From Anglican Mainstream
Rev’d. Ken Harding, Athabasca, Alberta, CA
In most of our cases (certainly mine) the same families have built successively on our church sites for generations. In my case it was a tent first, serving the natives and the fur trappers, then a log church built on land donated by the Hudson’s Bay Company, then a clapboard church, then a cinderblock and concrete building. Generations of work and emotional investment have gone into those buildings, and the history is recent enough to still be relatively current in the stories of the community. To walk away from all that is undeniably difficult because these buildings are not just deposits of institutional history, but of very personal history, and given the significant proportion of elderly among my congregation it is perhaps unreasonable to expect the community to walk away, or to divide. They don’t and won’t accept the ACoC position on matters, but neither will they leave their building and the pew they have sat in for the whole of their lives or abandon old Mrs. Soenso whose grandfather chopped the logs for the church, whose uncle sawed the lumber, whose husband helped build the church. Trying to uphold the validity and jurisdictional appropriateness of the leadership and ministry of Bishops Harvey and Harding seems important to me, given these considerations. It’s not just a matter of theology, or of politics, but of helping to make clear the claims on our richer, deeper Anglican heritage.
A number of statements have been made by bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada regarding the ministry of Bishops Harvey and Harding who are now serving under the Primatial authority of Archbishop Gregory Venables and the extended jurisdiction of the Southern Cone. Statements have also been made by some of them regarding the validity of ordinations and the ministry of those who may subsequently be received into the Province of the Southern Cone.
Quote: » Bishop Ingham said he has also written to the two candidates “to say that their ordinations, if they proceeded, would not be recognized within the Anglican Church of Canada or within the Anglican Communion.” « (Source “Bishop protests unauthorized
ordinations”, Marites N. Sison, Anglican Journal staff writer, Nov. 20, 2007 http://www.anglicanjournal.com/100/article/bishop-protests-unauthorized-ordinations/)
Quote: “When any member of the clergy relinquishes the exercise of ministry, he or she relinquishes ministry in the entire Anglican Communion.” (source Retiring Bishop Victoria Matthews, “Pastoral Letter” to the Diocese of Edmonton, Nov. 23, 2007)
Quote: » “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.” « (Source “Pastoral Letter” from the Primates and Metropolitans of the Anglican Church of Canada, Nov. 29, 2007)
It seems to me that these statements are reactionary, made without adequate reflection on the tradition, history and theology of Anglican ordination. As such it seems to me that they serve more to confuse and to harass than to inform or to provide pastoral care and wisdom.
There are two distinct issues here. The first one is the question of validity, and the second one is the question of jurisdiction. Regrettably, in these comments the bishops have mashed these two distinct issues together and have thereby increased the confusion for Canadian Anglicans. I wish to attempt to clarify some of this confusion.
Anglican orders historically are valid and in correct apostolic succession because they have been passed down unbroken from validly ordained and consecrated bishops to validly ordained and consecrated bishops from the undivided Church to the present. In the midst of exceptional circumstances during the time of the Anglican Reformation concerns about jurisdiction took a back seat as exceptional measures were taken to respond to the exceptional circumstances and the urgent needs of the Church. This becomes our model for the present exceptional circumstances.
In traditional Anglican ordinations clergy are ordained into the Church, period. That is the official wording of ordinations in the BCP of every Anglican jurisdiction. As I was told during one ordination retreat, this means that all ordinations are valid throughout the Anglican Communion, because we are ordained into the whole Church. The Anglican Church of Canada (in those bygone days) was acting validly and rightly as an agent on behalf of the entire Communion, and the bishop (Reginald Hollis in my case) was acting as a valid representative of the whole Church. I was solemnly told that my responsibility was to the whole Church and that I would be accountable for my vows to the whole Church as well as to Christ Himself as the Head of the Church. It was clearly and solemnly stressed that I was not simply accountable to my diocesan bishop, nor even to the Anglican Church of Canada, but to the entire Communion from which my diocesan bishop derived his validity. (I draw attention to the Windsor Report ¶124) It appears to me that some bishops have lost sight of their responsibility to the whole Communion and to the Church entire and choose instead to see no farther than their local situation.
It is my understanding that Bishops Harvey and Harding relinquished their ministry in the Anglican Church of Canada, but not in the Church as a whole. Bishops Harvey and Harding did not renounce their vows or terminate their service to the Church, they remain validly ordained and consecrated bishops. Bishops Harvey and Harding correctly and appropriately transferred from one jurisdiction to another within the Anglican Communion in order to keep their vows more faithfully and to perform their episcopal ministry more effectively.
The Anglican Church of Canada is a jurisdiction whose status within the Communion has been reduced by the request that it voluntarily withdraw from the Anglican Consultative Council, one of the four instruments of unity in the Anglican Communion. The request to withdraw from one of the instruments of unity was made because of Canada’s departure from the Communion’s standards of belief and practice and because of the unrepentant attitudes of the Canadian Church’s governing bodies. It is a strong message that we are not in full and good standing in the Anglican Communion.
This request has been accompanied by clear statements from a number of the Communion’s Primates that they and their Province are in a state of broken or impaired communion with us.
Bishops Harvey and Harding validly transferred from the jurisdiction of the Anglican Church of Canada into the jurisdiction of the Southern Cone in order to serve Anglicans who can neither accept the Canadian Church’s departures from the Communion’s official standards of belief and practice nor abide the reduced status of the Canadian Church within the Communion. By doing this Bishops Harvey and Harding provide valid episcopal ministry to Canadians who wish to remain in full communion with Anglicans throughout the world and who wish to maintain the official standards of belief and practice of the Anglican Communion worldwide. Any ordinations or any other Episcopal ministry performed by Bishops Harvey and Harding are therefore valid.
This brings us to the question of jurisdiction. Under normal circumstances all bishops (except some Primates) serve primarily as the spiritual leader of a diocese. The diocese is the geographical and jurisdictional region within which a bishop exercises their ministry and authority. Under normal circumstances no bishop crosses uninvited into another’s jurisdictional region to exercise any ministry or authority. However, for the past several years we have had ample evidence that we are in the midst of extraordinary circumstances and that given these extraordinary circumstances special measures must be taken. These measures were not taken lightly or frivolously, but only after many unsuccessful attempts over a five year period to address the underlying matters and only after long and serious deliberations about possible solutions at the highest levels of the Communion.
The circumstances are indeed extraordinary. Without reviewing at length what has already been well established it suffices to remind readers that in 2003, 2005 and 2007 the Meetings of the Primates, another of the instruments of unity in the Communion, all noted that the Anglican Church of Canada had departed from the standards of belief and practice upheld by the Anglican Communion, as did the Communion’s Windsor Report, released in 2004. Those standards were established by the Communion at Lambeth, another of the instruments of unity in the Communion, in 1998, and those standards have been repeatedly articulated and upheld at every subsequent Meeting of the Primates as they addressed Canada’s departures from those Communion standards.
At those Primates’ Meetings Canada was urged to refrain from what they were doing and to return to the traditions and standards of belief and practice of the Anglican Communion. Each time Canada signalled its disrespect for the Anglican Communion by continuing to pursue their innovative agendas. From a Canadian perspective these circumstances are all the more dire because the constitutional and foundational statement of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Solemn Declaration (BCP viii) requires that the Anglican Church of Canada remain in full communion with “… the Church of England throughout the world…” (meaning the Anglican Communion) and uphold the standards of doctrine and practice of that Communion. Since we have been found to have departed from the Communion’s standards of doctrine and practice, asked to withdraw from one of the instruments of unity (the ACC) and since a number of the Communion’s Primates have declared that they are in broken or impaired communion with the Anglican Church of Canada we are in some degree in breach of our own constitutional statement.
This is certainly an extraordinary set of circumstances. The fact that Canada has ignored the repeated requests to return to the standards of doctrine and practice held by the Anglican Communion and the clear indications that our behaviour has imperiled the unity of the Communion has caused great distress to many Anglicans within Canada and across the Communion. Many Canadians feel that they can no longer serve with faithfulness and integrity in a jurisdiction which has so flagrantly departed from Anglican orthodoxy. This, combined with mounting evidence that the Anglican Church of Canada has no intention to return to the Communion’s standards of belief and practice, has prompted an extraordinary response from the Communion. With the support of Primates representing a majority of the Communion’s membership several Primates extended their jurisdictional authority and episcopal oversight to distressed Anglicans in Canada and the United States. The actions of those Primates were and are irregular and extraordinary, but they were and are valid. They were made necessary by the actions of the Churches in Canada and the United States who departed from Communion norms and practices, and by the inaction of their bishops when they were called upon to restore and uphold the standards of Anglicanism.
These facts are recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury, another of the four instruments of unity in the Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury agreed with and signed each of the statements made by the Primates’ Meetings which identified Canada’s departure from Communion standards and called for a return to those standards. In September of 2007 Archbishop Gregory Venables met and consulted with the Archbishop of Canterbury and presented a plan to offer a single extension of jurisdictional authority and Primatial oversight rather than continue with the earlier patchwork of Primatial interventions. While a consultation does not automatically mean that the Archbishop of Canterbury endorsed the plan, it is significant that after the consultation he is reported to have acknowledged that it seemed sensible. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2843228.ece)
The single extension of jurisdictional authority begins to tidy up the previous patchwork quilt and prepare for a new Anglicanism in North America which will be fully recognized by the instruments of unity in the Anglican Communion. The valid transfers of Bishops Harvey and Harding into the jurisdiction of the Southern Cone have been approved and even applauded by a number of the Primates. Since Bishops Harvey and Harding validly transferred out of a jurisdiction with a reduced status into a jurisdiction with a full status in order to more faithfully fulfill their episcopal ministry, and since there was full consultation with the instruments of unity, everything appears to have been done “decently and in order”.
All this being the case, there can be no legitimate argument against either the validity or the appropriateness of either the episcopal ministry of Bishops Harvey and Harding nor the ordinations on Dec. 2, 2007. There may be consternation amongst the Canadian and U.S. bishops at the uninvited crossing of jurisdictional boundaries, but those irregular actions were made necessary by the inappropriate actions of the Canadian and U.S. Churches and the extraordinary circumstances that resulted. They created the circumstances that brought about the irregular but completely valid actions of Archbishop Venables and Bishops Harvey and Harding. There was ample warning of what would take place, and both Canada and the U.S. were involved in all the meetings. It seems both shallow and hypocritical of them to complain now that the ministry of Bishops Harvey and Harding are unwanted; and it is patently untrue to claim that they are inappropriate and invalid. What may we conclude then of statements like those referred to at the outset? Only that they are regrettable, made in haste, in a reactionary manner, and do not stand up under close scrutiny.
Whatever gets you through the night!
Mark, it’s alright, it’s alright.
I started to write “it’s all right, it’s all right”, but I can’t go quite that far. As someone from an Evangelical background, I don’t get the whole thing about “instruments of unity”. It seems like a man-made creation to me (but then there is much I don’t understand about Anglicanism).
The comment to which my previous comment referred has disappeared. Alas, so has my feeble attempt at humour.
Warren, It’s back. Sorry, my mistake.
I’m sure many Anglicans (myself included) find much about Anglicanism hard to understand.
Mark:
I assume (that’s not a good word) that your statement “whatever gets you through the night!” refers to Rev. Harding’s written statement.
IF my assumption is correct, then I could expect that your comment was meant to be ‘somewhat of a disagreement with the statment written by Rev. Harding’.
I just want to say that I think his comments are right on the button (I would have said Mark, but then Mark would have thought I was being saucy). Harding’s writing is well thought out, his discussion about the different “instruments of unity” have made things more clear in my mind.
I want to say that I have great empathy for congregations like Rev. Harding’s……I suspect there are so many of them across this Nation that Primate Fred Hiltz would be shocked if he really knew of the undercurrents.
Unfortunately, the battle that is now unfolding must focus on the reasons why we are Christians and not on the Real Estate involved. For many in the Church, it is all about control. Control of the Stained glass windows, control of the $$$ which many don’t want any of it leaving the Parish for ministry in other places. Control of everything that Christianity does not stand for.
I am grateful that Bishops Harvey and Harding have taken a firm stand and helped with making the move to a Province that stands firm on Scripture.
Merry Christmas!
One day I washed myself up, put on a good clothes and shoes and went to worship the Lord I love; Jesus. If I didn’t have a way of washing up or: a good clothes to put on; or good shoes or even a sheltered meeting place…… would I stop worshipping and communicating with the Lord who Loves me and I love? Off course NOT !
The church building are just clothing and a comfort, in worshipping the Lord Jesus. Jesus and His gospel messiage is the reason for the Group and the Building to exsist. What’s all important is that we are in communion with Jesus. Communion with ourselves will be blessed when we get our focus off ourselves and on what’s Holy and right. Pleasing People will only leed us away from fellowship with Jesus and his truth’s.
Jesus has never failed to clothes his people or feed his sheep. Sometimes the grass is not so bright and green; or the wool isn’t as comfortable at times. Yet! Jesus is always their to comfort and feed us. When we follow the shepherd, we’ll notice other sheep by our sides in the pastures he leeds us into. And the worship songs are lively and bright when we’re doing it in the Love of the Lord. Hallelujah…
Jesus is the Reason for this Season; and Jesus is Lord of those who allow him and follow his gospel. Thank you Bishops Harvey and Harding for nudging us to keep close to the Savour and follow Jesus first. Garry
Jesus has never failed to give us conviction of our sins.(LAW was give to expose our sin). eg homosexuality is a sin. He forgives us and asks us not to do it again. {Not to celebrate it or share it with others.} Jesus will always ask us to turn from sin(Repent) and follow him. Garry
Garry: Right on!!!!! Thank you for using just plain old words, words that are heard by us plain old grass roots people. I like that word “roots”. I like the word “plants” also. Like some Churches will be within Canada, new church plants putting down roots. Some will be old parishes with old roots but brand new plants growing.
Right on Garry!! Christmas Blessings.
Hum, you got to wonder how long Bishop Don is gonna be able to hold his little road show together….While it was easy to rally behind the idea of not blessing same sex unions, I suspect that not having female preists is going to be the item that, in the end, will be the silver bullet that puts and end to all of this. The ACC just got to steer the course and wait for those that left to wise up and return……see the article below, looks like its all starting to fall apart already!!!!
Defectors from Episcopal Church Revert to Ban on Women Priests, “Continuing Episcopalians,” have become a thriving force in the City of Falls Church
Not only does it denounce homosexuality, but it turns out the new, Nigerian-linked association of defectors from the Episcopal Church, U.S.A. also rejects the notion of women in the priesthood, at least for the time being. This is the group that a majority of parishioners at historic The Falls Church voted to align with a year ago.
But while this group, which currently occupies the facilities at The Falls Church pending the outcome of a lawsuit next month, has stepped back from gender and sexual equality, those who did not vote to defect, calling themselves “Continuing Episcopalians,” have become a thriving force in the City of Falls Church. Gathering to worship “off site” weekly, they’ve most recently struck a partnership with a local non-profit to help disadvantaged families over the holidays that has been hailed by Falls Church Mayor Robin Gardner.
As for the defectors, the new so-called Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), described as a “mission” of the Anglican Church of Nigeria, held a ceremony in Herndon, Virginia, last week to consecrate four new bishops, all male and two from Nigeria. The ceremony was led by CANA head Rev. Martyn Minns of Fairfax’s Truro Church, another defecting congregation.
In his remarks at the ceremony, Minns said, “At this time, the Church of Nigeria, to which we owe canonical obedience, has no provision for the ordination of women.”
By aligning with the Nigerian church, therefore, CANA repudiated a decision taken by the Episcopal Church, U.S.A. in 1976 to permit the ordination of women.
Minns added, “I am fully aware that this is a topic of concern for many clergy and congregations throughout CANA and one that produces intense reactions.”
He said he’s appointed a task force to study the matter from the standpoint of what he called “two integrities” of the issue, namely, adamant opposition to the ordination of women, on the one hand, and an array of alternatives ranging from some diminished role for women in the leadership of the church to ordination, on the other.
“We will keep our promise to honor both integrities within CANA and fulfill our commitment to the full participation of women in the life and leadership of the church,” he said. “We will do so in such a manner that both those who are unable to support the ordination of women and those who embrace it will know that their position has been honored.”
But Minns did not offer any further clarification on how both opponents and supporters of the ordination of women would come away happy.
This new controversy over the role of women in the church follows on what was the original “cause celebre” that led to a spate of formal defections by a small number of congregations of the Episcopal Church a year ago. That originating cause was anger over the elevation to standing as a bishop of an openly-gay clergyman in 2003.
Meanwhile, Falls Church’s “Continuing Episcopalians,” those who voted not to defect, now number over 200 in their ranks and worship weekly at a fellowship hall of the Falls Church Presbyterian, across the street from The Falls Church, have grown their ranks and has partnered with Homestretch, Inc., a Falls Church-based non-profit dedicated to transitioning homeless families into stable living environments.
Over Thanksgiving, the “Continuing Episcopalians,” who have adopted the original name of their church, The Falls Church Episcopal Church, worked with Homestretch to prepare and deliver food baskets to a number of Homestretch families. For the Christmas holidays, F.C. Episcopal parishioners spend a day with Homestretch children shopping for and wrapping gifts for their family members. Parish families have committed to supporting six Homestretch families through the Christmas holidays and into the New Year.
Last week, Christopher Fay, executive director of Homestretch, accepted a $1,000 check from Neal M. Callander, junior warden of the F.C. Episcopal.
Robin Gardner, the mayor of the City of Falls Church, has been aligned with this “Continuing Episcopalian” group since last January. “My family and I began attending Falls Church Episcopal when it began meeting in January. The warmth, community and feeling of welcome surrounded us. God’s presence can certainly be felt in this congregation and we are blessed to be a part of this new family,” she wrote in a statement received at the News-Press this week.
“Falls Church Episcopal has become engaged in the larger Falls Church community, as well, and brings their spirit of giving to our City. They are a welcome addition and, as a citizen of Falls Church, I welcome their contributions to help those in and around Falls Church,” she added.
Steve, here’s a related quote that might be of interest:
It appears that the “local paper” that you took your quote from has an interesting history with orthodox Anglicanism. But then, you might not be interested in finding out the whole story.
Steve: Two statements were made on WO at the Burlington conference: (I quote as best as I remember)
By Rev. George Sinclair – We will ordain women, while respecting the consciences of those who dissent.
By Bishop Don Harvey – I thought George was clear yesterday, but to avoid any confusion, we will ordain women.
Any further questions?
Peter:
So, the can of worms (WO) is open again…..thought we weren’t going there anymore.
Er… Maybe I should have refrained? Sorry.
The article about CANA wasn’t completely correct, either. They are receiving female clergy into CANA. They will not ordain new female clergy (or at least not female priests) until they’ve undertaken a study process on the question, and worked out canonical issues with the Church of Nigeria. But they do have female clergy, and they have not decided against ordaining more. Indeed, their bishop has said that he is committed – as is the Network in Canada – to finding a way that both sides can live with each other in the same body. A difficult proposition, but you gotta give them credit for trying.
Mrs. Falstaff ~ I wasn’t referring to you but to Steve since he was the one that brought it up again. I think you were setting the record straight for him.
Also, I had thought that this blog was going to be more centred on what is happening within the ANiC and the Southern Cone as opposed to TEC and Global South at this time…..
If you want to read something interesting, go to Virtueonline and read the article about michael Ingham….here it is
THE LIES OF LIBERAL ANGLICAN BISHOPS
News Analysis
By David W. Virtue
http://www.virtueonline.org
12/21/2007
“The Anglican Church is passing through a time of controversy. There have been people praying outside the doors of our temples, people unable or unwilling to come in. Though we go in and out of our churches easily, offering quick assurances that all are welcome, these people fear they are not – aboriginal people wanting to tell us about their woundedness, gay and lesbian people asking for a blessing, young people seeking affirmation of their youthfulness, and many others.” — New Westminster Bishop Michael Ingham
As the Anglican Communion slowly comes apart, the lies of the left grow exponentially.
Consider the above statement by the Bishop of New Westminster Michael Ingham. The truth is there has never been a time when orthodox Anglicans have turned away anyone from its churches. The church is, among other things, a hospital for the wounded and sinners, not a home for the righteous or self-righteous. I have never seen an orthodox priest stand at the door of a church quizzing people about their sexual practices. That is a lie and a myth.
Ingham goes on to say this: “We could have turned away from these people. We could have refused to listen, refused to apologize, refused to acknowledge, refused to bless and welcome. And because we have not done that, because we have opened the circle of our compassion a little wider, and changed the tradition that kept them out, we are paying a price in turmoil.” He then goes on to say that his diocese “is facing up to changing understandings of human sexuality.”
That the church has made mistakes is hardly new. The aboriginal debacle being a case in point. The church has apologized and shelled out millions to settle the case. When it comes to homosexuality, same-sex unions and the like, we are talking about the received teaching of the church and the way people behave, something the church has every right to do, or it is not fulfilling its mission.
What has happened in this debate is that the people who have been, and are, marginalized, people who have not been apologized to or made welcome, are men and women who have renounced the homosexual lifestyle in Canada in order to be obedient to God’s law, traditional Christian teaching, and because they earnestly believe that such a lifestyle is spiritually harmful and eternally threatening should they persist in it.
Members of Zacchaeus Fellowship, Canadian Anglican ex-gays say that not all persons with same-sex attractions want these attractions affirmed. They are especially concerned for those whom they describe as “silent sufferers” in the pews. These are the many individuals who adhere to the traditional Christian teaching on sexuality and wish for the church neither to condemn them as persons nor to encourage them to act on those same-sex attractions.
What happens is this. When a homosexual or lesbian renounces the lifestyle they get accused of being “self-loathing” and “homophobic”, much like the Bishop of San Joaquin, John-David Schofield who renounced the lifestyle many years ago. In other words Ingham doesn’t want people to change, he wants them wallow in their sin and hopes and prays that God will either wink and nod or turn a blind eye to what they do. Then he hopes these same people will fill Anglican churches!
This is not happening. Even as Ingham offers up his thoughts on human sexuality and condemns anyone who opposes him as hate-filled and homophobic, his Diocesan editor Neale Adams announced this week that the diocese will see major closures in 2008!
Why then is the ratification of sexual sin not working? Why are people leaving the diocese in droves and why are orthodox parishes that have fled his iron grip flourishing in spite of his heavy revisionist fist. Mr. Adams even admitted that four more parishes could leave the Anglican Church in Canada including the largest single parish in Canada, St. John’s Shaughnessy next year!
Ingham said that last year a bishop in the Anglican Church in Brazil told him his church is doing something important for the whole of Christianity. Really. Does he know that the Brazilian Anglican church was started as a plant by the American Episcopal Church; that it is totally revisionist; and that it is not growing? They treated one of their own bishops (the Rt. Rev. Robinson Cavilcanti of Recife) so badly he was forced to leave the Brazilian province and seek spiritual shelter under the Province of the Southern Cone and Archbishop Gregory Venables! Where’s the inclusivity or diversity there? Who is ostracizing whom?
Liberals are so bent on supporting any wacky liberal cause, including bad sexual practices that come along that in the end they isolate and marginalize the very folk who have the ability to make churches grow – namely evangelical priests and their parishes.
Ingham believes that by promoting the “new thing” that God is allegedly doing by including everyone (except the orthodox) that people will come flocking into his churches. It isn’t happening. Any secular marketing person will tell you that once you deviate from your true mission you will, sooner or later, lose market share. If you switch or change mission statements mid stream sooner or later the horse you are on will drown. One has only to look at the attendance figures of dioceses like Newark, Pennsylvania, Rochester, NY, and Minnesota to see the slow decline and fall as people leave, the old die and the churches go on the chopping block and sold to saloons, trendy boutiques, and more often than not a start up independent evangelical church. But not, heaven forbid, to an Anglican group.
Another sad myth is that parishes are closing for demographic reasons. Bishops in Newark and Pennsylvania have made this argument. It is a lie. The Diocese of Pennsylvania is based in the growing Philadelphia area and mainline. The Diocese of Newark is within a stone’s throw of New York City and the Diocese of New Westminster is in the thriving city of Vancouver and environs. There is no excuse for parishes not to be growing in any of these cities. The reason they are not growing is that the priests and bishop have no Good News to proclaim. By contrast the Bishop of Dallas, James Stanton continues to make his diocese grow even though they lost 3,500 members largely through the departure of Christ Church, Plano. His churches grow because he and his priests have a clear gospel to proclaim.
Without an “exclusive” gospel to announce that offers folk a way to walk from darkness into light, the darkness only continues and will consume its own and the house will fall. The “come as you are, stay as you are” “gospel” isn’t working and liberal dioceses know it. That is what is happening in the Diocese of New Westminster. Adams believes the closures will somehow spark “new life” in the diocese, but not only is this a fiction there is not a scrap of empirical evidence that suggests it will. Adams is breathing a lot of non-aboriginal smoke right out his nostrils.
Ingham said a Roman Catholic priest he met commended him for his courage and said he believed that he and the diocese were acting out of the gospel, “and whenever the church acts out the gospel, he said, truth is released and so too is hatred.”
This priest, whoever he is, is not repeating his church’s teaching that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered” and people who practice it need pastoral help not affirmation. Ingham has shown a remarkable narrowness and hubris in finding one Roman Catholic priest to support his position. One doubts the Catholic archbishop of Vancouver would endorse that particular priests’ views. And as far as “hatred” goes, no one has shown more hatred towards Global South Primates and to fleeing parishes in this diocese than Michael Ingham.
Said Ingham: “An African bishop told me what you are doing is remarkable – some day we in Africa will have to come to terms with these issues too, and then we may need your help.” Really.
Clearly Ingham is not reading the missives being put out by the Anglican Primate of Nigeria and the vast majority of CAPA bishops who are saying the exact opposite of this nonsense. They are so incensed by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s unwillingness to discipline the American Episcopal Church over sodomy, they are willing to hold a separate Lambeth Conference next year because they don’t want to be seen with the likes of Ingham (and Gene Robinson) whose dioceses are slowly dying while African provinces are growing by leaps and bounds, with the Archbishop of Nigeria consecrating some 18 new archbishops alone in his province this year! By contrast New Westminster is closing down parishes.
The Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) with its 132 fast growing parishes is already bigger than the Diocese of New Westminster. CANA with its 60 lively, growing parishes will soon find itself as big as any of the largest liberal Episcopal dioceses in the US within the next 12 months, VOL predicts. And the Diocese of New Westminster will continue to slowly wither and die.
Where’s the win-win for sexual inclusivity? Where is the “new thing” we hear being touted and heralded as the new day dawns for a vigorous growing liberal church?
The truth is, it isn’t happening. Liberal dioceses are slowly withering and dying. One has only to read books by Canadian authors Ed Hird and Marney Patterson to know that. No brain surgery required.
Mrs. Katharine Jefferts Schori was watching as four (and possibly more) of her bishops fled to Rome this year, while four and possibly more dioceses will flee TEC this coming year to the protection of the Southern Cone, taking tens of thousands of faithful Episcopalians with them. Her bishops meet in March and they will carry on as though nothing is going wrong with a business as usual attitude.
It is blindness upon blindness. Worse, it is the blind leading the blind.
How long will we wait to learn that the first TEC diocese declares bankruptcy or announces a quick merger with another diocese to save it the public embarrassment of everyone
knowing that it can’t pay its bishop a living wage any more. The Bishop of the Diocese of North Dakota, a good man I am told, now works part time for the Diocese of Louisiana to help pay the bills. Only three of his parishes I am told can make a contribution to diocesan coffers!
Writes Ingham: “Births are always joyous events; they are also messy and painful. When God brings about something new, God does that through faithful and courageous people who are willing to be put to the test. The gospel is always breaking open in new ways, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through people who live at the margins, often those who live under a curse, a wound or a stigma, often those whose lives challenge accepted conventions.”
This is nothing short of spiritual adultery. To say God is doing something “new” by brokering sodomy into the church “under the guidance of the Holy Spirit” is both to mock the work of the Holy Spirit and to blaspheme the very nature of Christ’s salvific activity. We are all sinners in need of grace, demanding that we repent and practice amendment of life, homosexuals are no better or worse than the rest of us.
Ingham will have none of it, and at the end it is he who may well hear those words, “depart from me…I never knew you.” Awesome and terrifying words indeed.
END
There was so much ‘trumpeting’ in the article (comment 10) regarding the good works of the Episcopal congregation that I couldn’t help but think of this verse,
So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. (Matthew 6:2)
Take Care
The trouble is that the new Network group is set up to be the ACC minus homosexuality. By allowing for the ordination of women right from the beginning, anyone with a traditionalist conscience will write them off. My self included. I don;t know why they needed to make such a strong pronouncement so early in the game.
#18 – Have you made this point before using a different username? If you haven’t, I would suggest taking a look around this blog – the “point” you’ve made has been refuted numerous times.
Anglican to the End: as I pondered what you might mean by “traditionalist conscience”, the scribes and pharisees came to mind. But maybe you meant something different and would care to explain?
What a fuzzy line the Essentials grouping have drawn! Women “ordinations” or not? One sub-grouping will say no and another says yes, sounds like even more schism is in the process… Either they stand up for tradition, scripture and reason or they continue on this little pathway to schism-making…
One cannot help but wonder how many of these female “ordinations” individual Bishops have done and have to defend their previous actions by agreeing with it now…sweeping dirt under the rug does nothing for the Essentials cause…and some would say that these Bishops have thrown their consecrations to the wind “de facto” as they laid hands upon women……ordinations valid? not by the Ordinal!
Michael, it is clear from your several comments on this blog that you see women’s ordination as a grave error. To satisfy my curiosity (as someone who is not well schooled in Anglican tradition), do you put the “error” on the same level as denying the divinity of Christ, or rejecting the need for baptism and the Lord’s supper? Do any well-regarded orthodox Anglican theologians have a similarly dim view of women’s ordination (the only two I am somewhat familiar with are Packer and Stott)?
I’m also curious if you are an Anglo-Catholic? I did not even know that such a denomination existed until a year and a half ago, so I assume it is very small in Canada. If the Wikipedia article is accurate, I gather that Anglo-Catholics are farther removed from main-stream Anglicanism than are those who are part of the Essentials movement. If, in fact, you are an Anglo-Catholic, your reference to “schism-making” seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. However, I appreciate that you may be coming from a direction other than Anglo-Catholicism; in which case, I’m curious as to your broader views on what it means to be a follower of Christ in 2008.
Best regards for the New Year.