In light of what is coming out from and around the Anglican Communion Networks meeting south of the border how do you think we will be affected in Canada?
The events I’m referring to are The Rev. Prof. Stephen Noll’s very forthright letter circulated here; Bishop Bob Duncan’s address, reported here and here; and the Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radners pointed resignation from the ACN here.
I would characterise the ACI, of which Rev Radner is part, and the ACN, lead by Bp Duncan as equivalent to our Federation and Network. How do we avoid their fate? Do we want to avoid it? Can we do anything different here? I think, at this point, it is worth asking the questions.
On a related note, Abp Gomez has recently spoken to the current state of affairs, the full text which can be found here. Of particular interest might be this paragraph:
In London recently, the Steering Committee for the Global South coalition of Anglican leaders urged Archbishop Williams (who is away on study leave) to convene a Primates’ Meeting after the Episcopal bishops’ September 19-25 assembly, to determine the adequacy of the U.S. prelates’ response to the primates’ requests. Gomez backed the call (though, contrary to reports, he told TCC that neither he nor Southern Cone Archbishop Gregory Venables was at the Global South confab in London). However, Gomez does not think Dr. Williams will grant the request, with the Communion Office almost certain to plead a lack of money.
Well, we shall see if this happens. If it does, it would appear to me to be another attempt to delay and stall. After all, if the Primates do not meet, then they cannot decide. However, I cannot for the life of me see how this will help at this stage. It would seem at this point that all it will do is precipitate a more calamitous splintering than needs to be. That is to say, rather than needed discipline, we will see schism. At some point, a leader needs to lead.
I’m going to add my personal position in the comments below, and I welcome input from one and all.
In my opinion, the Network and Federation agree on the diagnosis, but not on the prognosis or the cure. We all want the same thing, but disagree on the path.
Within both Network and Federation there are those who will ‘switch sides’ if conditions warrant it. Also, there are those who will not ‘switch sides’, whatever the situation.
What we have seen in the States between Ephriam Radner and Bob Duncan, and on a wider scale between the ACI and the ACN is the unfortunate outcome of this difference.
I am passionately in favour of us walking together, in an inside/outside strategy. However, there comes a point when we simply cannot continue one way or the other, but must decide. It is my contention that this time comes upon us now, or very very soon.
I had a disagreement recently with a Federation friend that brought home to me how deeply we both held our positions. He thought my position was divisive and unhelpful, I thought his position was a waste of time. Both convictions were held passionately. Now, we were able to see beyond that to our heart in this and were able to keep walking together in common purpose.
The question is, for how long?
The same friend and I were talking after General Synod, when I said that in our local Synod I would need to see us repudiate what the General Synod had done, through formal motions. Indeed, I would need to see significantly more than that to be able to continue in the Anglican Church of Canada.
However, my friend disagreed. He would not want to put our Bishop on the spot, and would prefer to work in a more low-key way.
At what point, I ask myself, can we continue to walk the same path in good concience?
My friend, he cannot countenance the very least thing that would be necessary to keep me in the ACoC. So, what do I do?
It strikes me that the Federation need us to stay together to effectively continue their ministry (which is having effect – see the new committee memberships, though I wonder if it will be too little, too late – another 3 years and it might bear fruit, but do we have another 3 years?).
However, at the same time it seems that they cannot offer the Network anything by way of compromise. How could they – for manning the lifeboats would mean abandoning the work of patching the ship?
This is my contention really, how long can we continue the inside / outside strategy when other factors, outside our immediate Church, are coming into play? I do not think we have another three years, in fact I doubt we have another three months….
The phrase “divisive and unhelpful” is often taken as a single concept. This is one of those rare cases where “divisive and necessary” is a more accurate description. It took me 60 years in TEC to come to this conclusion, so I doubt if I can be accurately described as rushing to judgment.
Well Peter, maybe it is God’s plan that the centre of Anglicanism moves to the Global South where his people have been faithful to the Gospel. The ACC had one or two generations at best left in it not just because of its lack of faith but because globalisation has hit every other institution as well as the Church. The Parish pattern was developed under the feudal system in England, and now we cannot afford it and we all have cars to travel to a Parish which we find the best for us. As Bishop Harvey said there are many waiting for confirmation and ordination and they will not wait another year. I am in an orthodox parish with an orthodox Bishop, but for those who are not, how can they continue to be under the leadership of those who undermine the Gospel. I have left Parishes when this has happened so I understand their point of view.
I think it is ironic that the Rev. Radnor is telling Bishop Duncan to stay when he himself is leaving to the safe place of academia.
Sorry Radner (sp).
“That is to say, rather than needed discipline, we will see schism”
Perhaps a different way to put it is:
Because of the lack of discipline, we will see schism.
I don’t see any other possible outcome.
Peter. Although it might be ‘through a glass darkly’ here is my perspective.
What seems to characterize Anglicanism in Canada (and the US?) is that we have a bunch of ‘separate’ congregations with little or no contact between them in terms of fellowship, cooperation and common ministry. I fear that those who are impatient and wish to leave may well take these habits with them and become even more isolated and with that isolation comes the temptation to break apart again and again into even more quasi-autonomous groups, as we can see amongst our non-conformist brethren.
My hope for the Federation is that we will use this time to build a strong Christian community. My vision is that churches/congregations will begin to cooperate and build relationships that transcend petty differences so that in the time to come there will be a cohesive organization that is better able to withstand pressure from wherever it comes. Yes, there may be a time when even the Federation folks can no longer put up with the apostasy and withdraw but it will be as a group that, through mutual support, ministry and fellowship, will be better equipped to cope with the new circumstances in which it finds itself.
If the role of Federation was less than clearly defined before Synod I believe that it has the opportunity to take and provide leadership and vision in this direction. The sheep will really scatter unless someone steps up and points the direction to be taken.
I’m reminded from Nehemiah that the work of rebuilding the city of God did take time, there was dissent and opposition but his focus was on the rebuilding. We’re not necessarily building for ourselves but for future generations. If our lives are spent in the rebuilding of our church then so be it for I know that we will not labour in vain.
Of course there were probably those who were too impatient and for that, and other reasons, left Nehemiah to it. I read this morning: ‘I devoted myself to the work on this wall.’ (Neh. 5:16). Like Nehemiah, I believe we must not spend an inordinate amount of time and energy on what is being said outside the walls and instead get on with the building.
We are in an exciting time. The rate of rebuilding will depend upon the effort of the builders. God is giving us a great opportunity, let us take it. Is it the Chinese word for ‘crisis’ that combines the characters ‘danger’ and ‘opportunity’?
How long do we have? I believe we have as long as God gives us to get our work done. ‘Remember me with favour, O my God, for all I have done for these people.’ (Neh. 5:19).
This is a most exciting but exasparating time in the ACC. For ANiC and Essentials, I do not see why both cannot continue to work and walk together.
I do pray that the decision that is going to be forced upon Canterbury by TEC will be one of strength. I have seen little of anything from Canterbury that shows me that there is anything there except the willingness to continue to stay in dialogue. There comes a time that talking just does not cut it! I feel that this Fall will be show that those in the Anglican Communion worldwide who claim to be and want to be and are Orthodox Anglicans that want to remain part of it will have no choice but to side with the Global South.
These are exciting and devisive times and I know where I want to be. If such cannot be for me in Newfoundland, then I will have to go with some other denomination or non-denominational Christian body. We must abide by the words that St. Paul wrote to Timothy.
I Timothy 6:20-21 (NASB)
20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge”– 21 which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith. Grace be with you.
Victoria Matthews has announced her resignation as Bishop. Interesting times we live in.
Victoria Matthews has announced her resignation as Bishop. Interesting times we live in.
Interesting indeed! I just noticed this story in the Edmonton Journal this morning. Bp Victoria was, I always believed, a relatively orthodox and conservative bishop. However, I was somewhat taken aback at some of her actions at Synod, and her opinions expressed at a pre-synod round table discussion in which she was involved here in Edson.
One wonders who might be her replacement. I’m thinking (perhaps without any real basis for doing so) that this might put into motion events that may force some parishes in this diocese who have been sitting on the fence to take stands and/or positions.
It will be very interesing in the next few months for the Churches in the Edmonton Diocese.
I was very disappointed with her actions at the Synod and with her opinions at the synod round table in Edmonton.
My personal feeling is that there are more liberal churches and clergy in the Diocese of Edmoton then we realize.
Time will tell I guess