…Connie Wookcock of the Toronto Sun, who Just Doesn’t Get It. You can read the whole article here, if you want to.
Let’s start here, shall we:
The Anglican church of Canada’s many problems have been much in the headlines lately as a small number of congregations have voted to leave ostensibly over the issue of same sex marriage, but really because the evangelicals within the church don’t want to deal with more liberal views of Christianity itself.
I wonder what Ms. Woodcock thinks we have been dealing with for the last 20 years? She obviously wasn’t at the last two General Synods, where Anglican Essentials Canada had a major presence. I wonder what she would consider “dealing with” to be? Saying “Peace, Peace” probably.
If you don’t know anything about Christianity, here are the two most important items. (1) Love God. (2) Love your neighbour as you love God. That’s all there is.
But some Anglicans are having trouble with (2), especially those neighbours who are (1) gay, (2) lesbian or (3) different from the fundamentalists. If Jesus Christ himself were to walk into one of these fundamentalist churches on Sunday morning, he’d likely be found wanting. Too liberal.
Have you ever actually attended a conservative Anglican church, Ms. Woodcock? What exactly is your definition of love? I would guess that love=being nice in her books. Trouble is, sometimes love has to say the hard thing. Sometimes love has to stand up and say “No, this is wrong, and it is taking you further away from Jesus”. Sometimes love has to speak truth to power.
Anglicanism has always been a big tent that has made room for a broad range of belief. Those on the far right, who call themselves orthodox Anglicans, a small group despite the noise they make, believe the Bible literally, right down to Adam and Eve.
Only a small group in North America, not world wide. We haven’t actually been making a very big public noise, it’s just that the actions that some bishops have taken against us have garnered a lot of press. I do believe that the Bible is God’s word written, but the way Ms. Woodcock has described it, you would think that I had to leave my brain at the church door in order to believe, which is incredibly insulting. I would suggest that she take any J.I. Packer or C. S. Lewis book on Christianity out of the library, that would disabuse her of that notion p.d.q.
And then there are the rest of us in the middle, wondering why we can’t just go back to the way we were — worshipping in peace and tolerance.
Translation: As long as it doesn’t affect what goes on in my little corner of the Anglican world, I don’t care if heresy is being preached.
Tolerance, however, is a word, along with inclusivity, the right wingers apparently aren’t acquainted with, so there will be much more agony before these problems are sorted out, if they ever are.
Tolerance means to put up with. Jesus didn’t tolerate anybody, he loved people, and that is what we are called to do. Love, mind you, not luv or be nice.
The question of who owns the churches will be settled quickly. The Anglican church, like the Roman Catholic church, is hierarchical and church law is quite clear that property rights, along with power, reside with the diocese and its bishop.
That’s not what was argued when the Diocese of Caribou went under. This paragraph alone proves that the author Doesn’t Get It.
Meanwhile, it would be nice if the fundamentalists took a little look at the bracelets they’re so fond of wearing — the ones made of beads bearing the letters WWJD which stand for “What would Jesus do?”
One suspects Jesus would weep.
I think he probably would, but not for the reasons Ms. Woodcock thinks.