the very first story is about the creation. It tells how on the sixth day God created humankind in his image. When God was done, he looked over all his creations and saw the they were good. God saw the heterosexuals and the homosexuals and he saw nothing wrong with either one of them. I doubt he’s changed his mind.
Traditionally, people got married so that they could start a family (or join two together). Fuddy-duddies use this as one of their reasons that homosexuals should not get married. Their reasoning is that if two people cannot have children together, they shouldn’t get married. But what about the people who can’t have children, whether they’re homosexual or not? Does this mean that they can’t get married either? What about adoption or artificial insemination? Obviously fuddy-duddies don’t take these into account.
What’s wrong with being homosexual? Nothing. As good is balanced by evil, heterosexuals are balanced by homosexuals. If straight people can get married, why can’t gay people? There isn’t a reason. Fuddy-duddies hide behind old fashioned ways of thinking because that’s the only way they can justify their pigheadedness.
It is my belief that we shouldn’t treat people any less than we would want to be treated. Whether they’re the smartest person in the world or an old man with Alzheimer’s, whether they’re a bishop or the gayest person you’ve ever met, they’re people. People deserve to be treated as people and not a bit less. They say there is equality for everyone, but how can they say this if some churches will refuse to bless same-sex marriage?
By Jay L. Marie
Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie
Fuddy-Duddies
Have you ever met a fuddy-duddy? They’re really quite common and can be found in almost every aspect of the human life. They are people who are old-fashioned in the extreme and refuse to change their minds about opinions formed centuries before they were born. I know that a person should be compassionate and not judge anyone, but I find it extremely hard to do this with certain fuddy-duddy viewpoints. The main viewpoint of theirs that angers me most is the one on homosexuals.
In the Bible, the very first story is about the creation. It tells how on the sixth day God created humankind in his image. When God was done, he looked over all his creations and saw the they were good. God saw the heterosexuals and the homosexuals and he saw nothing wrong with either one of them. I doubt he’s changed his mind.
Traditionally, people got married so that they could start a family (or join two together). Fuddy-duddies use this as one of their reasons that homosexuals should not get married. Their reasoning is that if two people cannot have children together, they shouldn’t get married. But what about the people who can’t have children, whether they’re homosexual or not? Does this mean that they can’t get married either? What about adoption or artificial insemination? Obviously fuddy-duddies don’t take these into account.
What’s wrong with being homosexual? Nothing. As good is balanced by evil, heterosexuals are balanced by homosexuals. If straight people can get married, why can’t gay people? There isn’t a reason. Fuddy-duddies hide behind old fashioned ways of thinking because that’s the only way they can justify their pigheadedness.
It is my belief that we shouldn’t treat people any less than we would want to be treated. Whether they’re the smartest person in the world or an old man with Alzheimer’s, whether they’re a bishop or the gayest person you’ve ever met, they’re people. People deserve to be treated as people and not a bit less. They say there is equality for everyone, but how can they say this if some churches will refuse to bless same-sex marriage?
By Jay L. Marie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)