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
Which is, being interpreted, “We (DNW) need your building to house other congregations whose buildings we are selling to stay solvent. We will assume that you are loyal Inghamians who were being lead astray but who will now see the light.”
And a word for Mr. Elliot: ” John 13:25 “. Shame on you, driven by greed and power, not by love!!
If it is aimed at the courts, the contention that General Synod passed a resolution saying this “is a matter around which people of faith could reasonably disagree” won’t wash either. In fact, Synod said it was not a creedal matter, which is a much narrower claim, and also declined to authorise anyone to perform same sex blessings. I’m sure the parishes will make much of this in their replies.
Well Friday’s mail has just arrived and no letter from the Diocese by Canada Post. Maybe Monday?? or how about Tuesday? Oh well, It will be business as usual at St. Matts this weekend. We are meeting for prayer at 10:30 this morning as Diocesan representatives take inventory so please pray with and for us
#3 Susan,
Why do the diocesan representative have access to your building? Do they have a court order? (The DNW had claimed that they would not initiate any court action).
We are praying for you!
“This is not simply an administrative matter. It is a matter of law.”
You know, someone really has to call these Baby Boomers (to which generation Elliott belongs) on their staggering hypocrisy. In their raucous youth they were all about conscientious objection, Speaking Truth to Power and Down With the Establishment. They cared not a whit for the law, indeed many of them broke every law they disagreed with, holding illegal sit-ins, rioting and vandalizing at will.
Now that they *are* the Establishment of the church, no one is to be allowed to engage in conscientious objection against *them*. Instead, they are apparently on the side of the Law — now that the Law serves their interests. Maybe it’s time to Speak the Truth to the Power that they have become. . .
#4 Jack
No court order. We are being very gracious but limiting with them.
I admire those in New Westminster and here in Niagara Diocese who are being patient and kindly towards the diocesan interlopers. It speaks well of their Christian spirit.
However, deep down I am beginning to wonder if perhaps this isn’t making things a little too easy for our revisionist leaders. A few scenes on the television news of orthodox Christians resisting, forming human chains, barring doors, being hauled off by diocesan enforcers, would show to the world what this church is really all about. The powers that be are people who care deeply about image, and furthermore the church’s shaky financial situation has made them very aware of the need to evangelize. Upset people being evicted from their churches, on camera, is not at all the image that they want to project to the world right now.
We’ve tried being innocent as doves, and it hasn’t worked. A little serpentine cunning might be in order. . .
[7]
Ellie
I’m with you. As a life long union activist, I can attest to the power of civil disobedience to get an intransigent power back to the table. If we are prepared to stand our ground for jobs, why aren’t we prepared to stand up for our salvation?
They’ve had a free ride long enough. As another very successful pressure group has said, “ACT UP”!
Peace,
Jim
#7 and #8 Archbishop Veneables stated we must be loving toward those who disagree with us. That is true provided we exercise discretion and seek out the true meaning of love in this situation. We definitely love our children but that involves correcting them when necessary and showing where they are in error. In my view this also applies to the current situation. Should the courts decide the Diocese has control over the properties, I believe we should picket the property each and every Sunday with signs indicating wording such as “WE PRAY FOR YOUR CONVERSION FROM THE APOSTASY WITHIN THE DIOCESE TO THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL”. I am reminded of the words of the old Lenten hymn from the blue book, “Christian dost thou see them on the Holy ground, how the hosts of darkness compass thee around? Christian, up and smite them, counting gain but loss; smite by the merit of the holy Cross.”
The point is we do not love them or our children by simply going along with their actions. We need to do everything in our power to bring them to the Light.
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.
I doubt that picketing outside the building as I mentioned would be subject to any criminal charges. Doing so would not be an interuption of any service inside the building. I have not and do not suggest any action inside or during any worship service.
Is it not time to rally the “true Church militant here on earth” from every denomination to stand for the true Word of God and Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Son of God in a non-violent picketing and demonstration and stand shoulder to shoulder with the faithful of St. Matthew’s ? Those true to the Gospel proclaimed by the Apostles stand aghast at the travesty being promoted and perpetrated right before the eyes of the world. This is an affront to all true believers and a blatant shaking of the fist in the face of God.
There must be those who are just waiting to pitch in for it is a matter of allegiance to the “One, True and Living God” for every “Christian” regardless of denomination.
“Stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the cross;
Lift up His royal banner, it must not suffer loss”:
“Christian”, stand up and be counted !
Lord of our life, and God of our salvation,
Star of our night and Hope of every nation,
Here and receive thy Church’s supplication,
Lord God Almighty.
See round thine ark the hungry billows curling;
See how thy foes their banners are unfurling:
Lord, while their darts and venom they are hurling,
Thou canst preserve us.
Lord, thou canst help when earthly armour faileth,
Lord, thou canst save when deadly sin assaileth,
Lord, o’er thy Church nor death nor hell prevaileth;
Grant us thy peace, Lord.
Grant us thy help till foes are backward driven,
Grant them thy truth that they may be forgiven,
Grant peace on earth and, after we have striven,
Peace in thy heaven.
(Hymn 421 The Book of Common Praise 1938)
Being
The Hymn Book of
The Anglican Church of
Canada
[10]
Noli
Civil disobedience is called that because it defies the law. Is the letter of the law the boundary of your faith commitment? “Let the dead bury their dead.”!
Peace,
Jim
Some thoughts…
As Christians, we should generally obey the laws of the land… except when they stand in the way of moral obligations. While we do have a moral obligation to preach the truth, I don’t believe that we’re morally obliged to proclaim it specifically from properties that we’ve been barred by the courts from attending.
Others, of course, may disagree in good conscience, so while I don’t encourage illegal protest, I think those considering civil disobedience need to go into it with their eyes open, fully aware of the possible consequences. Even if civil disobedience were justified in our situation, not all members of the community would be called to that particular ministry. Parents of small children, family bread winners, and medically fragile individuals should especially be discouraged.
It’s humbling to think of what our forebears went through for their faith. St Paul and others went to prison for it. They did not even draw the line at martyrdom. (Not that I’m suggesting *that*, but it makes you think.)
And no, picketing is not illegal. And it makes for an excellent “visual” on the nightly news. . .
Well, I don’t think I agree totally with any of you, actually. I am not against civil disobedience, per se. I’ve participated in a wildcat strike, when I thought it was justified. I just don’t know that picketing would be the best witness to the wider world, or the best use of our energies. There’s a line to be drawn here – we have an obligation to the people who came before us who worshipped and contributed financially to the buildings – on the other hand, there comes a time when we just have to move on.
But if we get charged under the Crimminal Code of Canada, perhaps in a few years we would all receive the Order Of Canada!
Oh, please, let’s not go there.
[16]
Kate,
One of the stated intentions of the legal challenges was to keep the actions of the institutional church in the public’s eyes. We are prepared to spend millions of dollars on that action. For the sake of some shoe leather and exposure to the elements, we’ll get far more press. Granted the visuals need to be managed, but this is not rocket science, just media savvy.
Peace,
Jim
It’d be interesting if many from the Christian Churches (all denominations) would be willing to descend peacably upon the Cathedral in Vancouver (I don’t like to name it Christ Church for obvious reasons) and make the point. That’s all we’d need.
#20 Now that, I think, is a good idea. I just wouldn’t be doing it on Sunday morning – that would backfire, I think.
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.
Hasn’t the Diocese of Niagara already disturbed religious services at the 3 churches in that diocese and is this not the intention of Ingham in N.W.
Exactly what I was thinking, Paula! The doicese has bee nothing if not disruptive. Maybe it’s time for *them* to move on. . .
[23, 24] Bang On!
Our opponents would like nothing more than for us to crawl quietly away into egocentric nostalgia.
Part of our metamorphosis into a new vibrant church is our realization that the comfortable pew is no longer an option to us. The old ways and the old days of (smug) certainty are gone. We have become a pilgrim people being led by the Lord on His mission.
We owe Caesar no more than what is found in the belly of a garbage fish.
Let the light shine!
Peace,
Jim
It is time for them to move on. However, they aren’t going to do it. I am not talking about “crawling away into egocentric nostalgia”, far from it. We haven’t lost our building (yet), I don’t know how I’d be feeling if we had. However, I do know that when I visited St. Mary’s on Vancouver Island, who are worshipping in a gym, what I participated in was a new vibrant church. I don’t think that we should walk away without a valiant attempt at self defence! There will be a time, though, when we will have to say, enough, it’s time to move on and let the dead bury their own dead.
[24] “We owe Caesar no more than what is found in the belly of a garbage fish.”
Jim, please expand on this point. Don’t we owe Caesar tax money, at least, as per Matthew 22? Or do you liken the honest fruit of our godly labour to that which is found in the belly of a garbage fish?
Don’t we also owe Caesar a more general duty of obedience, as traditionally taught by the church based upon Romans 13:
“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.”
Sometimes to do what is good means civil disobedience.
Kate, exactly — especially when your opponents in the struggle are Baby Boom generation individuals who themselves may have a record of rebellion in their not-so-distant past. I would give a lot to know what Ingham, Hiltz and their ilk were up to back in the ’60′s.
[26]
Mathew 17:
25
When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own sons or from others?”
26″From others,” Peter answered.
“Then the sons are exempt,” Jesus said to him. 27″But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”
[26]
Regarding the passage from Mt 17, What do you think Jesus is teaching us here? Keep in mind that the half-shekel tax in question was not paid to Caesar, but to the Jewish religious authorities for the purpose of maintaining the temple establishment in Jerusalem. Consider also Jesus’ direct action against the temple money-changers, who were also associated with theocratic taxation.
[30]
“kings of the earth” No differentiation between the dictatorship of the temple hierarchy and the dictatorship of Caesar.
[31]
Perhaps. If so, what IS Jesus teaching here about taxation?
[32]
Being an untutored Blacksmith, I am loathe to go beyond the plain reading of the text.
Why don’t you tell us what you think Jesus “IS” teaching here.
Well, the original Greek word for the tax in Matthew 17:24 is “didrachma” defined in my Greek-English dictionary as “two-drachma Greek coin with the approximate value of two denarii; annual Temple tax required of each Jew.” Going by that, the NIV correctly and accurately translates v 24 this way:
After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?”
“Yes, he does,” he replied.
Then Jesus gets Peter thinking about religious taxation (and the kingdom of heaven) by asking him how things work with civil taxation in the kingdom of man:
“From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own sons or from others?”
“From others,” Peter answered.
“Then the sons are exempt,” Jesus said to him. “But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”
What does this mean? I’m open to discussion, but I think Jesus’ point is this: just as the children of earthly kings are exempt from civil taxation, so are God’s children under no obligation to pay religious taxes. In other words: religious giving should be voluntary, not mandatory
I think this passage is relevant to our current discussion because diocesan apportionments are a modern-day equivalent to the temple tax. It’s interesting to note that, at this point in his career, Jesus instructs Peter to pay the temple tax voluntarily, even though he says they are exempt. Later on, though, he demonstrates against the temple tax by driving out the money-changers – a Christly example of ecclesiastical disobedience to the temple authorities, but it also an act of civil disobedience in that he deliberately broke the peace!
[34]
Known as the “half-shekel tax”. It dates back to Exodus 30:11-16 (at a half of a shekel) -increased in Neh. 10:32-33 (by a third of a shekel). Josephus in the Antiquities puts the shekel at four Attic drachmas. Hence, also known as the didrachma.
The problem with doing a limiting straight -up equation of the parable with just the temple is the use of the phrase “kings of the earth”. The tax has always been thought of as an offering to God from his children -as opposed to “the kings of the earth”.
In my view, that expands the scope of the discussion and is not inconsistent with Gal. 3: 23-26; 4:1-7.
With respect to the money changers in the temple, the Mishnah has a schedule for notice and collection of the tax that moves them into the temple itself in the final phases. (Shekalim 1:3). Therefore the issue of money changers in the temple was of longstanding tradition. Perhaps it was their permanent installation in the temple that focused Christ’s attention.
However we shouldn’t forget that the Romans had replaced the Hebrew leadership of the temple with their own surrogates. If we consider that, perhaps Christ viewed the temple authorities as no more than an extension of the ruling Roman hierarchy
We are a long ways down the road from my original post, which you challenged (“We owe Caesar no more than what is found in the belly of a garbage fish.”) I believe that scripture establishes that it was a coin found in that fish.
Peace,
Jim
On the other hand, the problem with expanding the point of the parable beyond exemption from religious taxation is that, while we’re God’s children, we’re not sons of the kings of the earth. This reading is consistent with the rest of Jesus’ teaching about the kingdom of God in the New Testament, which aims to differentiate it from the the kingdom of man. Also, Jesus teaches elsewhere that we’re not exempt from civil taxation, but should render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. I don’t think he would contradict himself.
Although sons of God and citizens of His kingdom, we are temporary residents in the kingdom of man and therefore subject to civil taxation, just as ex-patriate Canadians pay taxes to foreign governments abroad where they live and work.
Labour Day blessings to all.
[36]
Did you read both passages in Galatians? (Gal. 3: 23-26; 4:1-7.) The 3rd chapter talks of the spiritual and the 4rth Chapter talks of being “in slavery under the basic principles of the world”
Either you accept the plain reading of Mathew or you have a problem. Jesus doesn’t refer to Yahweh, his father, God in heaven -or to the Lord by any other expression in this verse. In no way shape or form would Jesus refer to his father as one of “the kings of the earth”. So who is He saying the tax is paid to? I posited several possibilities in my last post which you have failed to address.
There’s an old rabbinic parable: “It is like a king of flesh and blood who came to a toll house. He said to his servants, “Give toll to the collectors” They answered him, “does not all the toll belong to you?” He said to them “All who pass by shall learn from me that they may not be exempt from the toll”. In the same way that all the toll belongs to the king, all of creation belongs to God and all the bounty of creation is His. Our kinship to God is established through the OT and sealed by the blood of the lamb.
I don’t presume to fully understand the verse, nor am I tutored enough to bury it in other “threads” of the NT. Ignoring the inconvenient bits of the bible is exactly how we got here as a church.
Peace,
Jim
[37]
Hey Jim. Although I don’t claim to perfectly understand it either, I do think you’re misreading the plain meaning of the temple tax passage in Mt. 17. However, my reading is largely informed by a commentary of Richard Baukham, “The Bible in Politics” (google it and you’ll find it online, if you’re interested), and even Baukham admits there that, “precisely what Jesus meant by his question to Peter in verse 25 is debated.” Obviously greater minds than ours have locked horns over that particular passage, so I’m not interested in a protracted pissing contest over it, but would rather move on.
I’m really more interested in exploring the wider implications of our different readings. Rooted in the established Church of England as the religious arm of government, Anglicanism has historically been very much in bed with the civil authorities. Although pre-confederation Anglicans in Canada were officially disconnected from government purse-strings and control long ago, imperial vestiges and attitudes of entitlement still linger behind the ACoC’s leftward drift. So as noted by others in earlier posts, despite their “speaking truth to power” schtick, the diocesan powers-that-be have been quick to dust off and invoke all the old statutes and canons to rout non-conforming congregations from Anglican parish properties through civil court action.
I agree with you, Jim, that our formal break from the ACoC gives us an opportunity to finally shake off some of our old establishmentarian baggage. At least, I think that’s what you might have meant when you wrote: “Part of our metamorphosis into a new vibrant church is our realization that the comfortable pew is no longer an option to us. The old ways and the old days of (smug) certainty are gone. We have become a pilgrim people being led by the Lord on His mission.”
This raises an interesting question, though: if we’re not going to be in bed with government anymore, how should we relate to the civil authorities? I’ve already stated the bare bones of my own position, which is the Biblical doctrine of the “two kingdoms.” Jim, you seem to have a different view that I’m genuinely interested in exploring.
Why? I believe that our foundational attitudes at this point in the church’s formation will have a profound impact upon how succeeding generations of orthodox Anglicans relate to the wider community around us. So… should we disassociate ourselves from both the dictatorship of the temple and the dictatorship of Caesar? Or can orthodox Anglicans hold political and judicial offices in good conscience? How about serving in Caesar’s military and police forces? Are we obliged to pay taxes beyond coins found in fishes? Vote? Pray for the Queen, Governor-General, Prime Minister, etc?
Jim, I’m tempted to project answers to these questions based upon your earlier comments, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so please expand on your views. I’m also interested in hearing other people’s comments from the blog regarding how Christians should go about living “in” this world, without being “of” it, especially in our relationships to civil government.
[38]NA
Briefly, my view is that we live in a post Christian society that is becoming actively hostile to core Christian beliefs. The question of how we relate is much more complicated.
There was an interesting duck at U of T who debated George Grant on the nature of government. His name was Gad Horowitz. He was arguing his theory of Surplus Repression as he saw it applying to government power. In short, he stated that the least amount of coercive power necessary to retain minimal order was the only justified moral extent of a government’s intrusion into our lives. I would take this position and turn it bottom up. The minimum interaction necessary to earn a living and fulfill community responsibilities is the extent to which we are required to participate in society.
Peace, Jim
This is to bring the discussion back to the letter itself. The tragedy is that many people will be taken in by the political content and will readily swallow the chocolate covered arsenic. Nothing in the letter addresses the issue of apostasy and how this can and does have an effect on persons who have and are being led to believe God can and will bless conduct totally contrary to Scripture. The letter is full of half-truths including the statement that no parish is mandated to bless same-sex unions. That is only one side of the coin as clergy MUST refer persons seeking this action to clergy that are willing to perform this so-called right.
The truth is that Michael Ingham wants to rid the Diocese of all orthodox clergy and will do all in his power to do so. He has renounced his vows by his writings and his actions. My sincere prayer is that people will seek the Lord in prayer and see through the deliberate attempt to deceive those receiving the letter. We also pray that the Lord will bring Michael Ingham to repentance even if that means a “2×4 to the side of the head”. Humanly speaking there does not seem to be any other way.
[39]
Gad Horowitz? Now there’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time! I took a political theory course taught by him once upon a time. He was quite the neo-Marxist (and quite the abrasive character, too). As I am NOT a neo-Marxist (and I can also be rather abrasive myself) we didn’t see eye to eye on very much. However, he was also a very challenging teacher who generated much thought and debate among his students, so I’m glad I had him as a professor.
[41]NA
My mentor, Derry Novak, thought it would be great fun to watch Gad Horowitz -the neo-Marxist who didn’t believe in coercive government and George Grant -the Christian Philosopher, try to find a dialect that they could communicate in. Add into that mix Howard Aster, who wanted to steal the spot light by questions from the floor, and the whole exercise was surreal.
Peace,
Jim
NA (#38), it is unclear to me whether you draw a distinction between the church as an institution, and individual members of Christ’s body. Can you clarify? I’m also unclear on why you posed the several questions in your second to last paragraph? They don’t seem to relate to Jim’s earlier comments (except in a very tangential way), and, in my opinion, the vast majority of Christians don’t struggle with them (I think they easily come to the right conclusion without any philosophizing). Perhaps you are suggesting Christians should give them more thought?
I’d also like to throw out a quote from a recent First Things article on Solzhenitsyn, as it seems to have some bearing on your comments. More grist for the mill.
[43]
Warren, the specific questions that I ask all relate to the individual Christian’s civic responsibilities, but the answers to those questions are necessarily grounded in how we view the Church’s relationship with civil society. So both.
The questions were triggered by Jim’s comment that, as Christians, we owe Caesar nothing more than what’s found in the belly of a garbage fish, and now, “the minimum interaction necessary to earn a living and fulfill community responsibilities is the extent to which we are required to participate in society.“
Jim’s minimalist view has a long tradition in reformed Christian history as various groups (e.g. Plymouth Brethren, Anabaptists) have withdrawn to different degrees from society. But it’s a departure from the traditional Anglican approach. I’m wondering whether Jim’s position is idiosyncratic or widespread in Canada’s orthodox Anglican movement.
[44]
Who’s calling me an idiot? [LOL]
Peace
Jim
I don’t know how widespread certain views are (and this blog won’t answer the question), but I know that Jim’s view on societal participation more closely reflects the New Testatment church than does the “traditional Anglican approach” where the church, to some degree at least, played the role of Caesar.
Speaking of Caesar, given that ethnic Israel was a nation subjected to the rule of occupying power, to whom (or what) do you equate Caesar in our context?
Noli:
“But it’s a departure from the traditional Anglican approach.”
Maybe this is where the whole complete problem arises….a departure from traditional anglican approach. It appears that what is now considered by some (Hiltz, et al) to be a traditional anglican aproach is what has catapulted the ACoC and TEC into such turmoil. Ingham, Hiltz, and others are claiming “traditional Anglicanism” as the right thing…..whatever happened to the simple and straightforward Christian Approach……Read the Holy Bible, absorb the Holy Bible, try to live the Holy Bible as best one can and then pay to caesar only what is owed to caesar, nothing more, nothing less.
These arguments can go on and on into realms of where others find it just to much to try to absorb when it is so simple. Do I err? Of course I err! I am human but when I err, and when The Lord shows me I have erred through correction from my Pastor or the from the Holy Scriptures, etc. I turn and try to correct the error of my ways.
Hiltz, Jeffers-Schorri, Ingham, robinson and the rest of the merry band do know that they are in error but they simply refuse to accept the written word but would rather rewrite it to suit their purpose which is not the furtherance of “The Word” but the furtherance of the work of the enemy.
Blessings,
Gerry
[46] Warren asked:
“Speaking of Caesar, given that ethnic Israel was a nation subjected to the rule of occupying power, to whom (or what) do you equate Caesar in our context?”
I’ve been using “Caesar” as short-hand for civil authority in general. In our Canadian context, that includes the federal, provincial, and municipal governments and their various departments, ministries, and agencies including judicial, police, military, and various regulatory functions.
[47] Regarding the traditional Anglican approach to church-state relations, Gerry wrote:
“…whatever happened to the simple and straightforward Christian Approach……Read the Holy Bible, absorb the Holy Bible, try to live the Holy Bible as best one can and then pay to caesar only what is owed to caesar, nothing more, nothing less.”
I wish the “Christian approach” really could be simple and straightforward! However, sincere Christians who equally uphold the authority of Scripture nevertheless frequently arrive at radically different conclusions. For example, based on their reading of the Bible, Mennonites do not practice infant Baptism and are strict pacifists. Baptists, on the other hand, also read the Bible diligently and agree with Mennonites regarding infant baptism, but do not think it wrong to bear arms and kill in the line of civil duty or self-defense.
Even in this thread, Jim and I have demonstrated very different readings of the temple tax passages in Matthew 17. I believe that Jesus’ point is that, just as the children of earthly of kings are exempt from civil taxation, so are the children of God exempt from religious taxation (and all that implies regarding our status in the kingdom of heaven as God’s beloved children). Like me, Jim upholds the authority of scripture, but he reads that passage differently and based upon his reading he believes (apparently) that the only tax we’re obliged to pay the government is cash found in fishguts. Thinking about a recent tax payment that I submitted, I wish he’d hurry up and persuade me before the cheque clears, but so far I remain unconvinced.
Be that as it may, I note with interest that Gerry O’Brien seems to share Jim’s generally minimalist view regarding the responsibilities of Christians in the civil sphere: “pay to caesar only what is owed to caesar, nothing more, nothing less.” I thought long and hard about that same question before voluntarily undertaking military service, but obviously arrived at a different conclusion at the time. Now I find myself struggling with the question anew.
[46] Warren wrote:
“I don’t know how widespread certain views are (and this blog won’t answer the question)…”
In my currently orphaned situation, this blog dialogue is better than total isolation. My interest is more than academic and theoretical.
[47]NA
Fishguts?
One of the bloggers in this thread is currently in the military and another is a retired RCMP. Careful of your assumptions.
Peace,
Jim
Noli:
Warren, Jim, Frank, myself and many others use our real names, not some pen name derived from the works of Arthur Hugh Clough. Why can you not use your name…. It seems that your writings are by design, intended to create confusion and to lead us away from the Truth.
For your information “noli”, I have served my Country in uniform, I have paid to “Caesar” what I have owed to Caesar” and I write in simplistic terms in order to not try to confuse. If you are confused about the simplicity of the Holy Scriptures, perhaps attending a Baptist Bible School would be of some assistance.
Academics and Theoretics are sometimes so far from the truth Noli, that those who try to dissuade or lead folks astray depend on academia and theory to do so. The Holy Bible, Noli is not theory, In my view and the view of Christian Believers, the Holy Bible is Fact.
So, my dear Noli, it appears that we have the facts and you have the theory….gosh, now I’m confusing myself.
Blessings
Gerry