Bishop Pitman writes to his clergy
Jan 10th, 2008 by Peter
I’d point you to an interesting article in the Star this morning (h/t Drumroll). I’ve copied both it and the Bishops letter below.
It appears that in at least one diocese clergy are not going to be afforded time to consider where their future should lie, rather they are required to choose between the Network and Diocesan relicensing as of 21st January.
Of course, this is a decision that will need to be made sooner or later by all clergy. However, forcing the issue now comes across as an institutional attempt at control. I think it is unlikely to lead to a lot of goodwill, whatever clergy decide, and could even backfire.
The News article:
Anglican clergy told to declare loyalties
Nfld. bishop orders ministers to meeting
January 10, 2008
Stuart Laidlaw
Faith and Ethics ReporterIn what could be the start of real schism in the Anglican Church, a Newfoundland bishop is demanding clergy come to the provincial capital to declare whether their loyalties lie with him or his predecessor, the leader of a breakaway conservative movement.
“Attendance at these gatherings is mandatory,” Cyrus Pitman, bishop of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador warns in a Dec. 18 letter to clergy obtained by the Star.
Clergy from Eastern Newfoundland’s 33 parishes are to be in St. John’s on Jan. 21 to restate their ordination vows and to get new licences, with a date for those from the six Labrador parishes yet to be set.
Clergy need a licence from the church to minister to a parish or perform marriages.
Anglican clergy are expected to face more pressure as divisions in the church widen, a top figure in the conservative Anglican movement internationally told the Star.
“We are going to start to get that kind of loyalty pressure everywhere,” said Rev. David Roseberry, who made headlines in recent years after pulling his Dallas parish from the U.S. church over disagreements about gay clergy and same-sex marriage.
A spokesperson for the Newfoundland diocese was not immediately available.
The move was made necessary, Pitman says in the letter, because of efforts by the Anglican Network in Canada – led by the bishop’s own predecessor, Don Harvey – to break from the national church and establish a parallel institution along conservative theological lines. A perceived liberal drift in the church and recent controversy over same-sex marriages were among the issues that led to the rift.
Harvey could not be reached for comment yesterday.
In a letter yesterday to Anglican primates around the world, Canadian Archbishop Fred Hiltz said the church in Canada has not yet made a definitive decision on same-sex marriage, and decried the work of breakaway Anglicans, who have allied with conservative church leaders in the developing world.
The original letter:
Diocese of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador
THE ANGLICAN CHURCH OF CANADA
The Right Reverend Cyrus C.J. Pitman, B.A., L.Th.
Bishop of Eastern Newfoundland and LabradorAd Clerum
December 18, 2007Her House in Order
In 1942 Bishop Philip Abraham issued his first Charge to the people of the Diocese of Newfoundland entitled, “Her House in Order.” With grateful acknowledgement, let that also be the title of this, my letter to you, my respected colleagues, in Advent 2007.When I was elected to be your Bishop in 2004 I was humbled by the confidence you placed in me to shepherd and lead this Diocese for the next few years. However, I was under no illusion as to where this journey might lead and the challenges that lay ahead.
As we continue on this journey together and face the challenge of living out our faith as Anglicans at this time in Canada, I wish to share with you some concerns I have and decisions that I feel are necessary.
Bishop Donald Harvey
I was saddened to have to inform you of Bishop Harvey’s decision to relinquish his licence to exercise ordained ministry in the Anglican Church of Canada. He served our Church well for over forty years, and for that we are extremely grateful. His decision to renounce his licence rather than to seek a transfer to another Province has implications for this Diocese of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador, for the Anglican Church of Canada, and possibly for the wider Anglican Communion.Invitations to those not holding the Bishop’s licence.
It is necessary for me to emphasize an old requirement in the Anglican Communion which, while often overlooked in the past, is from this day forward to be precisely observed within this Diocese: no one, absolutely no one, from another diocese or another Province is to be asked to exercise any ministry in any of our parishes except by the direct invitation of the Diocesan Bishop. In our own context, this includes licensed individuals from the other two dioceses in Newfoundland and Labrador. I strongly emphasize the importance of this requirement. This is not a new idea, but an old practice; and it is consistent with our diocesan and national Canons. The invitation can only be extended by the Bishop.Those contemplating departure
I value people’s individual conscience, and our Church has always accommodated a diversity of opinion. However, I would expect any clergy involved in the Network and working to the establishment of a parallel jurisdiction to the Anglican Church of Canada would do the honourable thing and resign their positions, relinquishing their licences to exercise ordained ministry in this Church as their leader has done.The Cathedral Chapter
As of December 31, 2007, I plan to draw the present Cathedral Chapter to a close. I want to thank the members for their contributions to the life of the Cathedral and of the Diocese. After due deliberation I will be appointing a new Cathedral Chapter at an appropriate time. The incumbents in the Offices of Dean and Administrative Assistant to the Bishop will remain in place.Licensing of All Clergy
I intend to issue new licences to all those who are ordained, to be done in the context of renewing our ordination vows. To this end I will be gathering all clergy on the island portion of the Diocese to the Cathedral on January 21, 2008 at 2 p.m. The clergy of the Archdeaconry of Labrador will receive their new licences at the Labrador Planning and Strategy Meeting, also in January. Attendance at these gatherings is mandatory.Special Synod
I am planning to call a special Session of Diocesan Synod at a date and place to be announced after Easter, with the theme, Setting the Course. It will be in Conference format, and meet on a Friday evening and Saturday. In the course of this Synod we will clarify and affirm our Ministry Plan and consider Congregational Development, setting the course for 2008 and beyond.In Conclusion
December 1, 2007, marked the third anniversary of my installation as Bishop of the Diocese of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador. On September 21, 2004, at my consecration as Bishop, this is what I said and this is what I signed, in the presence of a Cathedral full of people:In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, I Cyrus Clement James Pitman, chosen bishop of the Church and see of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador, solemnly declare that I do believe the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; I do solemnly promise to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Anglican Church of Canada; and I do pledge myself to render due obedience to the Metropolitan of Canada and to his successors. So help me God, through Jesus Christ.
I want to state clearly today that I will honour that declaration for the rest of my life, and remain within the fold of the Anglican Church of Canada.
As we draw close to the celebration of the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, let us remind ourselves that He was born into the weakness and disarray of our humanity, and in its midst revealed the Father’s love for all His creation. Let us pray for grace that we in our generation may be true icons of that love.
The Right Reverend Cyrus Pitman
Bishop of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador
The original pdf can be found here.
Bishop Pitman says
“In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, I Cyrus Clement James Pitman, chosen bishop of the Church and see of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador, solemnly declare that I do believe the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; I do solemnly promise to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Anglican Church of Canada; and I do pledge myself to render due obedience to the Metropolitan of Canada and to his successors. So help me God, through Jesus Christ.
I want to state clearly today that I will honour that declaration for the rest of my life, and remain within the fold of the Anglican Church of Canada.”
I have extreme difficulty with a couple of the statements made by the good Bishop in this instance.
(1) He says that he “solemnly declare that I do believe the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the word of God”
and then
(2) I want to state clearly today that I will honour that declaration for the rest of my life, and remain within the fold of the Anglican Church of Canada.”
Well, what will the good Bishop do when Same Sex Blessings and weddings take place in his Church in Canada…..it’s not that far away. How can someone say he believe the scriptures to be the word of God and then turn right around and say, “that’s alright, I’ll stay in the Church regardless, even if it has become a place of apostasy.
Drumroll, obviously you do not know of the climate which has beset the Diocese of Eastern Nfld and Lab since Mr Pittman’s appearance in the guise of a Bishop. This diocese is now, in principle, lying in its death pangs. Many of its clergy have deserted True Anglican Faith and practice many years ago and Mr Pittman will probably be the man to finish the life of the Anglican Church in Canada’s presence. Parishes are disintergrating, congregations are not supporting the total disrespect for Traditional Anglicanism and historic church buildings are in the process of being sold!
His letter does not surprise me in the least, and in fact, is not the first for him to issue. (Does anyone recall the Essentials meeting that took place at St. Mary’s, St. John’s and that same day Mr Pittman issued a letter to be read publicly from every pulpit denouncing the meeting?) It had been quite obvious on what part of the fence Mr Pittman was on, and we all know what Jesus said about being neither hot nor cold!
Too bad the Essentials group have missed the boat on Traditional Anglicanism, they could have had a very large following in the Eastern Diocese!
Michael, do you think a large following is what it is all about?
Warren,
Not at all…in fact, Traditional Anglicanism is a minority group in this liberal age and is frowned upon even by those who wish to consider themselves Orthodox such as the Global South grouping.
What I am saying however, is that considering the fact that +Don is from the Eastern Diocese, if the Essentials group were offering Traditional Anglicanism at its best (and I really do mean sticking with the Ordinal/Preface of the BCP as it is and not rewording to suit the feminist movement) then there would be expected a larger following of this group. With the happenings under Mr Pittman’s watch, it is easy to see so clearly that the ACC and AC as a whole has lost grip with its people and the awesome responsibility for mortal souls…Essentials offers nothing more than a forum for gay-bashing, not the Traditional Anglicanism which one is led to understand through its statement of “upholding the Ordinal and Preface” found in the BCP…
Again, as the Gospel had recorded, Jesus said you can not be lukewarm….either Essentials stick by upholding the BCP and Preface found in the BCP…not rewording to fit the modern winds which blow, namely feminism.
I find it appalling that my hard earned money that I donate to the Anglican Church of Canada can be used by a breakaway group to finance their private war against my church. If you want to leave the Anglican Church of Canada by all means do so, but please do so at your expense not mine. Many people everyday in Canada leave their jobs for new ventures but they do not expect their former employer to finance their new venture.
I do believe in honesty and integrity but I question some of the things that is happening with some of you today.
Please do, leave my church because I do not want to be associated with someone who is dishonest as some of you.
Bernie (#5) - even Judas was invited to the table.
Besides, no one can truly say “my church”.
Unless one is Jesus.
Bernie, can you give one example of where money you “donate” to the ACoC is being used to fund “breakaway groups”? Or, more generally, where there is any misrepresentation of how funds are being allocated in Network parishes? I only have experience with one “Network parish”, but I can assure you that the tithes and offerings given by the members of that parish are being spent in accordance with the budget formally approved by the members. I can also assure you that the Diocese gives no funds to that parish.
As you are a believer in honesty and integrity, I trust you will back up your claim (or retract it).
Warren, are any members of the breakaway group currently collecting pay checks from the Anglican Church of Canada? If the answer is no, then I will gladly retract and admit that I made a mistake.
Michael, thank you for your answer. If you could spend a few months at the Network parish that was such a blessing to me (a two-year “foray” into Anglicanism that God blessed me with), and participate in the lively bible studies and prayer meetings that I so greatly benefited from, you might soften your perspective. I suspect that I could worship in Spirit and in Truth in your church as well.
Bernie, I can only speak for the one parish I mentioned in my previous post. The staff are paid solely from the tithes and offerings given by the parish members. No Diocese funding is involved.
I for one am glad to see Bishop Pitman provide some clear direction and leadership. He has a Diocese to run and he is getting on with it. His letter is not hurtful, harsh, or anything else. His letter is the road ahead as he sees it. Those thinking about leaving do not need more time, they have had years. This is stand and be counted time, way to go Bishop Pitman! The Bishop is looking to the future. Those clergy that want to leave, do it now, stay, and your part of the Anglican Church of Canada. I think Bishop Pitman has been trying to remain silent during all this and not react to every twist and turn. There comes a time however when action is needed. Given that St. John’s is the home of Don Harvey it is only reasonable to expect that the time would come when the current Bishop would decide that the time was right to provide strong and determined leadership. As an aside, I head Geoff Peddle on CBC this morning and I thought he did a great job. Its looks like the leadership of the Diocese of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador have decided to step into the light and provide some leadership. Way to go!!
micheal:
You appear to me to be a bit confused about some things.
I do not see the Essentials I know of as being a forum for “gay bashing” and if that is what you see in Essentials, you have missed out somewhere. To me, Essentials is all about sticking to the Holy Scriptures, no more, no less. That could be your description of Traditional anglicanism couldn’t it? The big challenge our society has today is that everytime someone says anything that can be construed as a slant against the GLBT lifestyles, that is exactly what they scream out….Gay Bashing. Most unfortunate.
Bernie:
If you are going to make accusations about your church monies being paid out to support Essentials people (that is what you are saying, is it not?), perhaps you had better be prepared to name names and name Churches.
Geoff Peddles comments on CBC this morning, were, as Geoff’s comments always are, very low key and gentle. He was also whitewashing when he said that Bsp. Pitmans letter was very “pastoral”. What rubbish, Bsp. Pitmans Ad Clerum is a smack in the face to every Priest/Priestess in the Eastern Diocese.
The Ad Clerum is a paper that says Control, Control, Control. Make your vows “to me”………Make your loyalties “to me”. If Bishop Pitman intended to be “pastoral”, the Cathedral Chapter would not have been closed. The removal of the title of Canon is simple punishment against people (not one person) for standing up for something that he himself does not want. “Control, control, control”
I wonder who really wrote the Ad Clerum and who really suggested that it was what should be done?
Gleaming over the above comments, one does not have to wonder what is at the heart of the problem to which the Church as a whole faces. Simply put, tis nothing more than money and power.
On one hand, we have a select group of people that wish to form their own dominion, but yet as one write says, they still receive money from the national church body. How easy for any of us to fulfill 30 years of work under a guise of total obedience and acceptance, then to flip the page so to speak because we have the money to do so!
Then we have the Mr Pittman’s of the world, whose sole purpose is that they control situations and people. In an attempt to control his clergy, Mr Pittman is asking clergy to swear allegiance to him and his theology. I am sure that Mr Pittman will have some clergy swear allegiance to him because not to do so, would mean no pay check. Bluntly, nothing happens in any Anglican Church unless the almighty dollar is exchanged for what is supposed to be Jesus’ mission here on earth!
Anglican clergy have long said that sacraments cannot be bought…well take another look people, your money supports any and all to whichever winds that blow in any given diocese. The greatest prostitution is happening within a society to which people claim as being Christian, meanwhile we have men, women and children literally starving to death all over the world on every street corner, nook and cranny of God’s earth.
This great prostitution of blessed sacraments happens only because congregations think they need a clergy person who can say the things they want to hear, not what is Biblical, Traditional, Reasoning or even Anglican.
Tis time for congregations to take this power and money to use for God’s greater glory and not make a farce of that which is given to the spread of the Good News!
Maintain your self-righteous attitudes, your stained glass windows, your vaulted ceilings of majesty, but yet in the end, all people become of one size, six feet under!
Anglicans, take your stand against the wiles of the devil while there is time. Let’s recall the Anglican tradition and claim it all in Jesus’ name for His greater Glory!
One last point I wish to make clear:
Bishop Harvey was and still is much respected within the Diocese of Eastern Nfld and Lab.. If you choose to give the title of Bishop to Mr. Pittman without giving credit of over 40 years labour for the ACC which Bishop Harvey had completed, please omit to use the title Bishop for Mr Pittman as he has yet to have the Episcopal guts to stand up and be counted.
Bishop Harvey, I for one appreciate all that your ministry have done in the Eastern Diocese, it is sad that you cannot speak for the whole Traditional Anglican Church and stand firm upon the Ordinal and Preface within our BCP.
drumroll,
What do you wish to do with 500+ years history of not laying Episcopal hands on women? What do you wish to do with the Scriptures which point out against women in authoritarian positions within the Church? What do you wish to do with the Ordinal and Preface contained in the BCP?
What you do wish to do is to throw a slant only in the direction of gay bashing and not take a deeper look into the whole mess of Anglicanism today. The item which led to the hint of same sex “marriage” within the Anglican Church is because the circle was drawn wider in 1976, a circle that now will have to encompass anything and all things.
What the drumrolls of today want to do is to say ok to something which is in direct opposition to Scriptures, Tradition and reason but yet stand on that soap box and preach against a gay lifestyle. That smells of nothing more than hatred.
michael:
Your comments in #13 and #14 I agree with you 150% on Every word you have written. And you are absolutely correct, Mr. Pitman should be given no more title than Mr. Harvey…maybe even less. But in an attempt to be “nice”, perhaps I will call Mr. Harvey Bishop Harvey or Bishop Don as some will say and still call Mr. Pittman, Bishop Pittman since that is what title he carries, whether he is worthy of it or not remains to be seen and that will be determined only when he backtracks and shows enough courage to be one strong man instead of the weak one I see.
Do we have two small “m” michaels on this blog?
dear michael:
You are on a soapbox about WO, I’m not. I am also not against somebody being gay, if that is the lifestyle they choose: That being said, I personally (and I have a right to this opinion as you have a right to yours) don’t put the Ordination of Women into the same box that I put SSB or Gay Priests and Gay Bishops in.
If that offends you, then I am sorry, however, to me there is a large difference between the two. Perhaps you are right, if in 1976, WO had not happened, it likely would have closed the door to where we are today with SSB, however, I still see a huge difference. I have not seen, anywhere in the Holy Scriptures where it says that WO is an abomination in the eyes of The Lord ~ have you? If you have, please, do show me.
Now, with CCP (Common Cause) there is a partnership of ten or so different groups in North America, some against WO and SSB, some against SSB, Some against WO…..you get the picture…..the neat thing is ~ so far, they are agreeing that there is need for a new province of North America and it appears that they have agreed to be strong together yet to differ on some points. The only point that I see all agreeing on is Supremacy of Scripture. Definitions of that are to yet be determined…..comments?
Drumroll,
Thank you for your comments. I, unlike yourself, have had many dealings with Mr Pittman and hence do not chose to title him as Bishop. Technically and theological, a Bishop stands up for orthodox ism and that which is contained in scripture, tradition and reason (the 3 trademarks of what makes an Anglican such).
While Bishop Harvey does not stand up for the whole of orthodox Anglicanism, at least he is doing what the title is: a defender.
Mr Pittman on the otherhand, has used his lower “officials” to do his nasty work for him since he entered the office in 2004, not wanting to dirty his hands with trivial matters such as faith and witness. Mr Pittman deals with figures, the dollar signs that are written over the individual congregations to which keeps him and his mafia in the lifestyle to which they have been accustomed to.
With the advent of his letter to HIS clergy (and notice they are HIS, not His) this is another way in which Mr Pittman seeks to be King of his own dominion, regardless of who or what he injures on his way.
Mr Pittman is like so many more of these “bishops”, honoring a call to power more than the call to Faith.
Congregations, do you wish to subject yourselves to this false prophecy?
michael:
It appears that you have indeed had “more” dealings with Mr. Pitman that I have, however, I do know him and I have a feeling that we are both members of the (at the present time) same diocese. I might need to be corrected on that.
One thing that appears perfectly clear is that BOTH of us are not at all happy with the Anglican Church of Canada…..Oh dear, what shall we do…..I know….You and I both should continue doing what we do, the same thing Bishop Harvey is doing, be defenders!!!
I somehow have a feeling that it might still be to early to make a firm call on just what is everything in the Orthodox Faith that Bishop Harvey stands for. Perhaps it will turn out to be more than we know.
I could not have described Mr. (bishop) Pitmans activities in the Eastern Diocese any more accurately that have you. Yes, it is the ones that he calls HIS that do his dirty work, and they do it with a smile on their face as the knife twists in your back…..goodness, did I say that?
#11 Brendon - I disagree. They have not had years, rather only since November has an offer of alternative juristiction been on the table.
Far from everybody has their mind made up on the direction they should be going, many are still undecided. Hence while, as I have acknowledged, Bp Pitman is indeed entitled to force people to make a decision now, whether that is a wise course has yet to be seen. Certainly, it smacks of an attempt at institutional control.
In # 18 above, michael said:
“Congregations, do you wish to subject yourselves to this false prophecy?”
Great question michael…….here’s my question:
“PRIESTS, do you wish to subject yourselves to serving a Church that is teaching false prophecy, apostasy and money?”
It is a given that this blog is read by a great many more people than are making comments on it. I would like to hear from some Priests on this……
Where are you??
Drumroll!
LOL you took the very words from my mouth and brain! Twisting the knife, now that is the picture indeed…
We can laugh but really tis a sad sad state of affairs. All people really need is the Peace that Passes all Understanding and we will only get that by seeking Peace through His Word and not the modern winds which blow, whether it be feminism or gay activism…
Unlike yourself, I have walked away from this schism and utter trash which is called the ACC a couple of years ago. Thanks be to God I have found refuge in a very little known but traditional Anglican Church upholding the 39 Articles, creeds, Faith and belief found in the BCP.
Wishing you that Peace that Passes All Understanding as well.
Drumroll,
I am afraid that the majority of Priests which you ask this question to would answer in the affirmative. If there did not want to serve this apostasy, they would be not affliated in any shape or form and thereby we would see a larger flock of Orthodox Anglicans.
Again, it all depends on which wind that blows to which any given Priest, Deacon, or Bishop may follow.
Can we ask a question why the Roman Catholic Church remains steadfast even in the wake of so much upheaval with sexual abuse scandal? Probably may have something to do with the fact that they know what they believe and state it firmly. There is no such thing in terms of Theology, a division such as the AC found itself (and still does) over the laying on of hands to women. The official statement is that it is not part of their belief system nor can it ever be changed.
Strength of Faith is the measurement to which every part of the AC must tap into. Obviously, to belong to the AC, you can believe whatever you want to, from one extreme to the other…
I somehow have a feeling that it might still be to early to make a firm call on just what is everything in the Orthodox Faith that Bishop Harvey stands for.
Well, if it’s women’s ordination that is being referred to, he was pretty clear about that at the conference….
Mrs. Falstaff ~ Of Course, you are correct…
Yes, he is clear on that issue, even before this “conference” since he basically has “ordained” the majority of the women priestesses in Eastern Nfld and Lab….
Essentials offers nothing more than a forum for gay-bashing, not the Traditional Anglicanism which one is led to understand through its statement of “upholding the Ordinal and Preface” found in the BCP…>
I really have to wonder, Michael, why do you read and post here? You obviously have a church home that suits you. What is your motive for Essentials bashing?
Excellent write up in the National Post.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=230875
This report is from “Catholic World News” and in the article is a link to the “Western Star” (Corner Brook, NL) newspaper.
http://www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=4548
Drumroll
I think that Bishop Pittman must be very insecure to act this way
He sounds like a Bully to me
#27…Can’t take the heat?
The diocese issued a statement as a result of the media interest which looks to me like an attempt to soften and legitimize the original ad clerum: www.anglican.nfol.ca/News%20release%2001%2010%20081.pdf
For example, the ad clerum said “Attendance at these gatherings is mandatory”, but today’s statement says, the bishop “has invited all clergy … to gather”.
It also seems to be clear who ‘masterminded’ the ad clerum. Archdeacon Geoff Peddle, not Bishop Pitman, is taking media inquiries and answering questions.
Readers comments on today’s very good front page story in The Telegram (St John’s NFLD) are decidedly mixed: www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=97024&sc=79
Michael (#31), what heat you talkin’ about? You need to hang out with some reformed Southern Baptists - that’s real heat.
I did not realize this was an “exclusive” blog…wherein only those comments of Essentials members would be deemed qualifying…wow, just imagine what this Essentials church is really like under the guise of being an “orthodox” denomination with #27 involved!
Selective reading and the further deletion of some areas within the Holy Bible contradicts Revelation of Jesus Christ as recorded by St John the Apostle…
Apostasy, schism…everything else but the real McCoy!
Warren ~ I went for his bait already today and the thought finally occurred to me that small “m” michael is fishing. He/She wants to drag people in Essentials or others on the blog into argumentive discussions……let’s not let small “m” micheal or any others do that. Ignore him/her.
Wendy ~ I believe you are right.
It looks like Bsp. Pitman is trying to bully, but to tell you the truth, I don’t think he is doing the writing. I’m not even sure he is the real performer in this act. I have a feeling it may be a group of HIS people led by one or two Archdeacons/Deans/etc. who were not stripped of their Cathedral order titles.
I always felt that Bsp. Pitman was a really nice person and in his private conversations he is now saying one thing and then acting out differently (opposite) in areas where he can’t whisper.
This is so childish but so very hurtful to really excellent Priests in the Diocese of Eastern Nfld.&Labrador.
#35, could you explain what kind of ‘bait” I used on you specifically today?
nasty business this “baiting” and to demean someone on the basis of what you may or may not think he/she said is of course wonderful news to anyone searching for an “orthodox” Anglican flavour!…
This “fishing” I know not what you talk about…perhaps you could enlighten us with an explanation of that secular statement, we could fill in the blank spaces…
Seems as though more than Mrs F can’t stand the heat! LOL
Charity, people, charity please.
Drumroll, I think I know where Michael is coming from, but I don’t think he should simply be ignored. His nasty digs can be ignored, but he does bring some ideas to the table that I think are worth discussing (although they tend to drag the discussion away from the original post - something I’m probably guilty of, too). I think that one of the reasons why the ACoC is in the state it is in is because of a long-standing reluctance on the part of too many people to face issues of biblical authority head on.
Michael, if you were a little less confrontational in presenting your ideas, and tried to make your criticism a bit more constructive, I think there would be more willingness to engage with the “theme” you are repeatedly bringing to the table (I take this as advice for myself too).
I did a bit of Googling on Anglo-Catholicism, and it appears that WO is accepted by some Anglo-Catholic churches. I guess your part of the body isn’t unified either.
just for clarity, Traditional Orthodox Anglicanism does not necessarily mean Anglo-Catholicism. Anglo-Catholicism is just one expression of Anglicanism throughout its long and varied history.
There are Anglo-catholic expressions supporting female “ordination” as well as evangelical wings which does not.
What I am saying is that if a denomination claims to be orthodox Anglican and yet does not follow the 3 trademarks of Anglicanism, then in reality it is not Orthodox Anglicanism but rather a watered-down version.
Either the Essentials group stands by what it has written in their documents, namely that they affirm the BCP Ordinal and its Preface (traditional Orthodox Anglicanism), or else make claim that they are the “new” kids on the block. In essence, nothing changes from what is now within the ACC, only one item such as same sex “marriage” is causing a break-away. No matter how you try to twist and turn the article at hand, it is no different than what Mr Pittman is doing, just with a new slant. Power and money, tis a vicious circle and the only ones that lose out are the innocent congregations.
I find it very sad to read the angry and inarticulate comments by those criticizing Bishop Pitman. His diocese has been upset by the departure from the Anglican Church of its longtime former bishop. In consequence, he is asking his diocese to make a fresh start, beginning with the clergy. As a priest of the Anglican Church of Canada, and if something similar happened in my diocese, I would give full support to the bishop if he/she decided to do what Bishop Pitman is doing.
I also support the earlier comment about how few are following Bishop Harvey out of the Anglican Church. The break-away movement, which is much, much less than a “split,” a “divorce” or a “schism”–all terms which imply equality or at least large numbers, will, I strongly suspect, wither into irrelevance in a year or two as the Anglican Church of Canada moves forward on a policy of full inclusion at every level of all its members, gays and lesbians among them.
I could have worded my question better. I suppose what I really wanted to know, michael, is why you are so angry at the Essentials movement? The mere existence of Essentials isn’t preventing you from worshipping in the way you wish, as you have a church home; and if you are really interested in civil conversation this kind of language -
Power and money, tis a vicious circle and the only ones that lose out are the innocent congregations.
- which truly is slanderous, doesn’t help.
#42:
A case of the pot calling the kettle black..
Why are you so angry with the ACC wanting to include gay lifestyle when you (as a member of this Essentials group) support something which is contrary to Scripture, Tradition, and Reason as well?
#41 has a case in point…give the Essentials movement a few years and it will be withered into almost non-existence in the same fashion as the ACC..
The devil is running to and fro, time for clergy, congregations and people to get their act together….
Tis schismatic when a denomination departs from orthodox belief and practice…ACC and Essentials are the same crop of potatoes carrying the same disease…rot is terrible!
The following two “inserts” are from 31 DEC 07 on another subject on this website. Seems that the same conversations just keep taking place with small “m” michael…….I’m starting to get a headache from reading the same old arguments. Move on to something new michael, pleeeeeeese!
on 31 Dec 2007 at 6:16 am21
michael
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!
on 31 Dec 2007 at 2:48 pm22Warren
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.
Too close for comfort eh?
Like a moth drawn to a flame, I’m back. Michael, I agree with some of what you say, but your assessment of Essentials fails to account for someone like me. Two and a half years ago I shared the perspective of many evangelical Christians concerning Anglicanism; namely that, although a few true believers may remain, the ACoC as a whole is no longer part of the true church. God then providentially led me to a Network church where I discovered more vigorous belief than I had witnessed in many evangelical churches of which I was part. I now respect for orthodox Anglicanism and have found much I agree with doctrinally (I can easily sign on to the 39 articles). That said, my view of the ACoC as a whole has become much more negative and I have no respect for most of the leaders.
I have many family and friends, from pentecostal/evangelical backgrounds, who could find true Christian fellowship in the Network church I previously attended. The liturgy would be very foreign to them (and may make some of them uncomfortable), but I have no doubt that they would quickly see that the gospel was being preached with integrity and that the bible was honoured as the infallible Word of God. These same people would probably not last through a single service in many other Anglican churches (although I do not want to tar them all with the same brush). So, although you may see the ACoC and Essentials movement as being “the same crop of potatoes carrying the same disease”, I suggest that the vast majority of bible-believing Christians in this nation would not agree with you; nor would most Anglicans around the world. As I see it, anger about Essentials is a clear sign that God is at work.
In the eyes of the world, it could be argued that true Christianity as a whole is withering away in our nation, but I’m not going to put God in a box. His plan for the Kingdom will not be thwarted by the acts of men. The ACoC may wither away and die, or God may choose to bring revival. The Essentials movement may wither away, or it may flourish. All I know is that God will honour those who seek after His face, and who earnestly desire to be obedient followers of His son - even though they may face hardship and persecution in this life. At the final judgement, man-made church structures and hierarchies will count for very little.
The following two “inserts” are from 31 DEC 07 on another subject on this website. Seems that the same conversations just keep taking place with small “m” michael…….I’m starting to get a headache from reading the same old arguments. Move on to something new michael, pleeeeeeese!
Indeed, Drumroll. I’m not angry. I was very sad. Now, I just want to move on.
Warren:
Well spoken, Thank You.
There seems to be a tendency for some people to place all of the Conservative concerns an the same level. Personally “women being silent in church’ and the BAS is less than an issue than SSB and statements like those made by +Ingham about Creation and Easter.
The Diocese has a hold on pensions and rectories so I suspect a number of clergy will lie through their teeth, sign and then pray for forgiveness. Sooner or later there will be pension litigation and if that favours the priest you may see more ‘defections’.
This week I took the pointed stick and gave my diocese a good jab through e-mail and my blog. Thanks to IP tracking I know (reasonably) who reads me. Feedback = zero. They are willing to make great pronouncements about those at a distance but not go nose to nose in the parish. If you think I’m wrong, show me! We are facing the Anglican version of Baskin Robins, too many flavors, but perhaps compromise is on the way through Common Cause.
Perhaps Ocham’s Razor should be applied. If more people leave every day the reason should not be complicated to understand.
“All things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually correct.” The TEC and ACC are going the wrong direction and don’t understand why the train is getting empty.
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
Either the Essentials group stands by what it has written in their documents, namely that they affirm the BCP Ordinal and its Preface (traditional Orthodox Anglicanism),
Is it your contention that Essentials isn’t affirming the BCP Ordinal etc because it counts women priests amongst its members? What then, do you do with this:
Article 19 - The Church
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men
Would you bar women from going to church because Article 19 says that the Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men?
Whoops, messed up the italics again, sorry. I think you’ll get my point anyway…
#51:
Does it mention “men” as in “he”?…check the Ordinal and more specially the rubrics from the Preface on page 637, BCP…specifically “he” means male in the Ordinal. The word ‘men” which you pointed out from the 39 Articles is termed to mean all brethren…and that is brethren as in men, women, and children..faith believers…
The Essentials group say they “affirm” the Ordinal and Preface, yet blatantly have omitted the fact that they do not follow it!
Further to #51:
Just in case you do not follow the BCP, the Preface says (excerpt):
And none shall be admitted a Deacon, except he be twenty-three years of age, unless he have a Faculty. And every man which is to be admitted a Priest shall be full four-and-twenty years old. And every man which is to be ordained or consecrated Bishop shall be fully thirty years of age…..
The Ordinal has no place for inclusive language because the theology of Holy Orders is such that it cannot include females. To do so, there would need to be full agreement within the governing Church since it would mean a change of doctrine. As of yet, the AC still do not have that full agreement but yet parts of the Communion have been doing it for 30 years+….
Sounds like something which is happening again within the AC….except now the circle is enlarged due to the “ordination” and change of doctrinal principles allowing females so one cannot wonder why the AC is in the state that it is. Once a belief system is broken, allowances for deviations will take place…
Do we need to wonder further where this SSB is coming from?
Michael, I know very little of Anglican history and am curious as to your thoughts on why parts of the communion began ordaining women? Was there something else “broken” in the belief system before the first woman was ever ordained? Was every other jot and tittle in the Anglican rule book being faithfully followed, without argument, at the time the first ordinations of women occurred (as you have inferred)?
Warren,
To answer your question would require a whole night..but in a nutshell:
Hong Kong, 1944..first woman “ordained” by its Bishop. There is some indication that there was a need for an ordained person to fulfill a role due to the restriction within Japan. This was not valid within the other parts of the AC, but rather seen as a deparate act and no other part of the AC attempted to follow this Bishops’ decision nor was this “ordination” seen as being valid.
Skip ahead 30 years. 1974, USA..irregular ‘ordinations” by retired Bishops. This was not accepted by the AC nor the Episcopal Church, hence it was determined to be irregular. (This was a communion breaking event none-the-less) Canada followed suit in 1976 and England in 1994.
Why did this happen? Simply put, feminism was in the current stream of media attention and the Church was gradually being weakened by even weaker Bishops. (We see the same thing happening all over again as of late with the gradual acceptance of SSB…) pressure from women’s lobby groups and the further erosion of Biblical standards caused Bishops within certain provinces to ‘ordain” without the common consent of the whole AC. There are seven provinces who do not “ordain” women presently within the Anglican Communion…obviously, this was a grave communion breaking event and does carry today’s SSB in the same light…
How dare we discriminate against women and gay persons….That is the message being carried throughout the AC, and Essentials is just rolling along with the tide, oblivious to everything that has gone on before…
This is why I say that Essentials is not standing up nor affirming Traditional Anglican Orthodoxy…it is standing up against one little item which is definitely against Biblical standards, not to mention Tradition and Reason…
Tis nothing more than trying to put old wine into new skins…
Hong Kong and Japan are 2 different countries/dioceses. Not all women are feminists. It happened after much prayer during the war and a moratorium was respected after that.
Yes, and not all conservative Christians agree with michael, either. It is possible to follow the ordinal, BCP etc without descending into legalism, which is what I think insisting that presbyters must be male because they are referred to as “he” in the BCP is. (I am actually very familiar with the BCP, having grown up with it. I didn’t even know the BAS existed until I moved to Ottawa). Many people on both sides of the WO issue think that it is not a first order issue, and that it is something that Christians in good conscience can agree to disagree on. For an argument for WO, which looks straight at everything Paul says, I would suggest that you read “Why Not Women” published by YWAM Press.
michael, I suppose I should declare my bias here - when you descend into nasty comments, I tend to write off what you say. You will be taken much more seriously here, I think, if you don’t get personal. Also, one of the Network leaders is the godfather of my youngest son, so when they are accused of dishonesty on what I consider to be petty grounds, well, I am not going to let that stand unchallenged.
Many people on both sides of the WO issue think that it is not a first order issue, …(excerpt from #57)
Hmmmmm, now does not this sound just like Victoria Matthew’s lingo? SSM has to do with doctrine, but not “core” doctrine? first order, second order…..Vicky’s lingo and lingo of Essentials does sound so familiar!
Doctrine is doctrine, no matter how you try and shake the stick…Issues that pertain to the Episcopal Sucession is major, not some item which can be dismissed so easily in light of the liberal happenings and with total disregard of Scripture, Tradition and Reason.
When something as major as Episcopal Succession is upsurged, everything else which stems from that Succession can be challenged and indeed we are seeing the fruits of that with the advent of SSB…
(…that it is something that Christians in good conscience can agree to disagree on….excerpt from #57)
Your “good christians” (and I suppose that would include the Essentials grouping?) can agree to disagree on SSB and yet remain in effect part of the AC…truth….so why all the fuss Mrs F with setting up a new jurisdiction that is clearly against Canon Law of the AC? Why not agree to disagree and get on with your schismatic idealogy?
Probably because their is a hatred here that is so intense, so extreme that people would do anything to eradicate the gay lifestyle….Did Hitler die?
No, if the Essentials grouping were true to the Ordinal and Preface as it has written on paper, they would be looking past 30 years ago in history to see where its should be today and get on with the business of “coming out from among them and be ye separate”…instead you are playing russian roulette with the devil…
Probably because their is a hatred here that is so intense, so extreme that people would do anything to eradicate the gay lifestyle….Did Hitler die?
This is exactly the kind of language I was talking about. I have read many reasoned arguments from scripture to support WO. You can’t do that for SSB, which is why SSB is a first order issue, and WO isn’t. Since you can’t seem to be able to discuss this without descending into slander, I will cease to engage you in conversation as of now.
Slander: words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another
(Web dictionary)
In order for my words to be taken as slanderous, one would have to prove that the Essentials platform is not built on a hatred for the gay lifestyle.
Since the only agenda the Essentials does have is to ban SSB, we (the public) can only read further into that and say that there is blatant discrimination (in other words, hatred). If however they had taken the position which is traditional, scriptural, and with reason and restore the Church to its roots, it would have a case.
“I have read many reasoned arguments from scripture to support WO. You can’t do that for SSB, which is why SSB is a first order issue, and WO isn’t.” (excerpt from #59)
Apparently Mrs F, you are not acquainted with modern theology texts in use throughout the AC (and the last I heard, the Essentials is considered part of the AC). Well may it be that those texts are of the “liberal” side, to suggest you have read arguments from scripture to support female “ordination” is to deny what is happening to theological institutions and have been since the first canadian female “ordinations”…I suggest that if you really want to place an argument for “priestesses”, you have to agree to SSB since both are of the liberal theology that is so pervasive in learned institutions.
Dismissal of a person is surely a mark of the Holy Spirit indwelling! Well done Mrs. F, for showing the true colours of your group…narrow-minded and filled with a hatred that can only be equated to that of the nazi regime.
To the moderator: If you choose to delete my comment below, I will understand.
To Michael: I have been one of the more tolerant commenters on this blog with respect to your harsh criticism of Essentials and the Network. I believe that it is legitimate to raise questions about women’s ordination (WO) and that we should all prayerfully search the scripture for the truth. There has been a growing witness in my spirit, however, that you are someone far different than you have represented yourself as (although you could probably say that you have never technically lied about who you are).
To be very blunt, I consider you a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I believe that you support both WO and homosexuality, and that you post on this blog for the sole purpose of stirring up dissension and disunity. If the desire of your heart was to truly call God’s people to a clearer understanding of the truth, your harsh tone would be palatable (to me at least). However, I now believe that your motive is sinful and that you are trying to distort and twist the truth. Do you call Jesus your Lord and Saviour, and have you yielded your life to Him?
I am not suggesting that you are more sinful than I am (you may be a nicer person than me in many respects), but you seem possessed by a root of bitterness that is not characteristic of someone whose sin has been covered by the blood, and who understands God’s grace. I will pray that God opens your eyes to the truth and that His grace will wash over you.
My Dear Warren,
Prophets of old had been taken in the same light as you have taken my words, so I praise God that I can offer all I can to bring the wandering back into the Fold.
wolves’s in sheep’s clothing: As you know very little of my background, and obviously have read my comments, I stand on all I have said. I am dubious as to why you would think I am in support of either female “ordination” or SSB as I have spoken clearly of the traditional Anglican views, and neither stand from that which I uphold.
What I do uphold is the Faith that was Once delivered, and that which is professed in the 4 Councils, 39 Articles of Faith, 3 Creeds, and mostly by the testament of the Gospel.
Any one group who, on one hand is professing adherence to the Ordinal and Preface as found in the 1962 BCP but which clearly change it to suit whatever modern winds which may blow, (namely female “ordination”) is no better than those who say they are Anglican but yet want to change the Table of Kindred and Affinity as found in the BCP (page 562)…
Does that make my thoughts any clearer?
Tis strange that you would lump sinfulness with niceness! Are you suggesting that the nicer person is a more sinless person?
Now it is I who wonder where your Faith lies!
Let’s drop this now. Topic closed.
[…] NO-O-OBODY EXPECTS… Anglican clergy told to declare loyalties. 1 Kings 19:18 and Romans 11:4 come to mind. MCJ handles the matter. The CBC flings some mud on the […]