Welcome to the Anglican Essentials blog! The blog started as a method of keeping you up to date at General Synod 2007, and had since metamorphosed into something with a rather wider remit. The editorial team includes Peter, Kate, David, and Gordon, and it is our hope to keep you up to date with the goings-on in the Anglican world here in Canada from our ‘unique’ perspective. A word on the latter – this blog is hosted by Anglican Essentials, and we are fully supportive of their goals. However, we are editorially independent and do not speak officially for any part of Essentials in any way. View this, if you like, as something of a community project from grass-roots members.

Any comments, please feel to email us at aecbloggers [at] gmail [dot] com. Thanks!

0 Responses to About

  1. Jen says:

    Peter, are you a member of the AC? That’s one denomination I haven’t studied yet but I would be curious… what can you compare it to? (if anything)


  2. Peter says:

    Yes, I am – if the AC is the Anglican Communion that is….

    How to complare it, heh, well, I’m not sure what to compare it to, certainly not in a short sentence or two. Any takers?

    Here is my short short definition: A cross between Roman Catholics and Baptists. Now watch everybody scream, as I have simultaneuously offended all three churches 😉

  3. Steve L. says:

    We prefer calling ourselves Catholic-Lite

  4. Kate says:

    I can top that, Peter, and I figure I’m safe, hiding out in the comments like this – have you heard this joke?

    The Salvation Army picks you up out of the gutter.
    The Baptists get you saved.
    The Methodists teach you how to sing.
    The Presbyterians educate you.
    The Anglicans introduce you to high society.
    Then the Salvation Army picks you up out of the gutter again.

  5. I grew up Catholic , on the Canadian prairies, back in the days of ‘Dominus Vobiscum’. I’d always had great respect for the local Anglicans , who seemed so much less uptight than we Catholics. When the uproar started over sexual orientation, I was somewhat surprised.With the split of the conservatives from the mainstream , I realized how I’d misunderstood segments of ‘Catholic-Lite’. As a gay man who no longer follows any religion ; I’d like to , for what it’s worth, correct the usual errors in understanding homosexuality. Homosexuality is a state of being ; not a ‘chosen lifestyle’. There is no such thing as an “ex-gay’. Homosexuality is far more about who one falls in love with, than specific sex acts. Opposition to same-sex marriage was an unseemly farce. The opposition was , in reality , to the very existence of homosexual persons. Religion is based on faith; not facts. Condemning homosexuality while insisting that all people be treated with respect , is one of the great farces of modern right wing theology. These proclamations are immediately interpreted by the masses, as ‘inferior , disdainful, unworthy , unequal , and to far too many in society ; – life unworthy of life’. If the conservative belief is simply that we are sinful ; why are there no marches and violent protests in opposition to thiefs , rapists , murderers, liars , and heretics? It is assumed that changing allegiance to the southern Cone mirrors the change of allegiance to African leaders , by Anglicans in the US.When the courts in Zimbabwe ruled that the Anglican cathedral rightly belonged to the mainstream followers of the newly appointed Bishop Bakare Kunonga , rathger than the venomously anti-gay admirer of Robert Mugabe and former bishop ; Nolbert Kunonga , the latter and his followers barricaded themselves in the cathedral.Then the former bishop burst into a service being conducted by the new bishop , according to news reports today ; jumped on the altar , seized a Bible from the hands of the new bishop , and reiterated the statements of Mugabe , about gays being “worse than dogs and pigs”. P.T. Barnum and Alfred Hitchcock could not have come up with a more bizarre scenario .Meanwhile , an entire segment of humanity is subjected to irrational hatred , bigotry , and exclusion.

  6. Warren says:

    Bart, we have all coveted. You may call it a state of being, but I call it a sin, as does the bible; a sin worthy of the wrath of God (I believe us all deserving of the wrath of God due to our sinful natures, and all needful of a saviour). Even though I covet, I do not venerate covetousness nor try to raise it to the status of love, joy and peace. Men can say whatever they want about homosexuality (or homo-sex if you would prefer), good or bad, but I could care less. It is what God says that counts. How God expects me to respond to someone who covets or is homosexual is separate matter, and again it is what God says in His Word that counts, not the traditions of man.

  7. Kate says:

    I could introduce you to quiet a few people who self identify as ex-gay, actually. I would invite you to take a look at this website, for a start:


    Opposition to same sex marriage is not opposition to homosexual persons. Same sex marriage is only the presenting issue. The real issue is the authority of scripture.

  8. I can’t seem to comments on the latest inhibition post… Just thought you should know that the permalink isn’t working, either.

  9. Rev says:

    My friend, you are now on the blogroll of 2 Worlds Collide. 😉

  10. Jane Folwer says:

    What is the relationship between essentials and ANIC?

  11. Jim Muirhead says:

    [10] Jane
    If you go to the main page of the Blog and click on the About Anglican Essentials (top right of page), it gives a pretty detailed description of the relationship.

  12. Warren says:

    Jim (#11), in fairness to the question at #10, I don’t think the AEC website provides a clear answer. For those who have not been following things regularly, it must seem rather murky. The best I could find was this (which I got from the ANiC website vice the AEC website):

    ANiC emerged out of the ‘Essentials’ movement in the Anglican Church of Canada and remains affiliated with Anglican Essentials Network.

    Reader are left to draw their own conclusions as to the meaning of “affiliated”.

  13. Jim Muirhead says:

    [12] Thanks Warren.
    South of the border they would characterize the differences as an inside orthodox strategy ( in Canada Essentials) and an outside orthodox strategy (in Canada ANiC).
    Things have gotten muddier in TEC since some parishes remaining in TEC have also decided to affiliate with the new North American Province.
    Yeh, it’s clear as mud.

  14. John75 says:

    Television offers a religion of instant, infantile, personal gratification in an imaginary world. ,

  15. Paul says:

    With all due respect, I am very glad that the BC Supreme Court ruled the way that it did.

    As Uganda is now considering making homosexuality a crime punishable by death, it is inconceiveable to me how you can affiliate yourselves with a group of African Anglicans who essentially believe the same way, uless of course you all do too.

    It would be wise if you all could really read and spiritually get what the message of the Bible really is and for a start it is not denigrating a whole class of people just so that you may feel more superiour and better than them. Where is all of your hate coming from anyways? Please stop saying from the Bible and seach a little deeper within you.

  16. Warren says:

    In #15 Paul said:

    Please stop saying from the Bible . . .

    Paul, I’m glad you mentioned this, because it gets to the very core of why Essentials came into being. People either put their trust in the creature or the creator; accept God’s wisdom, or shake their puny fists at it and curse those who would bend the knee to it. I hope that God will see fit to remove the scales from your eyes and that you too will come to see that the wisdom of God is higher than that of man, and that all of us – people who comment here, African Anglicans, homosexuals, and even you Paul – desperately need God’s grace. As the other Paul says in Romans 1:20, no man has an excuse.

  17. Warren says:

    Further to my comment in #16, I wish to address the underlying presuppositions in Paul’s comment in #15. Such presuppositions are held by many in our society and are reinforced by the media and our educational system; thus my comments are not aimed at Paul specifically.

    Although he may not realize it, Paul’s statements are based on presuppositions concerning right and wrong. Paul has implicitly denied that God is the source of absolute truth, but it is doubtful that he has seriously examined the reasons for why he believes certain things are “right” and others are “wrong”. Thankfully he is a moral person (an atheist who accepts the logical end of his beliefs concerning morality is a scary thing), but one who likely cannot give a logical explanation for his morality (I believe it is because he is created in the image of God).

    I don’t know if Paul is an atheist, a pagan, or someone who believes in a God who he has shaped into something acceptable to him (a form of idolatry). Maybe he moves between these positions depending on the day and the mood he’s in. It doesn’t matter other than he represents a view held by many people. The point is that Paul believes his position is “right” and the position he is criticizing is “wrong”. The question I’m interested in is what does Paul base his concept of right and wrong on?

    Does Paul believe that majority opinion should determine what is right and wrong? If so, how can he criticize African Anglicans who may represent majority opinion in their society? Does he believe that certain societies have “evolved” to a higher level, and that, in their enlightenment, they can dictate morality to “lower” societies? If, at some point in the future, the majority of people come to see pedophilia as moral, will Paul accept that majority view?

    Maybe I’m being to hard on Paul and he does have sophisticated philosophical arguments to defend his view of morality and why he believes certain things are right and others are wrong. Maybe he is willing to lay bare all of his presuppositions and defend them. I know his defence must logically break down at some point, leaving him in a position where his actions and stated beliefs are not be consistent. Regardless, I am interested in such discussion.

    For me, it is much simpler. I believe in the God revealed in the Bible. I believe the Bible is His inspired and inerrant Word. I believe in original sin and in my total depravity. I know am saved by grace alone and nothing in my character or actions warrants this grace. Like Paul, my sinful nature rebels against God’s holy standard, but I admit that His ways are higher than my ways and that I see through a glass darkly. To Him be all glory, honour and praise.

  18. Paul says:

    Warren #16;
    I accept and marvel at God’s grace and wisdom every day. It is free for the taking, and so I do, so please don’t assume that you have the market on either wisdom or grace becuase your views expressed here on homosexuals and their supporters hardly reveal either.

    As for the scales in my eyes, which I humbly acknowledge, let’s look at your issues that are clearly addressed:
    King James Bible
    Luke 6:42
    Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.

    Of course, you will never see the light of the truth, and I know it is rather fruitless to even try.

    Having said that, I think it is pitiful that you have aligned yourself with a very repressive and backwards Nigerian church. Hell, I seriously doubt if you would even consider sharing your table with these folks if they lived in your fine city.

  19. Warren says:

    At #18 Paul said:

    Having said that, I think it is pitiful that you have aligned yourself with a very repressive and backwards Nigerian church.

    Accuse me of what you will, but my ultimate allegiance is to God’s Word. I’m sure the Nigerian Chruch has many flaws – as do all man made institutions. I would be surprised if the leaders of the Nigerian Church didn’t freely admit same.

    Hell, I seriously doubt if you would even consider sharing your table with these folks if they lived in your fine city.

    You start with a unfounded assertion and immediately build it into an ad hominem argument. How can we have a meaningful discussion given such a starting point? Mud slinging does not build trust.

  20. Daryle says:

    There has been an abundance of internet hysteria over this Nigerian legislation – fomented from the religious left. (The thread started with Uganda – will check on that) I am given to understand that the Nigerian (or Ugandan) Anglican Church has worked very hard to overturn draconian legislation outlining capital punishment for homosexuality, and has advocated approaches for loving and redemptive responses and support for homosexuals in that country.

    There is a reality out there that men and women do indeed turn from homosexually acting-out behaviours – some do not use the term “ex-gay” for its primary identification with homosexuality. Andy Kominsky, a pioneer in ministering to those who identify as same-sex strugglers, had at one point stated that homosexual persons were latent heterosexuals. (Now THAT should make some awefully unhappy!)

    But even the American Psychological Association has declared that individuals seeking therapy (and that is for only those who desire to seek another life-approach) should self-determine their therapy of choice – even that of pastoral conseling and ex-gay ministry – and that all risks and potential outcomes of any therepeutic approach should be laid out to the counsellee at the onset of therapy.

    Thanks to Kate for reference to (UK’s) Rev. Peter Ould. Note should be made, also, to Rev. Mario Bergner (US) of Redeemed Lives.

    Explore also:
    Exodus International

  21. Daryle says:

    oops – just realized this thread is a year old!
    So much for being current!!
    (I kind of wonder why my searching landed here?)

  22. Kate says:

    Not to worry, Daryle. (By the way, I have no idea why your comment was held for moderation – probably the same computer hiccough that landed your search here!)

  23. Onnig says:

    Has anyone heard what decision has been taken towards Peter Parent, the former minister of the Church of the Messiah? It has been three months since Peter walked out and abandoned an Anglican service, followed by rebuking of the congregation the week after.
    The official line is that he is still the minister in charge and is on an extended holiday (three months), and clergy in charge have hushed all news.
    if anyone has further information, please let me know.

  24. Kate says:

    Which Church of the Messiah might that be? It’s not the one in Ottawa. A little bit more information might be useful.

  25. Onnig says:

    it is the Church of the Messiah in Norwich

    • Kate says:

      None of us know anything about it, and a blog forum probably isn’t the best place to be discussing something like that. If you are concerned, I’d ask Bishop Charlie about it.

Leave a Reply