Details removed by request…admin
Rev. Ken Harding inhibited by Archbishop John Clarke of Athabasca
May 24th, 2008 by Kate
70 Responses to “Rev. Ken Harding inhibited by Archbishop John Clarke of Athabasca”
Leave a Reply
-
About
There are 1,712 Posts and 16,426 Comments so far. Pages
Recent Comments
- Muriel on Rev Barclay Mayo moves to ANiC
- Brian on Rev Barclay Mayo moves to ANiC
- Kate on Ottawa teacher to ‘marry’ his school in an Anglican church
- Gordon on Ottawa teacher to ‘marry’ his school in an Anglican church
- Cathy on Ottawa teacher to ‘marry’ his school in an Anglican church
- Gordon on Synod of the Diocese of New Westminster passes motion to lift moratorium on same sex blessings.
- Pauline on Synod of the Diocese of New Westminster passes motion to lift moratorium on same sex blessings.
- Kate on Anglican Journal gets letter from Lucifer
- David on Anglican Journal gets letter from Lucifer
- Peter on Anglican Journal gets letter from Lucifer
Categories
- ACoC General Synod 2007
- ACoC General Synod 2010
- Anglican Artistic Moments
- Anglican Church in North America
- Anglican Church of Canada
- Anglican Coalition in Canada
- Anglican Communion
- Anglican Communion Alliance
- Anglican Crisis
- Anglican Essentials
- Anglican Network in Canada
- ANiC Prayer Calendar
- ANiC Synod 2010
- ANiC Synod 2011
- Church Year
- Common Cause
- ELCIC
- Just for Fun
- Prayer
- Uncategorised
-
Blog roll
- A Reasonable Faith
- Anglican Communion Alliance
- Anglican Communion Institute
- Anglican Essentials
- Anglican Essentials Calgary
- Anglican Essentials Federation
- Anglican Mainstream
- Anglican Network in Canada
- Anglican Samizdat
- ANiC Parishes
- Felix Hominum
- GENEralities
- Lent & Beyond
- Nova Scotia Scott
- Stand Firm
- The Age to Come
- The Hairy Eyeball
- The Scriptorium
- TitusOneNine
- Under Ethiopia
- VirtueOnline
Archives
Meta
-
Why jump ship before you ensure that all your friends have got their life jackets on?
Because my end of the ship is already underwater and I was drowning.
I am a former member of the Anglican parish of Athabasca. I resigned last Friday.
I don’t think John Carke is apostate, but I do believe he is terribly conflicted. One minute he is signing the Primate’s statement that says the ordinations in Abbotsford are not valid. The next minute his diocese passes a motion saying it’s in communion with these same clergy, who according to Clarke aren’t really ordained clergy at all.
One minute he seems network friendly, the next minute he is sending our rector a letter saying, “I would suggest your association and commitment to the Network is very much clouding your effectiveness as a priest and is in conflict with your commitment to the Diocese [and] its Bishop.”
If he is so understanding of those who feel bound by their conscience to leave the Anglican Church of Canada why is he so un-understanding of those who feel that they cannot support the structures of the Anglican Church of Canada financially but still want to uphold Anglican ministry in their region and the ongoing witness and ministry of their parish?
Rev. Harding is somebody I know personally, and well, for many years. I know that he has walked a difficult line in a divided parish, honouring the conscience of those who feel they cannot financially support the institutional structure of the Anglican Church of Canada AND honouring the conscience of those like Mr. Whitelaw who feel that they may comfortably remain attached to their diocese. Rev. Harding has kept a divided parish together for over 8 years by following the path to the Cross faithfully, and now those who did not wish to honour and respect the conscience of those who choose to remain active in their rural parish community while not contributing financially to the diocese and national church have conspired to crucify this godly man.
Re comments from Ross and Susan
This is an interesting discussion. Thank you both for your thoughtful posts. I think I will have to respectfully disagree, but hopefully that makes for an interesting debate! As I ponder all the nuances I am reminded of the story of King Saul. When king Saul disobeyed the instructions given to him by Samuel, thus turning his back on the word of God, he was rejected by God. What did Samuel do? He grieved, and then he left. It caused him immense distress to turn his back on Saul, but he never saw Saul again. After a while God said to Samuel, “How long will you grieve over Saul? Go I have chosen a new king.”
I believe that the time is coming when we will have to acknowledge that the ACoC has turned it’s back on the word of God and as such we should expect God to reject this church. It grieves me more than I can begin to articulate, but I think God is saying to the faithful, “How long will you grieve over this church. Go I am doing something new.”
I do not think that it is sufficient to say, “Well apostasy isn’t present in my church/diocese.” I have been looking at some of Paul’s letters to the early church. Over and over Paul emphasizes the interconnectedness of the body of Christ. What one part of the body of Christ does has an impact on another part of the body. Most of the examples Paul gives are very positive, for example Paul often writes to the believers, “Your stand for the gospel, or your love for one another, has had a positive impact on all the saints.” See also 1 Corinthians 12:26.
However, I believe that negative actions have an equally negative impact on the whole church, just as a malfunction in one part of the body affects the whole body.
If one part of the ACoC turns it’s back on the word of God then the spiritual impact of that decision is going to impact the rest of the body. So to make a medical analogy here. If you have a foot that is gangrenous and cannot be saved you have two choices. Do nothing and watch the whole body slowly die, or amputate the foot and save the body. Is an amputation ever good? Absolutely not! Is it sometimes necessary? Regrettably yes.
Folks, the ACoC is suffering from a spiritual disease that has occurred because we have turned away from God If we stay then we will be infected, whether or not we, or our dioceses, or our Bishops agree with those who have chosen to walk a path that disregards God’s word.
Kate #51. If I was in your position, I would have been leading the way out. Janice #50. This may also sound harsh, those that leave earlier than they have to are abandoning those who have not left for whatever reason and are none-the-less servants of God. If and when it becomes necessary to leave the ACoC, I’ll take as many with me as I possibly can for I am my brother’s keeper. In the meantime, I’ll not turn my back on them. In my view, many who have left, have left for selfish reasons. If I just considereed myself, I would have left long ago.
This country is so big, and each diocese is different. I think we are seeing the wisdom of the split into “Network” and “Federation” illustrated in this discussion.
I don’t, however, think folk are leaving earlier than they have to. The parishes on the west coast who are now with ANiC waited a long time for the rest of us to be ready.
Ross
The decision to leave the Diocese of Niagara was not done lightly. There were many who wanted to make this move 10 years ago but we stayed believing that we could have more of an impact from within. This was not the case and after being ignored and discounted we felt we were left with no other choice. (The vote at our church – St Hilda’s was unanimous). As far as being selfish – I am not really sure what you mean. To stay – which would have been an “easy” way out in some respects and would have been more selfish. We would not be dealing with threats and disruption to our services. But to stay was even more disruptive to us. We felt that we had to make a stand for the Gospel. This is not to say that we feel that others should automatically follow suit. It is a very difficult decision that must be prayerfully considered and each parish has to deal with its own unique circumstances. Instead of second guessing each other let’s use that energy to pray for each other. We all stand for the same Gospel – even if we stand in different places.
Kate and Paula. If I had been in the Diocese of New Westminster, I would have left the ACoC long before the formation of ANiC. If I had been in the dioceses of Ottawa or Niagara earlier this year or late 2007, I would be right with you. But I’m not. I’m in a diocese that is more or less in agreement with me on the issues. If I found myself in the dioceses of the Yukon, the Acrtic, or even Fredriction, I would not be in much of a hurry (lets see what comes out of theiur synods). It would be selfish for me to leave right now. What about the 40 to 50% of people who attended the last General Synod who voted with me? Can we assume, for a moment, that they are representative of a considerable group of others who still remain in the national church. I want to meet them, I want to know what’s on their hearts. My heart goes out to them all but it also goes out to all those who have realighned with the ANiC.
Kate, you are right when you say, “This country is so big, and each diocese is different. I think we are seeing the wisdom of the split into ‘Network’ and ‘Federation’ illustrated in this discussion.” I truly believe that this split in Essentials is important because it gives us all the opportunity to do God’s work where we currently find ourselves. The only analogy I can think of at this moment is football. Some of us are on the ten yard line, some of us are in the end zone but we are all on the same team and the final whistle has yet to be heard. These are tough times for us all and it is good to know that we’re all rooting for each other even though we may doubt that occasionally. I have to sign off for a few days… other issues. Love you all!
One thing that is being missed, when talking about those who stay, is that, if we were to leave, we would be removing the “salt” and “light” from our parish and our diocese, therefore making the slide into apostacy inevitable. As long as it is possible to save the “gangrenous limb” we do everything possible. It may be that in the end we can keep not only the parish but the whole diocese in the worldwide, faithful Anglican Communion. If we leave, that will not happen.
Therefore, for those of us, who are not immediately threatened, it is probably better to remain and do our work within the ACoC parishes/dioceses, and if the Lord wills we can still save the ship.
Another thing: since our parishes/dioceses are not immediately threatened, there are many “sheep” who have no idea that there is even a threat coming. They do not read this blog or any other for that matter. They do not understand what little they do read since in their parish everything is orthodox. Leaving them behind to drown is not a very attractive option.
Perhaps this is also why there is some confusion on this blog, why some of us are hanging on, while others say “If we stay then we will be infected”(#53) and therefore leave. So I agree with those who are calling for some consideration for both points of view. Let those who are able stay to help save the drowning when/if the ship fills with water, or to keep their ship on course if possible; let those, who are no longer able to stay, go and serve the Lord in more favourable waters and “God bless us, everyone.”
ML (#58), you make a very valid and reasonable point. I guess the difference between you and I lies with our presuppositions. I approach the issue with the assumption that the point of no return for the ACoC passed quite some time ago (possibly decades) and that there will be no recovery (although parts of the church will hold onto vestiges of the truth longer than others). I also believe that the slide into apostasy will accelerate and that the facade of Christianity will fall away as the ACoC reveals its true character as a pagan institution with trappings of Christian tradition. On that dour note, I admit that I may be wrong and that God may yet work a miracle. Time will tell. I also am a bit short on good ideas for saving those who have a true belief but are unable (or unwilling) to discern what is going on around them.
But isnt the best way to save the drowning to build a province that aligns with the worldwide communion and the gospel? Preferably with 800 parishes, across the continent. Isnt that also a good way to show those that dont know there is a problem that there is a serious one? Shouldnt the churches blessed with the most accurate teaching be leading the way away from error especially if many in their local parish agree with them? I would think that what would happen to the 40 -50% that agree with you is that they would also be joining a juristiction that is in full harmony with the Anglican Cummunion world wide rather than supporting one that is trying to change it I feel that to stay solidly ACoC anywhere in Canada while agreeing that those in NewWest and Niagra need to leave is somewhat hypocritical. We are members together of the same boat. If the boat is taking on water and drowning some then its not funtioning properly. Saying your part of the boat is dry and your bishop isnt punching holes doesnt change the reality that your boat is currently wet.
I have erased much more than I kept. I want to discuss freely and air opposing ideas without offending. It is easy to be harsher than I intended in the written form but I really do want to understand and hear your reasoning and I need somewhere to ask this these questions. Hopefully its here
Janice (#60), sort of like “build it and they will come”? I agree, and want to be part of the building process. The only life jacket that will save in the end is the true gospel, faithfully proclaimed, and firmly rooted in God’s Word.
Will you allow that some, like Moses, are called by God to try to lead a stubborn and rebellious people, not just “out of Egypt” (the world) but also in and through the “wilderness” (the ACoC)?
BTW, where in the Bible does God tell us to leave a sliding church?
ML (#62), I will certainly allow that the journey may take longer for some than for others, and that not all will follow the same path, but I believe that perpetual “wandering in the wilderness” will lead to spiritual death. There are also elements within the ACoC that I would liken more to the Amorites than to the wilderness. With respect to leaving a “sliding church”, I refer you to my presupposition in #59. I suspect that some (perhaps many) of Luther’s biblical arguments could be brought to bear (but I don’t have time to look into it at the moment).
ML, further to your question in #62 concerning the biblical basis for leaving a sliding church, I would suggest that there must first be a common understanding of the meaning of the word church. Since this is an Anglican blog, and most contributors claim to be orthodox, I will go to the 39 Articles for my definition of church:
This definition does not mention Anglicanism, and I believe that the true church does not have denominational boundaries.
Although there are individual ACoC parishes that doubtlessly meet the criteria given, I would argue that, from structural and senior leadership perspectives, the ACoC as a whole does not. Accordingly, it is not a matter of “leaving” a sliding church, but rather finding a church. Leaving the true church, although parts of it may fall into error from time to time, is not a biblical option for a follower of Jesus.
One of the clarifying moments for me was the decision to take action to “defrock” J.I. Packer. As far as I’m concerned, the action is all about pride, power and money; the Bible and God are only mentioned occasionally to keep up a facade of Christianity.
I also contend that parishes and dioceses who are remaining true to the faith are able to do so only by keeping a low profile. If a priest or bishop in these jurisdictions was to contentd strongly for the truth and exercise real leadership in this regard by pointing out error in unambiguous terms, you can be assured that there would be a reaction. Heresies are permissible within the ACoC (or even promoted in some juridictions), but efforts to counter those heresies or discipline those involved, will not be tolerated.
Finally, I find the argument that there are many in the pews who are still faithful but just don’t understand the issues hard to swallow. If this is actually the case, it is a severe indictment of their spiritual leaders at the local level. If their leaders fail to point out the doctrinal error swirling about them, are they well taught in other areas? I suspect that it is highly unlikely that a candidate for ordination in the ACoC who states a clear position against the error being promoted, will be accepted in any province or diocese. Accordingly, the voices of “dissent” will grow weaker and eventually be snuffed out.
And that’s how I see it.
That is exactly what is happening in Ottawa.
Warren, so very well said.
“remain faithful only by keeping a very low profile” absolutely right. If in doubt ask Ken Harding. It is only when we actually do something , even as small as speaking out about how St Hildas is being treated that you create waves. The threat is that you will lose your local ministry. You will not be able to do your good work in your town if you make a scene. So we appease instead of being bold and trusting God to be faithful.
I am not so concerned about building the boat so they will come as convincing the faithful in diocese that dont think they need a boat to help build the boat. As soon as it becomes ok to consider that option in “safe conservative” parishes I will be back with my sleeves rolled up. Until that time worshiping in an completely ACoC church is not healthy for my soul. I cannot sit and pretend everything is ok when I have seen he agony in other parts of this land and know it is not. I know this puts me in the “selfish” group Ross alluded to. The ones who left too soon and abandoned him. God in His goodnes had temporarily moved me to Ont for the last year and I have enjoyed worshipping in a ACiC church in Waterford (Huron diocese I believe). But now that I am home it s awkward again
It’s been almost a year now since I left the Anglican Church. An incredible appreciation of how Abraham must have felt when God said, “Go to the land I will show you,” could not have come any other way. I’m still in transit with no map but in a nut shell, here’s my story:
The priest at the Anglican Church I attended once told me he considered me a pillar of his parish. I wouldn’t go that far, but after 11 or so years, my involvement was quite extensive. The decision to leave was not made lightly. I had to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this drastic move was indeed the will of God or I was not going to do it. My leaving would certainly raise eyebrows and cause people to question. I have since learned that it did.
Several times at the grocery store, or elsewhere, I’ve been asked “Who made you so mad that you had to leave?” Who made me mad??! The question shocked me to say the least (apparently the letter I was asked to write Vestry stating the reasons was never shared with the congregation). These same people also said that when they asked members of the church’s leadership where I was, no straight answer was ever given.
The decision to leave was nothing close to easy as one might think or suggest. There aren’t words to describe how agonizing it was to leave my ‘family’, my ‘home’. This has been one of the most challenging, loneliest, and confusing years of my Christian life. Following Jesus is not, nor ever was, designed to be easy- my family has yet to completely recover.
Never the less, I would be amiss if I did not also make sure to point out how faithful God has been to us throughout our journey. I can say with complete conviction that when a follower of Christ really follows to the point of being radically obedient, the blessings that come are like nothing that can be experienced otherwise.
It’s too bad I don’t live closer to Athabasca. God willing, I would definitely be joining Rev. Harding and ‘Free at Last’. God’s richest blessings to you both and those who have chosen to stand with you. Your faithfulness and courage has and will continue to stir hearts even more. That said, I also know the same has to be true for those our Lord and Savior has called to stay.
The enemy is very organized and strategic. It’s obvious there are wolves in sheeps clothing within the Anglican Church of Canada. God gives us all posts from which to fight the good fight of faith from. Whether a Believer is called to ‘man their post’ inside or outside the Anglican Church of Canada is between that Believer and God. Regardless, we are still Brothers and Sisters in the Lord. When that simple fact is forgotten and Christians begin wounding and fighting against eachother, the battle is lost completely.
Kathy (#67), thank you for sharing your story, and journey. My exposure to Anglicanism has been relatively short in light of my total “church life”, but I think I’ve gained a reasonable understanding of the doctrinal and political issues within the ACoC. What is still largely a mystery to me is the attachment that many Anglicans have to their church – an attachment (or loyalty if you will) that seems to transcend issues of faith, doctrine and truth. In the background I come from, switching churches isn’t uncommon, and most mega churches are populated largely by people who used to attend elsewhere. I don’t argue that this is a good thing, but it explains the proliferation of independent churches.
Anglicans seem to be on the opposite end of the spectrum and, through my eyes, often appear to the be the sort of people who need to be chased out of a burning building. I have speculated elsewhere on this blog that things like family ties, history, tradition, aesthetics, and sentimentality may play a big role, but I really don’t know. Perhaps the liturgy, which can’t be found in other denominations, has a part to play?
Anyway, I was wondering if you might be willing to share a little more and help me gain a better insight into the issues at stake when someone considers leaving their parish? I would be interested in other stories as well if others of you reading this would be willing to share your experiences.
Concerning your final comment, I respectfully disagree. The battle belongs to the Lord and His kingdom will advance regardless of how badly we may stumble as individuals.
To be honest, I don’t understand the attachment myself. For me it’s not the liturgy so much, or family ties. I’ve never been big on tradition since that’s where the sentiment of ‘doing things because that’s how it’s always been done’ comes from. For example, I can’t tell you how many Sundays I would cringe come time for Communion. People who had no business going to the alter would still go simply because that’s what one does at church on Sunday. That said, theology surrounding Communion had a huge role to play in my leaving. Most other denominations don’t use bread and wine and see juice and crackers as symbolic of the Blood and Body of Christ. I had to decide if I could live with that and to be honest, I still struggle.
While our community has many Christian churches with very annointed leaders, I have yet to find one to go to faithfully every Sunday. I was going to one particular church for a while and tried to get involved there, but it turned out to be not a very good idea for several reasons. There have been, and continue to be, many times where I have no desire to serve in any church at all. However, I’m also well aware God did not give me the gifts He did just so I can sit on them and do nothing. So, I fight it and do what I can where I can despite how I feel.
Probably the hardest part of all this is watching what it’s doing to my kids. As it is they are at very challenging stages in their lives and with no Christian support for them, well, it’s not been fun. The other thing that’s difficult is that with few exceptions, chance meetings with those who still attend the church we left are always odd.
There’s really not a whole lot more I can add except to say it’s been really tough. But, as I said in my first post, God is so good. I have grown so much in my faith. I have learned how to be happy no matter where I am. In many ways it’s sort of been like having God all to myself this whole time. I’ve not been under anyone’s guidance or mentorship- it’s just me and Him! But still, I’m very hungry for regular fellowship. God provided me with some through a Bible study I did with some folks from the Salvation Army Church. It was awesome, but all good things must come to an end. I may see about attending their church some day.
In closing, I appreciate your dissagreeing with me. It caused me to think harder about what I said- perhaps I can clarify. You are absolutely right, God’s Kingdom will advance regardless. I’m just not convinced we will see much fruit of it in the ACoC. A house divided against itself cannot stand. How can God’s Kingdom advance in an environment where many in leadership won’t take a firm stand about what’s right yet get nervous (even hostile) around those who do?
Kathy, thank you for your helpful and candid reply. I can particularly relate to your concern for your children. The spiritual and social needs of our children were always a big concern to my wife and I with every move and resulting need to find a new church.
If, three months before I ended up at St Alban’s in Ottawa, you would have asked me if would ever consider attending an Anglican church, I would have laughed. At that time, I knew nothing about Essentials and viewed all Anglicans with suspicion through my evangelical lens. How God led me to St Alban’s is another story, but lead me there he did and what a wonderful experience it was. It was exactly what I needed at that time. As a bonus, now I can be a pain to all sorts of Anglicans on the Essentials Blog.
If you are unable to find a good Anglican church in your area, don’t give up hope. God may lead you to some other church that can wonderfully meet the needs of you and your family. He is faithful!