At a meeting held last night, Anglican Essentials Ottawa said a new church for traditional Anglicans will open next month.
Following the conservative Anglican Network’s decision to establish a parallel new national Anglican church at a November conference in Burlington, a group of conservative Ottawa Anglicans plans to establish their own church in January.
At a meeting and information session held last night at the McNabb Community Centre, members of Anglican Essentials Ottawa spoke to about 35 people about their decision to start an independent church that “will soon come under the authority of the Network.”
“This would be one of the first of its type in the country, so it would have to be done right,” said Anglican Essentials president Tony Copple.
He said it’s hoped the new church, which will be located on the city’s west side, will be up and running by Jan. 6, 2008.
Mr. Copple emphasized that as of now, the church will not be called an Anglican church until it gets approval from the Anglican Network’s bishops to become a Network parish, a decision that should be made within the next few days.
The following is an excerpt from the whole thing.
(Most parishes in Ottawa, as do the majority of parishes in Canada, support some sort of blessing for same-sex unions.)
Correct me if I am wrong, but is the above not a false statement?
Who is the authority that would say that (“Most parishes in Ottawa, as do the majority of parishes in Canada,SUPPORT some sort of blessing for same-sex unions.”)
In addition to my previous post, I should say that it is likely that reporters and newspapers would say what they have, but isn’t it more likely that most Parishes in Canada as a whole haven’t got a clue what has really been happening in the Church. More like ostriches, aren’t we?
I think the people in Ottawa that are starting this new “plant” are showing wonderful courage and would go on to say, just watch that plant grow…….once the grass roots really start to understand the mess the ACC is in, it won’t be that long before the new “Parallel” church will be showing enormous growth.
I wish I’d gone to the meeting, now. I was at the Burlington conference, so I didn’t think there’d be anything new. I know the man who will be pastoring the church plant (if it is the one I think it is), and he’ll be wonderful.
I would agree with you, Drumroll, that most people don’t have a clue what is going on. Essentials needs to do some advertising, I think.
I agree totall with your comments that most people don’t have a clue to what is going on.
I think a lot of conservation clergy are afraid to speak out especially if their Bishop is Liberal in his thinking
Wendy: I think there is even more to it than what you have said. Maybe Parish Priests have even been ordered by their Bishop NOT TO ALLOW anything being spoken about in their Churches when it comes to Essentials or ANiC. It is all about control or losing control. Well, you know what….The Truth will set us free…
This is a courageous step by these folks in Ottawa.
Praise God for these people!
Please know that you are in our prayers.
I am glad to hear about another option for Anglican in Ottawa who want to move outside of the Anglican Church of Canada, although it is unfortunate that this will likely result in additional splits in parishes. It would have been far better, in my opinion, if Network parishes such as St. Alban’s were able to free themselves from the Diocese of Ottawa. But who knows at this point what the chances are of that?
I say “another” option, since there is already a traditional Anglican parish in Ottawa outside of the ACC – the Anglican Catholic Parish of the Annunciation, in Ottawa West. We will, unfortunately, end up with various layers of “orthodoxy” – those who hold to a traditional liturgy and priesthood, those who are liberal on these matters but insist on being free of a diocese and national church that promotes homosexuality, and those who hold to a conservative position on homosexuality but do not wish to leave the Anglican Church of Canada.
It is my hope that 1) if people want to be orthodox, they will desire to keep the orthodox Faith, wherever that leads, even if it ultimately means backtracking on various changes of recent decades, and 2) a way will be found to seek the unity of the church during this time. The most untenable prospect would be the perpetual existence of various splinters, in varying degrees of communion with each other. A way must be sought to truly move forward here.
Another reason why the December 18 Common Cause Leadership Council meeting is so very important.
Most people in the parishes have no clue what is happening. In our diocese, where +Malcolm was bishop they were shocked at the tone of the present bishop in practically treating Malcolm as an ecclesiastical leper. Perhaps the politician in me would have had a more pragmatic approach but the letter lacked any tone of Christ’s love. Although promised the text was never published, possibly in fear of being quoted out of context. ++Fred’s was not much better. Malcom is a friend and I know the presiding bishop and have met the archbishop. But I’ve met the ABC in 1974 and I don’t profess to understand their logic. I have no doubt we will plant a church here on ther prairies. The tension is rising as the orthodox Anglicans become more aware of the erosion from within and resist. Why won’t the Primate exercise as much energy disciplining +Ingram for ignoring General Synod? [\end rant]
I agree that most people don’t have a clue what’s really going on… and most also do not want to know. As long as things are fine in my parish, why would I want to get embroiled in controversy – very Canadian. I also know that many informed people in orthodox parishes are saying little rather than being accused of stirring the pot. However, we can be guilty by association, and controversy, which is as public as ours is at present, will deter new converts from joining us. I also believe this is a test from the Lord to see how we who feel “safe” will respond. The church militant seems to be either asleep or cowering in the trenches.
Michael wrote:
It would have been far better, in my opinion, if Network parishes such as St. Alban’s were able to free themselves from the Diocese of Ottawa.
At the Burlington conference, the Network parishes were asked to wait until annual vestry in February to take a vote on the matter, so bemoaning the fact that St. Alban’s is still associated with the Diocese of Ottawa is a bit premature.
Thank you for the clarification, Mrs. Falstaff. Perhaps, if parishes are waiting until February, people should wait a few months before launching new parishes in some cases, at least so that the prospects for such votes aren’t impacted. At the same time, one of the best things about Anglican realignment is the tremendous number of new parishes, especially when those parishes end up reaching out to those previously unchurched. Moving out of the established Anglican church can either be freeing in terms of evangelism and outreach, or it can simply create a fortress for the disaffected. So much depends on how these things are approached…
Ottawa has a population of over 1 million if I’m not mistaken and this new “plant” is saying it will be somewhere in Ottawa West…I ‘m thinking it will reach even to Kanata (Tony Copple). With the population in mind, I have a feeling this will not impact on St. Albans in any event. Maybe I’m wrong…but a million is a lot of people.
Prairie Words ~ I’m not at all shocked about your present Bishop’s attitude towards Bishop Malcolm Harding. I would expect that with Bishop Malcolm in your area to give some guiding “Light” that a plant will spring forth in your area. God Bless and God Speed.
Well…. the fellow who will be pastoring the plant currently attends St. Alban’s, so we will lose his family. Yes, the church plant that was announced is the one that Tony is organizing. I don’t think that it will impact St. Alban’s, but even if it did, church planting is one of the things that we want to be about. I think most people’s reactions would be “God bless you!”, and to pray for the people who are leaving to start the new church.
Mrs. Falstaff – and may God Bless You Folks at St. Albans. I am sure that prayers are going up for your parish every day.
Thanks – I didn’t mean to imply that losing one particular family won’t impact St. Alban’s – it will of course. (Sorry, B and S!!)
Michael (#7) wrote: “The most untenable prospect would be the perpetual existence of various splinters, in varying degrees of communion with each other.”
Michael, I assume you mean “untenable” from a traditional Anglican perspective? Many Christian churches meet their biblical mandates of providing opportunity for corporate worship, shepherding and discipling believers, and spreading the gospel, without being part of a hierarchical structure. Many of them also work cooperatively with other churches in reaching out with the gospel. For me, it is an easy choice between an “independent” church that is that is seeking to be faithful to God’s Word (as imperfect as it may be), and one that is part of an organized structure, but is deliberately straying from God’s Word. But, perhaps you mean something else by untenable?
Dear Warren (#16),
As a traditional Anglican, I see a commitment to the unity of the Church, at least to the greatest extent possible, as a fundamental part of being faithful to Scripture (such as the frequent NT appeals to unity, starting with Jesus and continuing through the epistles). In other words, either a “biblically faithful” church that exists outside of an episcopal structure (mandated by Scripture), or an episcopal church that is not faithful to other doctrines (the creed, the nature of marriage, etc.) are equally unacceptable. The Christian faith is not set out for us in Scripture as a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. We are called to be faithful to everything.
The best approach to this is still that of Carmino de Catanzaro (sometime priest in the Diocese of Ottawa, later the first bishop of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada), who wrote that “Because we believe in Jesus Christ, we believe in the Bible… Because we believe in Jesus Christ, we accept the Creeds… Because we believe in Jesus Christ, we accept His commandments… Because we believe in Jesus Christ, we believe in His Church… Because we believe in Jesus Christ, we believe in His Sacraments… [and] Because we believe in Jesus Christ, we believe in the sacred Ministry…” He outlines the implications for these affirmations, especially at the end where he says that “We do not wish to be another sect of Christians. On the contrary, we rejoice that so many believe what we believe and want to be as close to them as possible. We desire to be at one with them in the one Christ, the Son of the living God, risen, ascended, and glorified.”
The Church must remain absolutely faithful to every part of the Christian faith. We aren’t free to change parts of it, since it is (most fundamentally) a unified whole. Any change impacts significantly on every other aspect of the faith. And one of these most important aspects is that the Church must be one.
So, in separating ourselves from those who depart from the historic faith, there must be every effort made to ensure that we do not become simply another little group, but that there is a commitment to the fundamental unity of all Christian people who do hold on to said historic faith – and we must seek to form ourselves in it fully at any cost. It is a pearl of great price.
The role of bishops in the NT is very different from what their role has evolved into today. I don’t think it follows that a church without an episcopal structure is defacto unbiblical.
Michael, although I spent a couple of years in a wonderful Anglican church where I was blessed and grew spiritually, I am not an Anglican (just so you know where I am coming from). Your post brought to mind KJV-only Christians, with whom I have had some contact. Although I deeply respected them for their sincerity of conviction and did not question their salvation, I still thought they were wrong. I have lived in many places, and have been part of many churches of different evangelical denominations. Despite the “labels”, the people in these churches loved Jesus and their neighbours, strove to be biblically faithful, shared the gospel with enthusiasm, trained up their children in the things of God. I know they didn’t get all the details right, but, for the most part, they had their priorities straight. I know the bible places strong emphasis on the unity of believers, but, as a protestant, I don’t believe that all individual bodies of believers need to be part of the same hierarchical structure. It is quite possible for me to be in Christian unity with a believer from a church of a different denomination than mine (hopefully I can be in unity with you), and yet have no unity with the person sitting beside me in the pew. It is at the individual level where the rubber hits the road for me.
Warren: This is from #19 above..
“Your post brought to mind KJV-only Christians, with whom I have had some contact. Although I deeply respected them for their sincerity of conviction and did not question their salvation, I still thought they were wrong.”
I’m not attempting to start some kind on war here or anywhere else, but I would really like you to define for me, exactly what, in your logic is a KJV-only Christian? What do they think? What do they look like? What is their Christian Faith? What are their values?
What makes them different from an NASV-only Christian or a NIV-only Christian?
Thanks for taking the time to answer me.
Blessings….
Drumroll, after posting my comment it hit me that my reference to KJV-only Christians might sound cryptic to those who have primarily frequented Anglican circles. There are a small but significant number of independent Baptist churches (loosely affiliated) that hold, as a matter of doctrine, that the KJV is the only valid English translation of the bible. My children went to a Christian school for two years that was operated by one of these churches and I got to know several of the members. They were fine Christian folk, and I admire the depth of their conviction, but I could not have become a member of their church unless I would have agreed to this doctrine. There are more extreme elements within a few of these churches who even question the salvation of anyone who uses a translation other than the KJV (because it was the bible that Peter and Paul used!). I guess what makes them different is their total inflexibility on a matter that most protestant Christians would not even consider to be doctrine – let alone fundamental doctrine. I can say with confidence that you will not find any NASV-only or NIV-only Christians in evangelical circles. Hopefully this helps.
Warren: Thanks for your comments back to me.
I personally prefer the KJV as my Version for a few good reasons.
1. It is likely one of the oldest versions that we have the use of in the English Translations which may have a tendency to cause it to be somewhat more accurate.
2. I personally like the old english of “Thou” and “thine”, etc.
3. I have done considerable research into comparing different versions and I find it incredible how the newer versions have left out certain portions of Scripture (including the last portion of the Lord’s Prayer). There are many, many areas where the different versions give totally different direction. All this having been said, I can understand why people find the NIV easier to read AND it is.
But is it always accurate? That is my question.
People in the Bible Society will defend the use of all the different versions as it encourages us to research…Well, most people do not have the time to research n’or do they have the money to be buying all the different versions.
Herein lies the quandary – Which one gives the best direction? Each person must make their own decision, but I know which one I prefer.
Does this mean I am or am not an evangelical? I think not!
Do I feel that all must have the KJV to be a member of my Church, that is not my decision to make. It is not a doctrinal thing but more a personal preference.
I do feel this way though, I don’t hear of many who are on the “liberal” side of the fence wanting to hear the Scriptures from the KJV..- why is that? Does the KJV strike to close to going against the beliefs of the revisionists and the liberals. Maybe ~ again not my decision, just a thought.
Warren, I feel you are being a tad judgemental about those who use the KJV. Certainly there are some Churches who are adamant about it, but saying that one cannot be a member of that church if they don’t read the KJV would I think put that Church into a category that I do not want to be eveloped by.
Blessings,
Drumroll, I grew up with the KJV and have several copies in the house. I still read it, as well as other translations (my current preference is the ESV, but I also like the NASB and NIV). I have no argument with those who use the KJV as their preferred translation. My only argument is with those who insist that it is the only valid translation. I apologize if my earlier comments were not clear.
I know some of the people involved with the new church plant in Ottawa and agree with the sentiment you expressed in your earlier comment (#2). If I still lived in Ottawa, I would seriously consider attending the new church. It is exciting to be part of a new work of God, even if there are sacrifices to be made.
Just wanted to let folks know that the Church plant in Kanata has gone ahead. We just had our first service, and it went quite well. There were 17 people out, which is more then expected, and we had a wonderful time whorshiping together. Just thought some of you would want to know.
your fellow unworthy servant in Christ,
Brian