From the comments (thanks, Gerry!):
Tomorrow, Sunday the 25th of May at 10:30 AM Newfoundland Time, the first Service of the new ANiC Parish of “St. Stephen the Martyr” will be held in St. John’s, Nfld. at the Adventist Church, 20 Aldershot Street.
The new Rector is Reverend Howard Hynes (formerly of St. John The Evangelist, Topsail, Nfld. ACoC) and Bishop Don Harvey will be present to conduct the service and licence Reverend Hynes under ANiC. Hallelujah!
…and that’s the way it is supposed to be!
I praise God for Rev.Howard Hynes. It brought tears to my eyes sunday morning this Man has been through so much yet it’s so easy to see the light of Christ just shining through.Like Job yet though He slay Me yet will Iserve Him That’s Howard .I’ve been a Member of this church for 60 years and I Believe God is on the move!His Spirit is being poured outaround the Earth,and multitudes are being ushered into the Kingdom even in the midst of divine Judgements,Shakings,and purgings,there are sign’s ofRevival at hand.Ibelieve Jesus is saying wake up from your slumber its thime to dive in!It’s time to remove every hindrance,every roadblock,every barrier that stands in the wayof the pure and Holy moving of God.Without a sweeping Revival there is little hope for us.I thank God that I have been born again.Iawait His coming with Joy in My heart.
48Autumn
Gerry,
Just one more question. Are you saying the scriptures are what they are and there can be no interpretation and the surface meaning is it? Just wondering. Blessings!!
Autumn…..The Holy Bible is a truly wonderful work. Amazing how it was written over so many hundreds of years by so many different authors (Inspired writers of God’s Word) and yet they fit together like fingers into gloves. The longer I am a Christian and the deeper my belief levels grow..the more I see in the Scriptures and the easier it is that they are understood. Truly, when one becomes born again, the veil starts being lifted from their eyes and the wax removed from their ears….they can see and hear the Word in ways never before imagined.
Autumn, I pray that for you, the Word will become life to your eyes and living waters for your heart and spirit.
Blessings, Gerry
#44 (Kate) That’s what my priest said, but as he used to be a Pentecostal pastor, and I’m not sure he was right. I have since been told that I should be confirmed as soon as possible by another priest, but I have resisted this. I became a Christian reading the Alpha Course books, so as I have already made my vows and been filled with the Spirit, I’m not sure why I should be confirmed. I was told it was necessary “to fulfil all righteousness”, but that doesn’t make much sense to me.
54 Charles
Charles,
Knowing that you are in unity with your Lord in your baptismal vows is your most important consideration.
Go back and look at the early church. Baptism was THE right of full entry into the church. Infant baptism was a much later initiative -as was a new rite -Confirmation. Today the new approach is to respect the baptismal rite and to add a new stage-Affirmation (as opposed to Confirmation). This is consistent with communion being given contingent upon only baptism.
All Blessings,
Jim
Well, there is a man who goes to our church who is studying tto be a priest,and he wasn’t confirmed when +Don visited,because he was baptized as an adult. If you compare the adult baptism rite to thhe confirmation rite, the promises are basically the same.
From the 39 Articles”
There is a group of nine young people in my congregation preparing for confirmation next month. One of the ways I’ve encouraged them to look at confirmation (apart from the personal exploration of faith that they have been embarking on in the process) lies in the concept of the “laying on of hands” by the bishop. The bishop “lays hands” for ministry as a deacon and a priest is “ordered”. In a similar manner, I’m encouraging our confirmands to think of the confirmation as a “laying on of hands” for lay ministry.
Jim (in BC for clarification from other Jims)
#58 That’s a helpful way to think of it, Jim. Thanks, everyone else.
-Charles
#58 Jim on 27 May 2008 at 10:03 pm
There is a group of nine young people in my congregation preparing for confirmation next month. One of the ways I’ve encouraged them to look at confirmation (apart from the personal exploration of faith that they have been embarking on in the process) lies in the concept of the “laying on of hands” by the bishop. The bishop “lays hands” for ministry as a deacon and a priest is “ordered”. In a similar manner, I’m encouraging our confirmands to think of the confirmation as a “laying on of hands” for lay ministry.
Jim (in BC for clarification from other Jims).
Jim in BC – at the extreme risk of upsetting a great many people, I would venture forth and suggest that one should be careful as to which “Bishop” lays hands on the confirmands. IF THE SAID BISHOP is one which supports the direction the Anglican Church of Canada is going, I would not be encouraging such laying on of hands…I feel the same way about receiving the Eucharist from such Bishops and Priests….Thanks, but no thanks!
Gerry (#60)
What you touch on is an ancient controversy known as Donatism. More infor Here…
Some excerpts,
and
I would have thought that at times like this, Confirmation (even for adult converts) would be all the more appropriate.
With its connection to the episcopate, Confirmation underscores the fact that our membership in the Body of Christ is not just based on a local congregation, but on our connection to the greater church catholic. We are only in communion with the Anglican church (worldwide, not just in Canada) through our bishops.
I would expect that with the rise of realignment, it becomes all the more important to emphasize our connections to the global Anglican Communion, no?
Gerry (#60), as a follow on to what John said in comment #61, Paul rejoiced in Phil 1:15-18, that Christ was being proclaimed – even though some of the preachers had impure motives. That said, I’m still not sure what I think of confirmation.
John Kivell and Warren:
Re my post #60 (about what is called by some to be Donatism)…… Oh my goodness …..
does this mean that if I know that a Priest OR a Bishop is actively involved in Sinful behavior or is actively involved in promoting false doctrine, that I am to hold my hands out to Him/her to receive Eucharist?
I don’t think I want to go there!!
Warren: Philippians 1:15-18 DOES NOT speak to the receiving of the Eucharist n’or does it indicate in that direction.
Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae was found to be in error by whom? By a group of peers or scholars who felt that it was totally wrong to feel as he did.
Does this indeed mean that they were correct?
I am not convinced.
The following Scriptures lend meaning to what I feel.
Ezekiel 22:26
Her priests have violated My law and profaned My holy things; they have not distinguished between the holy and unholy, nor have they made known the difference between the unclean and the clean; and they have hidden their eyes from My Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.
Ezekiel 44:23
“And they shall teach My people the difference between the holy and the unholy, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.
Matthew 23:27
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.
Romans 14:14
I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
2 Corinthians 6:17
Therefore“ Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.”
Perhaps Donatis put much of his “logic” in such Scriptures……That is where I am on this and “to me, if I KNOW that such a priest or bishop is practicing “unclean things” then I shall not take the Eucherist from him/her.
This is what Anglicans believe about such matters:
We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, But in thy manifold and great
mercies. We are not worthy So much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, Whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, So to
eat the Flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, And to drink his Blood, That our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, And our souls washed through his most precious Blood, And that we
may evermore dwell in him, And he in us. Amen.
AND
XXVI. Of the Unmorthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacrament.
ALTHOUGH in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration
of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in
hearing the Word of God, and in receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor thegrace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men. Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed.
#64 That’s your choice, Gerry. It doesn’t mean that the sacrament is invalid.
Gerry (#64), a big part of me is inclined to agree with you, but another part of me is saying that the heart of priest/bishop who appears orthodox may be darker than the heart of the one who is openly espousing error. I guess that is what Article XXVI, as mentioned in comment #65, is driving at. At some point, I would think that a line is crossed, but I’m not sure where that line is. Article XXVI appears to address that as well. However, as pointed out in another thread, the ACoC gives little or no credence to the Articles and the seminaries stopped teaching them decades ago.
Gerry, the reason Donatism was considered an heresy was because it denies God’s power to work through the unworthy. It denies the effectiveness of the Sacraments themselves because the sacraments are not of the evil ministers, but of God. Article XXVI makes this distinction clear, however, it also states that the church should depose wicked ministers– which, if the church denies that they have sinned greviously (such as Robinson), when they have clearly done so, perhaps we would be justified in refusing the Sacrament.
Charles:
First things first! Charles I find you incredibly learned in the things of “The Church” for one who just became “A Christian” two years ago (That is what you stated somewhere on a thread in this maze of threads, I think) please correct me if I am in error on that point.
You must have done a wonderful amount of “studying” before you took that leap of faith into becoming a Christian.
Now, all that being said, I can lean in your direction in #68, but only when I do not know the heart of the priest or bishop (ie: Spong, Ingham, etc.) IF I KNOW THAT THE PRIEST, BISHOP, ETC. IS IN SIN AND NOT REPENTING, THEN I WILL REFUSE THE SACRAMENTS FROM THAT PERSON. As I see it presently, that would include for me, most if not all priests and Bishops in the ACoC BECAUSE they are remaining in a situation and a church that is teaching false doctrine.
MARK: My statement is not about just what Anglicans believe, but moreso I am making my statement from the standpoint of being a Christian……
Wow, I have opened a can of worms with this one….c’est la vie!
Gerry,
“IF I KNOW THAT THE PRIEST, BISHOP, ETC. IS IN SIN AND NOT REPENTING, THEN I WILL REFUSE THE SACRAMENTS FROM THAT PERSON.”
Gerry, I also am inclined to agree with you. I posted the info on Donatism just for information. IMO, there is a difference between wondering if your baptism, salvation, etc is valid because you were baptized or led to the Lord by someone who turned out to be apostate, and willingly participating in a sacrament with someone you know to be so. The sacraments are still valid, but we would, in a sense, be validating the apostate by participating. When you get right down to it, we are talking about two separate issues, aren’t we? but I think we really do agree.
John K:
I’m really glad that you did post the info on Donatism… Most interesting and sparked a bit of an interesting debate…. It is unfortunate that this thread is on “older Posts” now….. Would be interesting to see some others viewpoints on it.
Yep, I think we see eye to on most things J.K.
Blessings and Peace,
However…
I think the real answer is that if either one of us knew that the priest was apostate and an unrepentant sinner, we wouldn’t be in his church in the first place.
John K. – Right you are, HOWEVER, there is concern for those “Believers” who are still in ACoC churches with Believers who are their priests……the challenge for these people is: When their own Priest is not available and the Diocese sends in another “Priest” to do services, and the “Believer” knows the other priest is an apostate…….
Does the Believer have enough courage to NOT take the Eucharist? That is the challenge for many in todays ACoC….whereas, if they attend an ANiC Church there should not be any concern about the heart of the presiding priest/Bishop…..BUT, even in such, one must always be alert to the possibility of the enemy infiltrating……
These new ANiC Churches MUST remain vigilant, they must post “watchmen” at their ‘gates’ to constantly be in prayer for the protection of parishioners and priests/Bishops.
#69 I did do a lot of studying and thinking before I became a Christian, Gerry. I think I can agree with John K., when he says that “The sacraments are still valid, but we would, in a sense, be validating the apostate by participating”. This seems to be another issue altogether, and an uncommon one, since the church has not frequently claimed that sin is holy.
, but that’s what makes for good discussions.
Of course I disagree that priests and bishops are in sin because they have not yet left ACC, as Ross mentioned, many remain for their parishioners’ sakes– people who do not understand the theological complexities of the issues, and who would be left without leadership if priests put themselves first and jumped ship. Personally, I think my witness to my parish will be more powerful if I wait till Canon XXI is changed, because then people will see a clear example of error, which will help to explain why I am leaving. I’m sure you have experienced difficulties explaining our leaders’ heresies to other Anglicans, and non-Anglicans; problems which exist because people like Spong, Ingham and Schori all claim to be Christian, and will use similar language to us most of the time, and only in passing deny Christ’s uniqueness– at which point the rest of their thought becomes clear. If things get too bad, and I feel myself in spiritual danger I’ll leave ASAP though, don’t worry about that! You certainly have opened a can of worms
#74 Charles Wrote “If things get too bad, and I feel myself in spiritual danger I’ll leave ASAP though, don’t worry about that!”
If things get too bad…….how much worse must they get Charles.
1. SSB’gs are not core doctrine (in a credal sense) – already passed into the church canons”?
2. 5 Dioceses out of 38 have now said to their Bishops….Go for it!
It’s OK with us if you want to give the priests the authority to do Same Sex Blessings……. 4 of those 5 passed this within the last 7 months! More will come……
3. Apostate Bishops are being heard much louder today than ever before and are being encouraged by the Primate of the ACoC who, by his actions, has shown himself to be an apostate.
My biggest concern for those like yourself Charles who are staying behind is that many will begin to believe the watered down doctrine that is being so sweetly fed to them…..Be Careful Charles and all others who are likeminded in that regard.
So why is everyone missing the other part of that article? Why is everyone advocating leaving, rather than “Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed.”
When Paul told the Corinthians “Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord” this is suggesting a small group in the midst of a much larger group, where the small group is unable to depose the “evil Minister.” It is not that difficult to depose a priest. I have seen it done by a single person!
Also a priest does not make the body – he/she is only one person. Gerry, you may have the luxury of moving to another building/parish; many especially in rural areas do not and therefore the responsibility of addressing the evil is much more crucial to them and the wellbeing of their part of the Body of Christ.
Perhaps we should be paying more attention to 1 Cor 5:5-7 rather than running away from this admittedly difficult duty.
ML (#76), you ask a good question. It would seem that the leadership of the ACoC has chosen to define “evil ministers” as those who do not tow the party line. More specifically, those who are unshakable in their conviction that the Bible is God’s infallible Word, and who contend that it is to be taken seriously, and that a stand should be taken against false teaching. Also, since the ACoC doesn’t recognize the Articles, isn’t the point moot?
Warren, are you assuming that one can only depose “evil ministers” by going up the hierarchical chain? Why cannot the local parish do its own work when the hierarchy is also apostate? Remember, they got into the positions they have through our apathy. Therefore, we now have to work doubly hard to recapture lost ground: elect solid Wardens and “Vestry” (Church board by various names), elect solid Synod Reps, band together and take the minister to task (who knows, s/he may repent), and/or, in extreme cases, cut the funds and refuse to pay the stipend and see how quickly the priest looks for greener pastures (has often been used by parishes to get rid of conservative priests!).
And I forgot, because I assume everyone is already doing this, PRAY for him/her.
78 ML
It would be wonderful if we could turn the ACoC around by working from the ground up at the parish level. The problem, as I see it, is that our current situation is the result of a multi-decade slide away from traditional Anglicanism that has mirrored changes in society.
If we look at Huron: “The diocese made a very strong decision – over the 70 per cent mark”.
That quantifies the problem of renewal.
One only has so many waking hours. How do you spend them? Does one commit to cutting the rot out of a dying body? Or do we try to save what we can -looking outward in our ministry?
Peace,
Jim
Here is Warren’s original comment. The spamcatcher grabbed it because of the links. — ed.
ML (#78), you’re really making me think! I will admit that my knowledge of episcopal (Anglican) polity, as compared to presbyterian and congregational polity, is weak, but I think the bottom line is that discipline cannot be exercised by the laity. I glanced at Canon XVIII of the ACoC, which I believes backs me up, but I have little motivation to pour over these sorts of documents. One thing I was surprised to discover during my time in an Anglican church (where I also served as a deputy Warden), was that the pastor was the only elder. Wardens do not have this status. Every other church I had attended had elders who, when required, could exercise discipline in a biblical fashion.
If parish members are unhappy with their pastor/priest, I believe that their only recourse is to their Bishop. For this to be effective, I think that it would also be necessary to elect Wardens who are willing to stand against error. To try and act outside of this hierarchical structure would be “mutinous” and could result in discipline against the laity. If the Bishop happens to agree with the theological perspective of the pastor/priest, it is unlikely that disciplinary action would be taken (although I suppose action could be taken for “political” reasons). I know that a Bishop can even impose a priest on a parish against the will of the people.
For those you who understand these things much better than I, please jump in and feel free to point out my errors.
ML (#78), you ask hard questions that really make me think (which I appreciate). This is my second attempt at a reply – the first just disappeared into the ether when I pushed the “Submit Comment” button. Maybe it was because I included a couple of links. Or maybe I will discover that I’ve been put on moderation and this comment will disappear as well. I’ll soon find out.
I’m no expert, but I know that there are three basic forms of ecclesiastical polity: episcopal, presbyterian, and congregational. Wiki is a good source of information, but I won’t include a link in this post. As I understand it, discipline in an episcopal form of church is exercised top down vice bottom up. If a priest is preaching false doctrine, the laity at the parish level must appeal to their bishop. They cannot take action on their own to discipline or depose him. If the bishop shares the view of the priest, the laity are probably stuck with him (unless the bishop removes him for “political” reasons). I know that a bishop can also impose a priest on a parish against the wishes of its members.
When I first started attending an Anglican church, I was surprised to find out that the priest was the only elder. I was accustomed to churches with a plurality of elders, whose responsibilities included biblical discipline. Wardens in an Anglican church (I was a deputy Warden for a year), are really just official spokesmen for the laity and have no officially recognized spiritual authority within the church structure.
The bottom line, as I understand it, is that, without Godly men in senior positions of leadership in the ACoC, there is little that individual parishes can do concerning discipling errant priests/pastors, while remaining within the ACoC structure. Since bishops and archbishops are elected, I guess you could argue that the rank and file of the ACoC deserves the leadership it has. I will leave it to you to discern where that leaves the individual member who has fundamental disagreement with the theological stance of the ACoC. I think the ANiC is a good option, but, in areas where there are no ANiC parishes, there are still likely lots of other good choices of churches that don’t have the Anglican label.
For those of you who understand these things much better than I, please feel free to jump in and point out my errors.
Your comments are pretty well right on, but, in practice things are quite different. While we sat back and bewailed the hierarchical impossibility of accomplishing anything in this regard, the liberals went ahead with their agenda ignoring the impossible and succeeded!
What I am saying is that there are ways of accomplishing what needs to be done. 1) The faithful need to pray, pray, pray and then act; 2) the faithful need to be constantly working in their parishes, not hiding under the usual “I did that for years, now let someone else do it”; 3) the faithful need to step up to the plate and fill the leadership positions and be elected as Synod Delegates (not that difficult since most parishes are looking for any willing body); 4) the faithful need to communicate and support each other in order to strengthen their faith; 5) the faithful need to keep on doing the work of the Body of Christ in their community so that the Holy Spirit will add to their numbers; 6)individually (collectively) withholding funds from the local parish is a very effective statements/motivator – a type of passive resistance (and saves up lots of funds to be used when things change or the faithful are forced to regroup, or can be channeled to the support of other faithful groups if the situation goes on for a long period of time, or can be used for the ungoing ministry exercised by these faithful people).
Priests, generally, are selected by Concurrence Committees. If we staff those with the faithful, they can research and choose from the list the Bishop sends (some faithful priests do slip by the Bishops!) or they can reject unsuitable candidates (admittedly this leaves them without, or at worst with an unsuitable “interim”) but Christ’s Body is not completely dependent on priests to function despite the opinion of some.
Bishops are chosen at Electoral Synods. If the faithful at those Synods have done their homework and researched the Bishops nominated and agree amongst themselves for whom to vote, a great deal could be accomplished.
ML (#83), with God’s mighty hand assisting him, Gideon achieved amazing results with small numbers, and the same could happen in the ACoC. As you have doubtlessly detected, I tend towards cynicism, and my perspective is that there are not many “faithful” remaining in the ACoC. By faithful, I mean people who are excited about being disciples of Christ and who seek to follow Him obediently through regular prayer and Bible study, witnessing to their neighbours, etc. People who can easily discern doctrinal error because they are steeped in the Word. I’m not widely traveled in Anglican circles, but my impression is that these sorts of people mostly drifted away from Anglicanism years ago unless they were in a parish with a priest who faithfully proclaimed the gospel, and who exhorted and encouraged them in their daily walk with the Lord. There are a few people in my current church who jumped ship quite some time ago because they knew they were starving spiritually in their parishes.
For a final dose of cynicism, I think that the ACoC has effectively ensured that its current theological perspective will be perpetuated (until it fades into complete oblivion). The process starts with the teaching of liberal theology in the seminaries and continues by only allowing those who espouse the “correct values” to make it through the ordination process.
83 ML & 84 WARREN:
ML……I really like all of your statements in # 83, however, they are most likely passe at this time…… The Faithful & the Faithful Gospel Preaching Ministers have, for the best part, caught the latest ANiC boat going close to their port….. Wonderful ideas, but I think have been bypassed over the past 5 or 6 decades by the Faithful either passing on or moving on.
WARREN: I really do think you’ve “got it”…….
I’m just being my normal blunt self tonight, but the ACoC is fading into history as a huge mistake, made that way from the TOP down…. Just look at what has been appointed as the +++ of Canterbury……Do we really think that the next one will be any different and it won’t matter whether the appointment is political as in the past or made from within the Primates……there are enough of the liberal/revisionists in power to control such things as appointments at Canterbury and the direction of Lambeth.
Gerry & Olive,
I was wondering how things went yesterday. There is a rumour that more people and clergy are joining your congregation each week. Sounds really positive!!
Autumn:
IF you really want to know what is happening at St. Stephen the Martyr, why not come out to one of our services if you can! Up where I hail from originally, they call Autumn “The Fall”……anything to it I wonder?
Gerry,
I like the name Autumn and I really didn’t look at it from that perspective. That’s kind of neat!! lol Actually, St. Stephen the Martyr is kind of an appropriate name as well. Don’t you think??
Now I’m not really close to St. John’s but if I am ever in over a weekend I’ll try to come by!!
Hope things are going well!!
Autumn:
You are most welcome to drop by our new Church any time.
Yes, St. Stephen the Martyr is a most appropriate name for this new ANiC Church…….since we are the first ANiC Church in Newfoundland, yep……St. Stephen was the first Martyr… there is a connection isn’t there?
Blessings,
Gerry
Is the name St. Stephen the Martyr the same name of the Anglican Catholic Shurch parish in St. John’s NL?
#90
Sorry, should have typed Church…too much good wine!
I don’t Know…..but you know what….doesn’t matter….there is also a St. Stephen the Martyr church in California…….This is the name that our “church” decided upon after much prayer and discussion and more prayer…..We like it!
Blessings,
To all who read these comments…have any of you heard about or know the personnel of the Anglican Catholic Church in St. John’s?
There’s a big difference between picking the same name as a church in California, and picking the same name as an existing Anglican parish in the same city. It will certainly cause (I’m sure it has caused) a good bit of confusion. Congratulations on the new church, but choosing the same name as another local parish is generally…. well, I don’t know what it’s generally considered, simply because it just isn’t done.
Yes it is. There are two “All Saints” in the Diocese of Ottawa, for example. It’s not that big a deal.
All Saints Greely may be in the Diocese of Ottawa, and may even be in the City of Ottawa, technically speaking (although I’m not even 100% sure of that), but it’s certainly not anywhere near All Saints Sandy Hill, which is downtown. The capital of Newfoundland isn’t quite as large as Ottawa, from what I understand, and how many orthodox Anglican churches have been started there in recent years? Why pick the same name as the only other non-ACC Anglican parish in the area? That’s quite a bit different from a large diocese having two parishes with the same name. Let’s say someone started a new church in Brandon called Church of the Resurrection, and started advertising for members to join a new church. Would it really be appreciated by the Network?
96 Michael,
Let’s say someone started a new church in Brandon called Church of the Resurrection, and started advertising for members to join a new church. Would it really be appreciated by the Network?
If that were the worst thing the diocese of Niagara had done to Niagara ANiC churches, we would be ecstatic.
Make that three All Saints, then. I was thinking of All Saints Westboro and All Saints Sandy Hill. Personally, I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Very true, David. It’s sad how ugly things can get in churches, especially in fighting against the traditional Faith. What I’m wondering is, whether there can be a corresponding level of cooperation and unity between those working to preserve that Faith. Although, of course, there is no formal relationship between the Network and the ACCC, they are both fellow members of the Evangelical Fellowship, and the ACCC’s sister church in the USA is a participant in Common Cause (as part of the Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas). I know that Bp. Harvey has had a lot of contact with Anglican Catholic clergy in Atlantic Canada, even with the local bishop. Thus, my surprise at this…