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.
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 [...]