Below is the text of a letter sent to St. Matthew’s parishoners (St. Matthias and St. Luke have a similar letter) from the Diocese of NewWest. I’m left wondering who the real recipient of these letters is intended to be? At this point it seems somewhat unlikely that the people concerned will be influenced by this kind of letter – sayin’ such a thing is so does not make it so. Perhaps it’s really a letter for legal consumption making the claim on the property.
Dear parishioners of St. Matthew’s Abbotsford:
Feast of St. Bartholomew, Apostle
August 25, 2008.I greet you, in this late summer season, on behalf of Bishop Michael Ingham and your fellow Anglicans of the Diocese of New Westminster.
On August 25, 2008 the leadership of St. Matthew’s changed. The priest in charge is now Archdeacon Beverley Stewart. The trustees of the parish are Carole Keighley and Monte Worthington as Bishop’s Wardens, Robert Dickson as Treasurer and Archdeacon Stephen Rowe as a trustee.
You will be aware that in May 2008 the former clergy of St. Matthew’s renounced the authority of the Bishop and Synod of the Diocese of New Westminster and indeed of the Anglican Church of Canada. We deeply regret their decision. While we wish them well in their future endeavors, we cannot allow clergy not associated with the Anglican Church of Canada to use buildings that are held in trust for the ministry of the Anglican Church of Canada. The Bishop, Synod and Diocesan Council have a legal and fiduciary responsibility to be faithful to this trust. This is not simply an administrative matter. It is a matter of law. It is a matter of both civil and canonical law in compliance with the Anglican Synod of the Diocese of New Westminster Incorporation Act, 1893 (amended) and the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese which govern and regulate our life together as members of the Anglican Church of Canada.
The Bishop and Diocesan Council have made changes to the structure of St. Matthew’s because they are legally obligated by Statute under the laws of the Province to do what they have done. This has been prompted by both the failure of the former clergy to leave the buildings of St. Matthew’s and the clear indication by the former trustees of St. Matthew’s that they support such actions and will not discharge their responsibilities as trustees to cause the buildings to be available for Anglican Church of Canada clergy and parishioners. Naturally we regret that these steps have been forced on us.
An important function of a diocese is to hold together parishes in a common mission even though there are differing theological convictions between parishes and within parishes. Even in the earliest days of the Diocese of New Westminster there were differing theological views between those inclined to a more catholic point of view and those with a more reformed conscience. For some 150 years conflict and controversy have always been a feature of Anglican life in our part of the world. In recent years conflict has arisen over the blessing of same sex unions. The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada in 2007 decided that the blessing of same sex unions is not a matter of core doctrine and is a matter around which people of faith could reasonably disagree. The Diocese of New Westminster requires no parish to offer blessings to same sex unions, and offers ongoing protection to congregations and clergy who have principled disagreement with diocesan policy. As has been the case for many decades, the instruments of diocesan incorporation, constitution and canon law provide a way for us to be true to our various theological convictions while expressing a shared and common mission in Christ.
The Bishop, with the support of the Diocesan Council, has appointed the transitional team of clergy, wardens and executive officers for your parish to enable Anglicans in Abbotsford who wish to share in the worship, work and mission of the Anglican Church of Canada and the Diocese of New Westminster to participate fully with their fellow Anglicans across Canada. This new leadership team is already taking steps to enable Anglican Church of Canada worship and mission to resume at St. Matthew’s after the former clergy (and any who wish to support them) have left the premises. Those steps include availability to meet with the former clergy to discuss an orderly transition. The Chancellor has asked in writing for this transition to occur no later than the middle of September. All memorials and assets of this parish will continue to be cared for by the new parish leadership team. But more importantly you need to know of the commitment to God’s mission in the world, to reaching out with the good news of Jesus Christ, and to participating with other Canadian Anglicans in serving the world God loves.
I hope that you will continue with the ministry of the Diocese and the Canadian Anglican Church. We look forward to hearing reports from Bishop Michael Ingham on his recent experience of the Anglican Communion at the Lambeth Conference, and his reflections on the ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams. We rejoice in our shared communion nationally and internationally and invite you to continue in your faithfulness to this mission.
Our vision is that each parish in our diocese will grow in its capacity to reach out to the communities where God has given us responsibility. We are committed to extending that vision in every parish of our diocese and look forward to working with you on this.
Yours in Christ,
The Very Reverend Peter Elliott
Dean and Commissary
[49] If more than cash found in fishguts, what then is “the minimum interaction necessary… to fulfill community responsibilities as required to participate in society?”
Noli (#48),
In my currently orphaned situation, this blog dialogue is better than total isolation. My interest is more than academic and theoretical.
It would help us – and perhaps you – if you let us know who who are. I say this with the best of intentions: it is much easier to understand and sympathise with someone when you know a little about them.
[52]
I prefer to remain anonymous. This is allowed according to the blog rules: “pen names are ok, but only one per person, please!”
If it’s any help, though, I am a military veteran now employed by an agency of the government. I reside in a city where there aren’t any ANIC congregations. I attend an ACoC parish, but identify as an orthodox Anglican. I am a single parent. Among my children is a university-aged gay son who lives in my house. And my pen name is not taken from the poem by Arthur Hugh Clough, but rather Psalm 37 from which the poem title is derived.
NA (#53), I’m admittedly quick to stereotype, but, from your cocomments over the past few months, the image you’ve created in my mind is of someone schooled in liberal theology who brings to Scripture many of the presuppositions that reflect such an education. Of course, terminology is important, and I don’t know how you define “orthodox”. Baptist Bible school teachers may not get everything right, but I think Gerry correctly suggests (#50) that you are more likely to hear the truth of God’s Word from them than from most professors at an institution such as Wycliffe.
In the spirit of fairness, I won’t be offended if you comment on the sort of image I may have created in your mind.
[54] Warren, I’m not interested in discussing personalities and private lives here and only provided some background information about myself as requested by David to give people an idea of my context. Plus I’m tired of people attacking my anonymity. Surely you folks realize that a person might have all sorts of good reasons to avoid plastering his/her name all over the internet.
Also, I wanted to explain my extreme interest in questions about the individual Christian’s role in civil government: I work for Caesar. So far I’ve found the responses rather confusing. Gerry, for example, wrote that we should “pay to caesar only what is owed to caesar, nothing more, nothing less,” which suggests that we should distance ourselves from civil government and do the bare minimum. Yet he served in the military. I assume he volunteered for that duty. Does this mean that we owe military service to government as a Christian obligation? As I wrote before, my interest is NOT just academic and theoretical.
Noli (#53, 55),
Yes, that helps.
fwiw, I think that Christians not only can be involved in government and government institutions, but that some are called to be.
NA (#55), I’m not interested in discussing personalities and private lives either. If you think that your theological persectives, assumptions, and presuppositions fall into those categories and are irrelevant to any discussion on this blog, so be it. I too volunteered for military service and have been at it for over 30 years. I neither felt that I, as an individual, “owed” military service or that God’s Word forbade me to engage in such service. If my church (the local body with which I fellowship) chooses to become politically involved (i.e. endorses a candidate for the election which may be soon forthcoming) I would almost certainly walk away.
Noli:
After reading your post #53, I can certainly accept your reasoning for anonymity. Done.
I have never, repeat, never said that one should not serve their Country, whether it be in the civil service, the military or Federal Enforcement agencies (including Taxation Canada Authorities). What I did say Noli, is that one should pay their taxes, no more and no less than they are required to pay. I didn’t really think that my statement said anything more than that and if you felt that there was more intended, then that is your misunderstanding, not mine.
I question the “anonymity” factor of many of the bloggers on this site, frequently, mostly because they usually are hiding the likelihood that they are ACoC plants on this site….I have nothing against anyone from the ACoC making statements here, however, I have always felt that they should have sufficient intestinal fortitude to declare themselves.
Blessings,
Gerry
Warren:
“If my church (the local body with which I fellowship) chooses to become politically involved (i.e. endorses a candidate for the election which may be soon forthcoming) I would almost certainly walk away.”
What if your church decided to back a member of the “Christian Heritage Party” Warren, would that not give you some reason to reconsider your statement?
Blessings,
Gerry
I don’t know about Warren, but I can say I would certainly not support my home church endorsing any party including the Christian Heritage Party (which I personally don’t support) or political candidate, even myself if I ever thought to run for political office. The church as an institution has no business aligning itself with a secular authority, they are unequally yoked. People start using politics to advance themselves in the church and the church starts making compromise with politics. It’s happened before, it will happen again. This was one of Soren Kierkegaard biggest criticisms. I think it is even a mistake having Queen Elizabeth as the official head of our church. I remember some 15-20 years ago when I was a youth member of synod, they had a vote to send greetings to the Queen I think I was the only person to vote against it.
Gerry (#59), no, I don’t think I would reconsider. If a pastor has properly expounded the Scripture for his parishioners, they should be capable of applying a correct Christian world view when exercising their rights as a citizen. Although James Dobson’s ministry has done much good, I believe he has become far too politicized in recent years and that his Christian witness has been compromised as a result. When churches or religious organizations endorse political candidates, they normally give precedence to one or two issues and ignore others that should also be of interest to members of God’s kingdom. I have an elderly friend in Montana who is a retired Baptist minister, and who has been an staunch Democrat all of his adult life. My conversations with him concerning the frequent narrow mindedness of the US religious right were instrumental in shaping (and changing) my view on this issue.
Cathy & Warren (60 & 61) –
I really appreciate your thoughts on this matter. Both of you have put forth some interesting and thought provoking points and they will no doubt cause all to ponder such when an election comes, which it surely is.
And No, I am not running for office in the election.
Blessings,
Gerry
It’s looking like they are going to drop the writ on Sunday. Wee ha. Oh well, the government lasted longer than I thought it would.
[56] David wrote:
“fwiw, I think that Christians not only can be involved in government and government institutions, but that some are called to be.”
That has been my view for several decades, but Jim’s earlier comment about living in a “post-Christian” society has caused me to re-examine my position.
Before joining the military, I wrestled with the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels that seem to dictate strict pacifism, especially “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also,” (Mt 5:39) and the incident in the garden where Jesus says to Peter: “Put your sword back in its place; for he who lives by the sword will perish by the sword.” (Mat 26:52).
I also found that pacifism was the norm in early Christianity and that the pre-Nicene church fathers wrote a lot of things like, “The Lord, in disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier” (Tertullian), and “A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate must resign or be rejected. If a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God” (Hippolytus of Rome).
On the other hand, Jesus went on a rampage armed with a whip against the money-changers in the temple, suggesting that violence is not absolutely forbidden in a just cause. But he certainly didn’t kill anybody.
The passage that I cited earlier in this thread from Romans 13 turned out to be very important to me. It says that even an occupying power is “ordained of God” and “the minister of God to thee for good.” So it seemed to me that, while the early Church practiced pacifism itself, it accepted and respected the civil government’s use of deadly force to restrain evil-doers and maintain order until the expected early return of Christ.
However, Christ didn’t return quickly to establish His earthly reign and, in the meantime, the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as its official state religion. Strict pacifism was inconsistent with an earthly society where everybody (including the government) is at least nominally Christian. Even the government of a Christian nation must bear a sword of some sort, wielded by somebody, so the Church’s earlier prohibition against Christians employing deadly force was necessarily abandoned. Or so it seemed to me, anyway, when I joined up.
That’s why Jim’s comment jolted me: he’s right. We really are living in a post-Christian society. Christendom was already over in the western hemisphere when I volunteered for military service. But in the decades since I first considered this question, government policies have become increasingly inconsistent with Christian teaching either way you slice it: both from a liberal Christian perspective (economic policy) and from a conservative Christian perspective (social policy).
Either way, we aren’t living in a Christian nation and it isn’t getting any better, but worse and worse. There are plenty of non-believers out there available to bear the sword. Is it now time, I wonder, to re-adopt the early Christian practice and once again establish pacifism as the Christian norm?
[64]
Noli,
Thank you for your detailed serious post.
Although I come out of a political theory background, I have not made the time to integrate that side of my thinking with my faith stance.
Your previous posts had already started me thinking and going back to the scriptures and contempory sources.
Question. At the time of Jesus’s arrest in the garden, how is it that Jesus followers were carrying swords? This was a crime punishable by instant crucifiction. How is it that Jesus didn’t know that his followers were armed. Were they Sicarri? The fight had already started to defend Jesus, who didn’t stop it until he was overcome with compassion over the injury to one of the arresters. “I do not come to bring peace, but a sword” “the assassin tests his blade against the wall..”
I’m reading mixed messages. This is not easy.
Peace,
Jim
NA (#64), this is a bit of an aside, but I don’t believe there ever has been a nation states to which the term “Christian society” could be accurately applied. Some nation states placed greater importance on Christian values than did others, but none were (are) really Christian. Canada may have had a greater percentage of Christians in its early days, but I believe it has always been a pagan nation.
Perhaps the term “Christian society” could be validly applied to groups such as the Hugenots, Quakers, Menonites, Amish, Anabaptists, etc., where a group of Christians deliberatley withdrew from secular society. Such separation, however, doesn’t square well with the Scriptural injunction to be in the world but not of the world. I appreciate that the initial catalyst for separation was often persecution and that these groups may not have survived had they not physically separated themselves from their societies of origin.
Noli (#64),
At one time I was a pacifist based on the scripture references you mention and on Tolstoy’s observations in his books – particularly ‘What then must we do’.
Over time, though, it became obvious (not sure why it took time) that to live consistently as a pacifist, it would be necessary to be in complete isolation in a cave in Afghanistan. Our society maintains order by force; to reap the benefits of a peace derived in this way and claim to be a pacifist makes little sense.
And, of course, Paul made it fairly clear that the civil authorities – not necessarily Christian – have the God given duty to exercise force to restrain evil in a fallen world. That is not to say that they always exercise this authority as they should, but the alternative – civil anarchy – would be worse than an imperfect government.
Jesus himself did not seem to take an explicitly pacifist position: in his dealings with the centurion he didn’t admonish him to lay down his sword.
[65] Good question, Jim. If Jesus was a pacifist, why did he allow his disciples to go around carrying illegal weapons? You’re right: this is not easy.
On the other hand, I’ve just read the four different Gospel accounts of Jesus’ arrest and nothing there suggests that Jesus’ intervention was at all delayed. A tense confrontation like that in the garden can get out of hand very quickly the second somebody pulls out a weapon. That’s the sense I get from Lk 22, where Peter appears to have attacked the slave before Jesus could reply to the disciples’ request for permission:
“…but Jesus said to him, “Judas, would you betray the Son of man with a kiss?” And when those who were about him saw what would follow, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, “No more of this!”
Have reviewed a couple of key documents in search of further data. First of all, from the Article XXXVII of the 39: “It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons and serve in wars.” That same article, however, says that chief governance in ecclesiastical affairs belongs to “the King’s Majesty,” a position I doubt any of us hold today in Canada.
I also looked over the Montreal Declaration of the Essentials movement and found nothing there regarding civil obligations one way or another.
Was also rather disburbed by something else there that I’d never noticed before in the Montreal Declaration: why aren’t the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion properly treated as “Christian essentials” in that document, but mentioned only in passing? Are they optional? Unimportant?
Probably because the declaration affirms the 39 Articles, and the sacraments are dealt with there? (Just guessing, haven’t been back to read the declaration).
Noli,
With respect to pacifism, I went back to the OT where two readings struck me. The first was with Moses and the golden “calf”. (Exodus 32: 27) The second was with Saul and his falling out with the Lord. (1 Samuel 15: 1)
This seems to me to be a far cry from pacifism. There are many more.
Peace,
Jim
“#10 Noli Aemulari
Our current legal tangle with ACoC is a matter of civil litigation regarding property. Those who feel called to ACT UP by demonstrating against ACoC worship services in disputed churches should be advised in advance that, depending on how far they go, they could face charges under the Criminal Code of Canada:
Disturbing religious worship or certain meetings
176. (2) Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
176. (3) Every one who, at or near a meeting referred to in subsection (2), wilfully does anything that disturbs the order or solemnity of the meeting is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 172.”
Noli: Having gone back to this, your original post on this thread, leads me right back to my feeling that very likely you are posting here to create disharmony and to show that “legal” force can and will be used against any type of dissidence displayed by those who feel strongly against what Fred Hiltz, Micheal Ingham and others are promoting (apostasy).
I stated in an earlier post (#58) that I feel many who hide behind a nom de plume do so for fear of being exposed for one reason or another (an ACoC plant being one of them).
Now that your discussion is petering out, you have now brought other things into the picture (The Montreal Declaration) to fire up the engine of discontent once more.
All this has caused this thread to meander so far from the subject at hand that I am wondering where Kate or David have disappeared to in allowing this to happen.
Blessings,
Gerry
Gerry (#72),
Still here.
Yes, this has meandered rather, but perhaps not in an entirely unprofitable way.
Garry
Your apparent distrust of anybody who uses a nom de plume is groundless. How is using an assumed name such as Noli Aemulair any different from only using your first name as most people on this blog do. I have only posted by the name Cathy (which you assume is my real name), I have never used my last name nor identified where I live, you have no more ability to identify me that you do Noli. If fact the name that somebody chooses may reveal something of the nature of the person.
It’s not actully groundless. We have had people do exactly what Gerry is talking about before, usually by using multiple pen names (which is why there is now a stated rule against that). I do think Gerry is barking up the wrong tree this time, though. As far as moderation goes, I don’t mind meandering conversations, as long as they don’t get personally nasty.
Gerry (#72) is a forthright person, not the typical ‘nice’ Canadian but without guile, from what I’ve read on this blog, and, like Gerry, I also was considering how to get the conversation back to the original post. Kate (#75), I think this time the meandering served as a distraction.
The distraction was interesting and all the arguments were worth considering but Elliot’s Orwellian letter stands barely challenged. This letter–in sweet Canadian niceness, written (as Elliot notes) on the feast of St. Bartholomew the Apostle–has informed the lambs at St. Matthews and (similarly elsewhere) St Mathias and St. Luke, that the ‘Commissary’ is set to oust their trusted shepherds and install in their place Ingham’s puppet government. As fellow believers we need to sound the alarm!
I’m sure Peter Elliot is quite nice in real life (I speak as a Canadian) but, since reading his letter, I’ve been half-expecting to hear the cock crow.
Ach, Elliott, I mean Elliott! I have to get the Commissary’s name right!
#76 – I don’t think anybody is going to be caught flat footed on this one.
#78 OK so my gift is declaring the obvious!!
Irena,
Back at my post #8 I warned Kate that I was going to stir things up, Guess it worked.
I agree that the thread has stretched a long way from its origin and, like Gerry; I too thought we had a Troll. What I believe we have now is a fellow pilgrim with some serious issues they need to have discussed. Given that, I feel called to go the extra mile with that brother, whether on this thread, or another.
Peace,
Jim
#80 You have a shepherd’s heart, Jim. In my attempt to redirect I was thinking that other readers might get ‘blogged down’ with the political stuff and miss the danger and duplicity of Peter Elliott’s letter originally posted. However, as I’ve often noticed, what is mysterious to me is obvious to everyone else!
[72] Gerry wrote:
“Now that your discussion is petering out, you have now brought other things into the picture (The Montreal Declaration) to fire up the engine of discontent once more.”
I mentioned the Montreal Declaration in passing because I read it this morning differently than I’ve read it before. I’ve gone through it several times in the past to find that I agree with everything in it, causing me to join the Network in the first place (orphan that I am).
This time, though, I went through the Declaration looking for something specific – a position on Christian duties to the state – and found the document silent regarding that subject. The Declaration’s silence there caused me to look at it in a different light: what else isn’t in it? I honestly find its failure to articulate even the most basic sacramental theology rather disconcerting, because I consider the sacraments central and essential to Christian practice.
You need to realize that the Network is no longer an “opposition party” within ACoC, but a fledgling Church. As such, it’s the default alternative for all orthodox Anglicans in Canada – not just low church evangelicals, but also broad church types like me. Therefore, the movement will be subjected to much more intense and thoughtful scrutiny than in the past regarding a broader range of subjects. How we (or should I say you?) respond to that scrutiny will largely determine whether we (you?) evolve into a splinter sect, or THE orthodox Anglican alternative in Canada.
Regarding church-state relations, I don’t agree that our discussion is petering out, but rather just beginning. However, I think I’ll follow Jim’s lead and take some time to consider the OT. That will take a while, so bye for now (regarding Caesar, at least).