From here, and with a little editorial in places.
A Pastoral Statement from the Primate and Metropolitans of the Anglican Church of Canada
November 29, 2007
The following pastoral statement is released to the Church by the Primate and the Metropolitan Archbishops of each of the four ecclesiastical provinces.
A Pastoral Statement from the Primate and Metropolitans of the Anglican Church of Canada
Greetings in the name of the One who was, who is, and who is to come — our Lord Jesus Christ
The Mission Statement of the Anglican Church of Canada opens with these statements: “As a partner in the worldwide Anglican Communion and in the universal Church, we proclaim and celebrate the gospel of Jesus Christ in worship and in action. We value our heritage of Biblical faith, reason, liturgy, tradition, bishops and synods and the rich variety of our life in community.”
It is fundamental to the values and mission of our Church that we welcome and respect freedom of individual conscience and the theological convictions of a diverse membership (I would suggest it is more fundamental to adhere to the ‘faith once delivered’). Our General Synods have consistently strived to honour every voice as the Church works through contentious and difficult issues before it (tell that to the Zacchaeus fellowship, denied voice at General Synod – the reality is some voices are more equal than others). This is particularly true in the way the Church has endeavoured to address matters of human sexuality including the blessing of same-sex unions.
The report of the Primate’s Theological Commission commonly known as the St. Michael Report has described this issue as matter of doctrine but not core doctrine. General Synod concurred with this opinion last June. The St. Michael Report also declared that the matter need not be a Communion-breaking issue (which as was pointed out was at best a hopeful statement).
It is in this context that we deplore recent actions on the part of the Primate and General Synod of the Province of the Southern Cone to extend its jurisdiction into Canada through the Essentials Network Conference. This action breaks fellowship within the Anglican Church of Canada and the Anglican Communion (News: the fellowship is already broken, thanks for noticing. What we have here is a reaction to the broken fellowship).
We affirm the statement unanimously agreed to by the Council of General Synod which appeals to the Archbishop of Canterbury “to make clear that such actions are not a valid expression of Anglicanism.” We too appeal to him in his capacity as one of the instruments of communion and as chair of the Primates’ Meeting to address the very serious issues raised by this intervention.
The actions by the Primate of the Southern Cone are not necessary. Our bishops have made adequate and appropriate provision for the pastoral care and episcopal support of all members of the Anglican Church of Canada, including those who find themselves in conscientious disagreement with the view of their bishop and synod over the blessing of same-sex unions. These provisions, contained in the document known as Shared Episcopal Ministry, were adopted by the House of Bishops and commended by the panel of reference appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. (Simply reiterating that something is adequate and appropriate does not make it so – as has been said a number of times and I’ll say it here again. The people who determine adequacy should be the people to whom it is offered. Otherwise, it is just an exercise in propaganda).
The actions by the Primate of the Southern Cone are also inappropriate. They contravene ancient canons of the Church going as far back as the 4th century, as well as statements of the Lambeth Conference, the Windsor report and the Communiqué from the Primates’ Meeting earlier this year. Furthermore these actions violate Canon XVII of the Anglican Church of Canada which states that “No Bishop priest or deacon shall exercise ordained ministry in a diocese without the license or temporary permission of the Diocesan Bishop.” Once again we have a selective reading of ancient and modern history.
Any ministry exercised in Canada by those received into the Province of the Southern Cone after voluntarily relinquishing the exercise of their ministry in the Anglican Church of Canada is inappropriate, unwelcome and invalid. We are aware that some bishops have, or will be making statements to that effect in their own dioceses. The ACoC does not get to determine the validity of ministry that is not under the jurisdiction of the ACoC.
In the meantime we rejoice in this season of Advent in which we once again begin that great journey of tracing the steps of our Lord’s most holy life through the liturgy of a new year.
We rejoice in the gift of word and sacrament. We rejoice in the gift of our baptism and in the great gift of the Eucharist. We rejoice in the gift of the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth and empowers us to proclaim the gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ in word and action.
We respect the diversity of opinion in our Church over many issues. We respect the manner in which we take counsel together and honour the intention of all those who even in the midst of struggle desire to remain within the fellowship of the Anglican Church of Canada.
Let us renew our trust in the One who holds us together in the embrace of His love and peace.
We call all Anglicans to a renewed emphasis on mission and prayer for faithful witness in the service of the gospel within our parishes and across the world.
In him whose Advent sets us free.
By the way, did anybody want to mention what the Diocese of Niagara approved earlier this month? Perhaps that was simply a courageous prophetic voice that has nothing to do with broken communion or any such-like. Double-standards, anybody?
The Most Rev. Fred Hiltz, Archbishop and Primate
The Most Rev. Terry Buckle, Archbishop and Metropolitan of British Columbia and Yukon (interesting – any comments here most welcome – it appears from my seat that most sitting Archbishops and Bishops, when push comes to shove, will remain with the ACoC).
The Most Rev. John Clarke, Archbishop and Metropolitan of Rupert’s Land
The Most Rev. Caleb Lawrence, Archbishop and Metropolitan of Ontario
The Most Rev. Bruce Stavert, Archbishop and Metropolitan of Canada
Hmmm…..This letter from Primate Hiltz reminds me very much of what I have read coming out of Katharin Jeffers-Schori’s Office. I wonder if it could nearly be plageristic.
Nothing new here although Terry Buckle’s signature is very confusing. I have a feeling it is for the moment, a forced signature.
Oh my goodness, this letter from Primate Hiltz will be heard with shock by the uninformed majority, with great hurrahs by the followers of Inghamism and what appears to now be Hiltzism. It will also be heard by ears that will receive it with hidden disdain and silence for most. That is alright, the time will come and soon when many voices will be heard.
I’m sure that the Primate will have reports of this blog on his desk or computer quickly…..hopefully, some of the comments will fall on ears that still prefer to hear and eyes that are not yet blinded.
I’m happy that some letters from Primates are more pleasing to the eyes of those who beclieve in Supremacy of Scripture and sensible interpretation of it.
I think it is hilarious to see the Diocese of Niagara two weeks ago, and now the ACoC so willing to stand on ancient tradition (of boundaries and authorities) to support their decisions to set aside a great deal of ancient tradition (like the authority of the scripture and tradition itself)! Funnier still, they use the Windsor report to cry to Canterbury for help! Neither synod was prepared to adopt the Windsor report, but both are willing to use it to support it’s decision to ignore parts of it! Outrageous! Hilarious! If this wasn’t so serious, it would be very hard to take this all seriously.
Adequate oversight? That’s a laugh. Do they actually *believe* this nonsense?? I had heard that the ABC had said that this looked like a good solution to him, and that ++Venables had spoken to the ABC beforehand. Anybody have confirmation on that?
Does anyone have confirmation that the Network will not remarry divorced persons?
I think you will find that one of the rules of blogging is to keep to the subject posted and not to go off on a tangent. On other blogs which I read anyone whose comments are off topic are warned once and then barred if they repeat the same behaviour.
Mrs. Falstaff, I heard too that the ABC thought the realignment was a good solution. However, I have not seen proof if that statement yet either. At the moment, I’m not giving too much credibility to the ABC. He’s just, today, lead a Eucharist service in England for homosexuals. His reasoning for the service is for “listening”. I don’t buy that somehow. Evil things are done in the darkness, and right things are done in the light. Why then must this “Eucharist” have been held in secret? I ask myself that. Also, if “listening” needs to be done, it needs to be done by the proper pastoral methods outlined in the Scriptures. Running around doing things in secret is not Jesus’ way. His way is in the open before the crowds. The biggest part of all of it that really concerns me is that it’s a “Eucharist” service. RW has no business giving Communion to those who are professed homosexuals, unless they’ve fully repented first. Jesus did heal many. However, he told ALL of them to “sin no more.” That’s not what’s happening here. He’s giving them approval of their “sinful” behavior. Jesus never did that and I’m sure RW will have a lot of explaining to do when he meets Jesus face to face. The fact that RW has gone through with this service has caused me to have even less respect for him as the leader of our church. I’ve had my doubts for a while, and have just been trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, this has just gone too far.
Here’s the link to read about the service:
http://www.americananglican.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ikLUK3MJIpG&b=689485&ct=4709195
Pauline, what specifically are you referring to? Let’s not get too legalistic here. For some, the blogs are the only way they can gain information regarding the church. If someone has something that might be helpful in alerting others on the blog to what’s going on, I don’t see the problem in that. There is so much important information out there for us, and everyone has different sources available to them. That helps us gain as much information as possible. Yes, running completely off on tangents with just one’s own comments may be taking it too far. But, I feel we should be able to alert our fellow bloggers to what’s going on when we hear of important things.
Peter and Scott, I would appreciate your comments on this.
Thanks!
Ah…I see that inclusivity is not a Network strong suit.
Marg – I agree with information being given, but you will note that a recent item was completely taken over by WO which is an important issue but should have a thread all by itself. We have to be beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing who try to get us to fight amongst ourselves to see how much damage they can do between us and so destroy what the Lord is doing in this new move. I sense the item regarding remarriage after divorce could be one of those instances – of course I could be very, very wrong.
I rest my case.
Marg, I think Pauline is referring to Marks off-topic comment #4. And in this case I agree, it’s just an attempt to bring us back to the contention of a few threads ago. That I was happy to leave as it is a valid debate, if not exactly handled with charity. So Mark, if you want to ask the same questions, please go back to that thread.
Um, I sensed myself going off the rails on the WO thread, and made a prayer promise not to go back to it for a while, so I haven’t been reading it for the last few days. My apologies for any contributions I may have made to the uncharitableness of that thread.
I’m not really sure what the object of this ‘Pastoral statement’ is. Far from being encouraged or edified I feel angry and very disappointed.
This has not gathered the sheep, it has scattered them further. This reads more like something out of a G8 meeting than a ‘pastoral’ statement.
Please do not wag your primatial finger in my face as you use such political doubletalk!
As a further comment;
I will not read this on Sunday, instead it will be read by one of my wardens.
Bishop Ingham’s statement:
http://www.vancouver.anglican.ca/diocese/Portals/0/Repository/MemorandumNov23-07.pdf
We are likely to provide it in written form, with commentary (so not to mess with Advent Sunday)
Our Bishop has told his Priests that they can disseminate the information in any way they see fit.
Pauline,
Are you in Charles Masters Parish s I’m wondering how he made out with the Bishop yesterday?
I am from Alberta
Peter, in your comment #11, I see what you mean. I missed that thread. I don’t have enough time every day to read all the threads so I only get on when I can.
Pauline, having missed the thread in question, I just didn’t see that in Mark’s comment #4. He does ask a valid question. There are many questions that need to be asked of the realignment. Will it go back to total biblical standards, or are they willing to accept some questionable practices which people have not been as upset about? I would like that answered myself. In that sense, I do validate Mark’s question.
Now, back to the topic at hand. I agree wholeheartedly with Rev’s comment #13. I wouldn’t call my reaction “angry”. If I was a priest I would never read that in an open service without also stating how wrong it was. I would feel compelled to tell the “truthful” side of the debate. I didn’t have a lot of faith in Hiltz after learning of his position when he was elected the new primate for Canada. I was probably more what you might call “angry” and very “dismayed” after the synod. The decisions made at this last synod have essentially killed the ACoC. They only caused so much confusion in their “vague” comments and definitely left the door open in their ambiguity for the events that have since occurred regarding SSB in the Dioceses of Niagara and Ottawa. The whole thing is such a horrible mess.
I would say I instead perceived this letter from Hiltz to portray him as very unwise. Some might even use the word “stupid”. Surely the man knows what’s being going on in the other provinces of the AC. The letters Katherine Jefferts Schori has sent out with threats of legal action to 2 Diocesan bishops recently have caused nothing but a further distrust in her. Anyone who might have been on the fence will surely have more leaning now due to her recent actions. Also, the litigation in TEC is very bad. The current case occurring regarding the Virginia Diocese is being very closely watched. Jefferts Schori didn’t come across very well in her depositions for that case. If anything, she’s made some people very angry with her; even those who were more forgiving before what she’s recently done.
My question is, why would Hiltz go ahead and follow the same pattern seeing the damage Jefferts Schori has been doing in TEC? Is he really that naive? Does he really believe “alterative oversight” has been satisfactory in Canada? What a joke!!!! Does Hiltz really not see that the events that have recently occurred in TEC have been the instigator to actually kick off officially the realignment?
Like I just read someone else write, there are no geographical boundaries mentioned in the Bible. Instead we are all given the great commission to spread the Good News throughout the whole “world”. The bishops and archbishops who are working on the realignments are trying very hard to carry out that command from God. They are trying to protect their sheep. They are trying to make sure that only the “truth” of the REAL Gospel is what preached in the AC globally. I applaud their courage and perseverance in their work. I’m behind them all the way.
Wendy – I am in Kingston. However I think I did see somewhere that Charlie did not meet with his Bishop yet because he has been advised to take legal advice before doing so.
Marg,
I agree with you
The thought that came to my mind was
Watch out for false prophets they come to you in sheep’s clothing. But inwardly they are ferocious wolves Matt C 7 V 15
Pauline,
Thank you for telling me
Yes, Wendy. Right on the mark.
Dear Friends in Christ:
By now you will have heard the announcement from Burlington, Ontario, by the Essentials Network of a formal separation from the Canadian Church. You may well be asked about it this on Sunday and for some time to come, so I thought I would offer you my own preliminary reflections on what should be our principal responses.
First, this development, while not unexpected (the signs have been there for several years, see below) is both unwelcome and unnecessary. Unwelcome because it violates both the ancient traditions of our church and also the consistent urgings of Scripture for unity among Christians. Unnecessary because no Canadian Anglican is being compelled to act against their conscience in matters of doctrine or ethics, and so there is no need for ‘safety’ from ecclesiastical oppression.
Second, Anglicans in this country do not want to see their church at war with itself. The prospect of costly and bitter litigation will rightly be regarded as a waste of the church’s precious resources given for mission. Further, our efforts at evangelism and outreach will be hampered by the media’s coverage of our organization in conflict. People searching for a spiritual home will be wary of involving themselves in a place of turmoil. Sadly, these consequences will be increased by the Network’s announcement.
Third, it has been the cry of every breakaway group that “we haven’t left them – they’ve left us.” Apart from the tiredness of the cliché, it is an attempt to avoid responsibility for personal choices. Every effort has been made, both in New Westminster and across the Anglican Church of Canada, to provide space for genuine differences of conviction on non-essential matters of faith. We have recognized the difficult place in which those of minority opinion find themselves (and there are several minorities, not just one) and have sought to foster mutual respect and mutual support. The vast majority of conservative and traditional Anglicans in Canada understand and accept this, and will stay with their church. This is not, therefore, a conservative breakaway. It is a decision to leave by those who feel uncomfortable with reasonable accommodation within the Body of Christ.
Fourth, the Network blames the church for its own decisions. Let us remember a brief chronology. It was ten years ago in 1997 that we first heard the term ‘global south.’ This was from the Kuala Lumpur meeting of certain bishops prior to the Lambeth Conference the following year. They issued the “Second Trumpet From the South” stating their intention to be in communion only with those who held their view of human sexuality. At the 1998 Lambeth Conference a well financed and organized lobby succeeded in raising this position to the level of Resolution 1:10, effectively marginalizing a careful statement prepared during the Conference by a broad spectrum of bishops.
We saw the development in North America of groups called the ‘Anglican Mission in America” and the “American Anglican Council” and the irregular and provocative consecrations, in Singapore in 2000 and Denver in 2001, of ‘missionary’ bishops to serve in the United States against the wishes of the Episcopal Church. During this time, congregations in the US and Canada were being urged by these groups to withhold financial contributions from the church.
Thus the seeds of this breakaway movement were laid long before same-sex blessings were authorized in New Westminster or a partnered gay bishop was elected in New Hampshire. The attempt now to lay blame for this development on events that took place in our diocese in 2002 and in the US in 2003 is in my view both a denial of history and an avoidance of responsibility.
Lastly, I think we need to respond to the Network’s announcement in several ways.
1.
Pray for the unity of Christians, for a spirit of charity towards those with whom we may disagree, and for God’s forgiveness of our mutual failure to honour the prayer of Christ in St. John’s Gospel “that they may be one.”
2.
Give particular support to those conservative and traditional Christians who remain with their church and grieve the departure of friends.
3.
Teach our members about the genius of Anglicanism and its balance of Scripture, reason and tradition within the boundaries of common prayer.
4.
Emphasize in our preaching and leadership the centrality of mission and its priority over ecclesiastical politics.
5.
Challenge the false stereotypes that foster polarization – e.g. the ‘heartless conservative’ or the ‘unbiblical liberal.’
6.
Give thanks that our church, for all its messiness, is honestly and openly facing issues some other bodies cannot.
7.
Press forward in ministry and evangelism at the local level.
8.
Deepen our study and immersion in Scripture. Place ourselves under the authority of the Christ it reveals. Avoid both an empty relativism and a harsh literalism.
9.
Encourage both local media and the non-churchgoing public to understand the deeper roots of this development.
10.
Take the ‘long view’ – i.e. remember the consistent triumph of the Gospel over the historic fragmentation of the church, and the persistence of faith through the failures of human discipleship.
Please remember our diocesan and national leaders in your prayers too. And above all, let’s get on with the normal work of being the church.
Kindest regards,
The Right Reverend Michael Ingham
Bishop
Hello,
No 24
Please read Matt C 7 V 15
Unnecessary because no Canadian Anglican is being compelled to act against their conscience in matters of doctrine or ethics, and so there is no need for ‘safety’ from ecclesiastical oppression.
I cannot fathom how the man sleeps at night, I just can’t.
I am disappointed with the tone of ++Fred’s pronouncement. If the Primate’s office had put in the same energy enforcing the moratorium with Ottawa, Montreal and Niagara perhaps we would not be where we are now. I suspect if Essentials avoided the word Anglican the Province would not be behaving so territorial. The Communion is a collection of autonomous Provinces with boundaries that have no secular authority. If the ACC does not accept my ordination I am saddened but then neither does the Pope and neither will impede my mission to serve God and his flock. Regardless of the posturing of the Bishops conservatives in the church believe we are not receiving fair pastoral care. With the shortage of priests desperate parishes are accepting liberal incumbents that have agendas beyond the parish’s sensibilities. I look forward to a new North American Province in full communion with all Anglicans, liberal and orthodox. I pray for our world wide community, we cannot serve God with this infighting but also we cannot serve God fully hampered as we are by our bishops. Allow us to provide a home for our orthodox convictions. But to treat us as ecclesiastical lepers is beyond the second Commandment,
My apologies to Wendy (25). I thought people would be interested in Ingham’s take on the matter. I see this has become a blog of its own above.
ELROY Said:
“Every effort has been made, both in New Westminster and across the Anglican Church of Canada, to provide space for genuine differences of conviction on non-essential matters of faith.”
Hello….anyone home. What about church doors being locked and Priests being fired in New Westminster…..This is every effor being made……Don’t think so Elroy….The theology of Inghamism has really infiltrated the minds of some to the point that thinking is twisted.
#29 – I don’t necessarily think Elroy was affirming what -Ingham said – just repeating it….
Remember folks, -Ingham has shown his colours. He’s a bully, and he is all about power, with a Christian gloss.
Mrs. Falstaff:
If ELROY was stating as you suggest, I apologize. If not, Then my statement would stand.
No kidding. I agree with you.
Elroy’s post is a copy/paste of Bishop Ingham’s letter.
Reponses to the conference from Bishops (including Bishop Ingham) are being followed in another string…
In recent months I have discovered that the ‘truth’ within Christianity is an elusive commodity.
If we as Christians cannot tell the truth; speak the truth and live by the truth then we may as well accept that the current catastrophic decline of Christianity will continue to the point where Jesus of Nazareth’s ministry and sacrifice for humanity was all for nothing.
The truth with regard to this particular issue within the Anglican Church is as follows:
1] Archbishop Ingham and Dean Peter Elliott have been driving the Same Sex Blessings [SSB] issue from New Westminster and Christ’s Church Cathedral in BC since the nineties. [Way before Elliott 'came out' so dramatically at the General Synod of the Anglican Communion in the UK a couple of years ago.] Elliott is now listed by MacLean’s magazine as one of Canada’s most influencial gay men.
2] A huge degree of hypocrisy surrounds the SSB issue. The Cambridge dictionary defines hypocrisy thus: “when someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time.” Personally, I have no issue with any person’s sexual orientation; however, when an Anglican priest holds strong opinion and indulges in activist behaviour using his [or her] position within the church regarding SSB and does not declare his or her sexual orientation that is hypocrisy. That is the truth, pure and simple.
3] The SSB issue has now arrived at a point where, as I predicted, the process of schism is underway within the ACC [as it is within the Episcopal Church south of the border]. There is more to this schism than simply issues involving the Gay and Lesbian community. Canadian Christians would be incredibly naive to think otherwise: it is about power and control; money and property; episcopal rank and privilege and much more besides.
4] The ACC has a recently enthroned Primate, who has very limited political experience: I refer to church politics. As a diocesan bishop in Nova Scotia and PEI Fred Hiltz did not display the qualities of leadership that were needed to reverse the process of decline within the Anglican church; in fact, I have a letter on file from Bishop Hiltz written in 2002 in which he denies that congregational depletion is a reality. His focus has been on fundraising, even shamelessly using the Indian Residential Schools issue to raise money for unconnected ACC causes, e.g. the cathedral roof, but certainly not innovation or restoration of the church’s position in community. The movement that Ingham and Elliott set in motion is now so convoluted and powerful that any possibility of reversal has long past and the ACC needs a Primate with incredible political skill to protect the interests of Canadian Anglicans and guide the ACC through the process of schism with the minimum of damage, pain and embarrassment. Fred Hiltz does not have the experience, nor does he have the advantage of neutrality because he is a firm open supporter of SSB.
Fred Hiltz’ 2008 New Years sermon goes futher and highlights his incompetence. For those who are interested here’s a link to my rebuttal: http://www.abbacanada.org/letter.html
Rev. Malachy Egan
National Pastor and Bishop
Abba Ministries of Canada