Most interesting historical piece on church history. However the Windsor Process would imply the ACoC and TEC themselves have broken from the Communion over the well know issues. Churches aligning with 'foreign' Provinces are doing so to connect with the Communion.

I tire of the argument about treatment of homosexuals, besides it being considered the 'only' issue which it isn't. I will repeat the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" and the rest of us commit enough assorted sins of a similar grievous nature. The line in the sand seems to be blessings of gay unions and ordination of non-celibate priests and bishops. There is the obvious expectation that homosexual marriages will follow.

A question begging an answer. Corinthians lists a number of sins that bar entry to Heaven. Which one's are next to be removed? Eventually no sin will be a barrier, repentance will a historical foot note. What shall we call this? Silly me. It's Universalism and it's here.

Last weekend for myself and others was an experience that reconnected me with Christ that I have sadly found missing in Cathedral life.

If you are comfortable with your theology, so be it. But please understand that we wish to reconnect with Christ in a fashion more in keeping with an older church.

1. The Windsor Process continues under a "continuation group" recently appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, notwithstanding violations of provincial jurisdiction by some Primates, specifically ruled out in the Windsor report, and agreed to by the Primates.

2. Many people are tired of these arguments, but they don't seem to be going away, do they?

3. I'm truly sorry you feel this way about the Cathedral, Steve. Such sentiment was never made evident to me while you were associated with us in the past year.

It would be a step forward if Windsor was not picked apart for the benefit of the Primates. Provincial intrusions are emphasised, +Ingham's actions are brushed over. That's my view.

The homophobic issue seems to be a staple of the argument, a center piece almost. It dominates discussion and is often a barrier to understanding other issues.

Palm Sunday was an emotional adventure. I enjoy the Cathedral because it is the type of environment I was brought up in. Reverent but stuffy. A place that seems to say shuush! I've occasionally been a reluctant participant in charismatic services but during the multi parish service last year I felt almost ashamed that I was not as an enthusiastic worshiper as those from the other churches. At some point I had to make a conscious decision about my direction. That came with my first exchange with Bernadette. At that point I felt more a visitor than a member. As you said the first day we met 'the church has changed in 20 years'. It has.

My blog entry on the Church of the Resurrection's first service can not do justice to the excitement in praise of our Lord. Perhaps the thunderous ovation given +Malcolm was a hint of what was to come. I have know +Malcolm for many years and spent several hours with him prior to seeing +Jim about my call to priesthood. +Malcolm's relinquishment of his licence and the ACoC's subsequent reaction polarized many, myself included.

The Cathedral environment seems to inhibit significant enthusiasm somehow. I probably never recognized that until after we started worshiping at St. George's so that was a sentiment I would not have brought up to you. But since we have, please consider the Kenyan Rite. Raise the roof a bit higher, rattle the windows, let the neighbours know:

Is the Father with us? He is!
Is Christ among us? He is!
Is the Spirit here? He is!

Dean Robin, as you know, last November you linked to an article by Fr. Whalon that asserted that schism is worse than heresy. Dr Gibson obviously favours schism over the "heresy" being preached by conservative Anglicans. Where do you stand? Do you want to kick out all those Neanderthal Anglicans who can't get it through their thick skulls that God and the Bible approves of homosexuality, or do you want to keep them in "the circle" in hope that they can be re-educated and come to see the light?

(I'll pull my tongue out of my cheek after I push the post button.)

Warren, this is very probably the last comment I will accept from you. I am not interested in your kind of straw man questions. I intend in the future to give serious responses only to serious and well-thought-out comments.

But, on topic:
Bishop Whalon's essay has been very helpful to me over the past few years. Dr. Gibson's essay gave me cause to think. I invite you to do the same.

I will not willingly exclude anyone from the circle, as long as they will not exclude me. Communion is a two-way street. Divorce is one-way!

A problem I see with referencing much longer works in the short span of a sermon for example is that writer has the whole of the work in his mind but only the quotes are heard, leaving the listener to try and imagine, often incorrectly, the balance of the essay. And the Internet like any other media keeps what is recorded forever! This can justify concerns about conflicting views on a subject over a period of time and usually leads to misunderstanding. But if views change through the process of personal growth, that is an entirely different matter. Many of us see our roles of being Christ's servant in different ways and sometimes it becomes "I'm right, you're not" from one's perspective.

I think the use of 'divorce' is rather harsh and implies breaking of a vow. My only vow is in my service to Christ, I choose to do it in a different manner now. That decision needs to be accepted and respected as much as I respect your decision to follow the course you have chosen.

Robin FYI this was posted as comment on the linked essay

While I appreciate Dr Gibson's nuanced presentation of schism that we must live with if imposed upon us by others, he should have recognized that the Reformation produced the situation we are presently in. The struggle for political power that it precipitated led to the religious wars, which in turn resulted in the rise of the virulent atheism the churches have faced since the Enlightenment. Not to mention the millions whose spilled blood drowned out the proclamation of the Gospel.

No schism has ever been good. It is always a betrayal of Christ, the church nailing its Lord back up on a cross.

Bp Pierre Whalon:

Not intended as a comment but in case you have not kept up with comments on the essay. The balance seem to refute the essay. IMHO

Steve L.

Warren, this is very probably the last comment I will accept from you. I am not interested in your kind of straw man questions. I intend in the future to give serious responses only to serious and well-thought-out comments.

This is your blog, and you are entitled to block me if you choose (I don't expect this comment to appear and I'm not writing it for an audience). I will not reappear under a different name and address. I find it amusing, however, to see how thin the veneer of postmodern tolerance really is when challenged. Conservative websites, political or religious, invariably allow a wider range of opinion and challenge than those of a liberal leaning. Also, without Steve L. and I, your blog will be a lonely place. What you really need are for your faithful parishioners to come online and jump all over me so that you can stay above the fray - but maybe you would rather that your parishioners not start accessing information on the Internet and instead limit their Anglican-related reading to high-quality, unbiased publications like the Anglican Journal.

I think a great deal, although not in the direction you would like. My Bible reading this morning first led me to Proverbs 9, and verses 7-9 gave me reason for pause. Am I the scoffer being spoken about, or is it Anglican leaders who are scoffing at God's Word and the doctrinal traditions of the church? I then read Ephesians 2:1-10, and was saddened to think of how the gospel has been twisted in so many Anglican Churches and how politically incorrect it is to speak of passions of the flesh, children of wrath, dead in trespasses, etc. What significance can the resurrection have for those who believe in a loving, tolerant, benevolent God who only really cares about how we feed the poor and look after the environment?

Three years ago, when I knew next to nothing about Anglicanism, I shared the view of many of my evangelical brethren that the Anglican Church was rapidly dying and, in many respects, could no longer be considered a true church. God then led me to St Alban's in Ottawa, where my eyes were opened to many things. I came to realize that there is still life to be found in Anglicanism (especially outside of North America), but that most of the Canadian and American churches are dying even more rapidly than I imagined. I should also point out that I'm not a disciple of Rev George Sinclair, and that I caused him headaches too (although I have great respect for him as a man of God).

As a shepherd, one of your most important responsibilities is to "exclude people from the circle" (I call it a sheep pen). The failure of Anglican shepherds to protect their flocks over the past 50-100 years is, in my opinion, why Anglicanism has been reduced to what it is today - barely Christian and mostly irrelevant to the society around it. I have much time and patience for sitting down with someone who is truly seeking after God and searching the Scriptures with them. I have little tolerance for shepherds who are leading their flocks astray (who, the Bible says, will be held to a higher standard).

I won't claim to be praying for you (usually I find such comments on blogs to be nothing more than a back-handed slam), but I do hope that the gospel penetrates to the very core of your being this Easter season and that it rocks you out of your socks. Ditto for your parishioners.