Read it all here
The Primate said to us:
“I come to this meeting of the House of Bishops mindful of our Canadian context and the call for authorization of public rites for the blessings of same sex-unions in a number of our dioceses. I am also mindful of the place of the Anglican Church of Canada in our worldwide Communion.
“I trust the House of Bishops will support my call for respect for due process through the General Synod in this matter. In 2007, General Synod concurred with the opinion of the St. Michael Report (produced by the Primate’s Theological Commission) that the blessing of same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine. It is not creedal in nature but nonetheless it is doctrine. The same General Synod called for further work by the Primate’s Theological Commission in assisting the Church to determine if this matter of blessings is a Spirit-led development of doctrine. I believe that these deliberations across the church will have a significant impact on discussion at General Synod in 2010 and on the subsequent authority of dioceses through due synodical process to proceed with blessings.
“Please know that I am mindful of the continuing havoc created in several of our dioceses through cross-border interventions on the part of Primates and bishops from other jurisdictions. I believe we must call them to account. They too must honour the Lambeth call for ‘gracious restraint.’ I remain committed to addressing this issue within the Communion. ”
We spent several hours in conversation on the implications of the appeal from the Primate.
As a result of these conversations a large majority of the House can affirm the following:
A continued commitment to the greatest extent possible to the three moratoria — on the blessing of same-sex unions, on the ordination to the episcopate of people in same-sex relationships and on cross-border interventions — until General Synod 2010. Members of this House, while recognizing the difficulty that this commitment represents for dioceses that in conscience have made decisions on these matters, commit themselves to continue walking together and to hold each other in prayer.
The House also affirms:
A commitment to establishing diocesan commissions to discuss the matter of same-sex blessings in preparation for conversations at General Synod 2010.
Continued commitment to exercise the greatest level of pastoral generosity in keeping with provisions approved by this House in Spring, 2007 and continued commitment to the Shared Episcopal Ministry document approved in Fall, 2004.
We ask for your continuing prayers as we steadfastly seek to discern the mind and heart of Christ for the wholesome care of all members of his Body, the Church. We share a deep hope that though we may never come to consensus over this matter of the blessing of same-sex unions, we will live with differences in a manner that is marked by grace and generosity of spirit, one toward another.
A few initial observations:
The ‘continuing havoc’ mentioned above is actually being caused by the ACoC itself by precipitating this crisis in the first place and by taking numerous parishes to court in order to seize their buildings.
The tone is clearly one of reluctantly adhering to the moratorium on SSBs ‘to the greatest extent possible’ (whatever that means), not the repentance that most of the rest of the world’s Anglicans are looking for.
Whether the dioceses that are currently on the brink of performing SSBs actually do hold off until 2010 still remains to be seen; and will New Westminster stop? It will be instructive to see what individual statements these dioceses make.
Interestingly, this is perspective of Reuters Africa:
OTTAWA, Oct 31 (Reuters) – Canada’s Anglican bishops sidestepped a request from the worldwide Anglican Communion to stop blessing gay marriages for now, despite warnings that failure to do so would imperil Anglican unity.
The bishops issued a statement on Friday saying “a large majority” of them could affirm “a continued commitment to the greatest extent possible” to a moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions until the Canadian church’s general synod in 2010.
But the statement did not commit the entire Anglican Church of Canada to agreeing to the request made in August by the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference of global Anglican leaders.
Let’s see if I am hearing Fred correctly. Did he say,
“Blah, blah, blah. Bad Southern Cone. Blah, blah, blah, same-sex blessings coming to a church near you. And everybody who can’t live with this new “mind of Christ” find a new church home. Blah, blah. Worldwide communion who?
Yea, that sums it up.
Don’t Panic [#1],
Yea, that sums it up.
Except you were more eloquent.
Hmm, interesting, seems as though the HoB as a whole are not quite ready to sanction this move. I think they do care about the Anglican Communion, at least inasmuch as it legitimises the Canadian church. I think they also recognised a decision to go for this now would not go down well. So, in that I was wrong, as I expected much more HoB fence sitting. Not that I think this is a wonderful document!
I too would like to see what “to the greatest extent possible” actually means in practice. Having read what was coming out of Montreal etc, I was of the opinion that they had their course determined and set. Perhaps I was wrong? Will they proceed anyway? I note that whist a ‘large majority’ signed up to the statement, not all did.
We live in interesting times.
I’m not sure that they care about the Anglican Communion as much as they do about their claim to their properties. They might be trying to stem the tide of churches leaving to join ANiC – as increasing numbers would not look good in court. If they win the property cases then I don’t see them stopping the course they are on for anything.
One thing I’m wondering about is the comment that a majority of the bishops agreed to this, not all. Will the minority abide by the decision of the majority?
Paula [#4],
I think many of the the bishops do care about power and status in addition to the value of the property. They may see this as a way to have their cake and eat it: Fred Hiltz has made his appeal and notwithstanding, some wayward dioceses may choose to proceed anyway (while Hiltz cheers them on in private).
Taken straight from my Machiavellian Guide to the Anglican Church
Would be interesting to know if the minority who disagreed are also those Dioceses who are already publicly preparing to move forward on SSB’s. My strong suspicion is yes. And therefore it is likely they will proceed as planned and ACoC will drift further…
So what would it mean, if we saw the following statement:
*************
As a result of these conversations a large majority of the GAFCON Primatial Council and bishops of the CCP can affirm the following:
A continued commitment to the greatest extent possible to the three moratoria — on the blessing of same-sex unions, on the ordination to the episcopate of people in same-sex relationships and on cross-border interventions — until the Covenant Process is concluded. Members of the GAFCON Primatial Council and bishops of the CCP, while recognizing the difficulty that this commitment represents for parishes and dioceses that in conscience have made decisions on these matters, commit themselves to continue walking together and to hold each other in prayer.
****************
Would such a statement sound the ending of the cross border oversight? No. Would it be satisfactory for the Canadian bishops as an assurance of no more cross border oversight? I doubt it.
From Scripture, which the Canadian HoB abides by to the greatest extent possible:
Matthew 5:37 “Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.”
The question was “Will you abide by the moratoria requested?”
The answer was “Definitely maybe.”
Pastoral generosity?? They must be using a different dictionary than I do…
Please give it a chance. I get the feeling that the ANiC does not want a resolution to the issue, because without the one issue of SSB, the ANiC would probably cease to exist. It is a one issue group it seems to me. I am confident that the HoB spent much time in prayer and reflection in the past few days and wants to see the unity of the church communion. Maybe a more reasonable approach by members of the ANiC, instead of adhering to outside influence, namely the Southern Cone, would have produced more positive results in the Canadian church. After all who of us would approve of another country interfering in the business of our own country in the same fashion that the Cone has done so in the church realm. When the Canadian government passed the legislation allowing such marriages, those of us who oppose it did not leave the country, at least none that I know of.
Randy
Randy:
Do your homework! ANiC is MOST certainly NOT a “one issue group”
Randy [#11],
If the HOB had expressed a change of heart and admitted the direction that they had taken was wrong (you are not suggesting they did, are you?), I think we would be delighted to give it a chance.
As for “would have produced more positive results in the Canadian church“, some of us have been waiting for over 30 years for more positive results; all we have seen is the reverse. Eventually one has to stop waiting and act: that is what ANiC has done.
Well, I am surprised at the outcome I must say. They must be really worried about the break up of the ACoC. I would like to think it is about unity and concern for one another but I really doubt it with the track record of the House of Bishops. Maybe some of the new Bishops are having an effect. We’ll take what we can get – 2010 will soon be upon us and then there will be no holding back. By the way I believe it is Reformation Day today. Go Luther!
And by the way, if the ANIC hadn’t been formed they would not have taken any steps to restrain themselves – of that I am sure.
#11 Randy, what needs to be said over and over again is that it is the ACofC and TEC who have caused and fanned the flames of our current problems, NOT the so-called traditionalists, ANiC, GAFCON, Common Cause and the like – No, these have merely responded to the actions of the Anglican Church in Canada and the USA.
The problem is that what you are asking for has been happening for decades, and for me personally since around 1998 – ten years. Granted, this is not a long time in the grand scheme of things, and not even when it comes to controversies in the Church. But I think that the notion that a more reasonable approach would yield positive results overlooks the very reasonable approach by people within the Canadian church and by the primates and bishops of the global church, which is being ignored in Canada and which has yielded negative results. Every time the powers that be say, “Be patient, lets talk, lets think, lets have more prayer and conversation,” the ACofC and TEC simply misbehave more – more lawsuits, more threats, and more innovative heresy. This is simply a fact. In light of this, I think it is simply disingenuous to point the finger at cross border incursions, when these would never have been needed if the heresy and schismatic acts of others had been met with discipline and truth.
David: Are you saying that even if the ACoC resolved the SSB issue to the satisfaction of ANiC that would not in itself change the current situation, that you would still remove yourself (I mean not just you but others also) from the ACoC? Interesting indeed.
Randy
[17]
Randy,
The deconstruction of scriptural authority was a necessary first step in initiating the SSB’s. Go to the Rev Dr Brian Ruttan’s web and follow his arguement on scripture. This was the theological reflection that Niagara put forward for SSB’s.
By any definition used in the past two thousand years, this is heresy. Remove SSB’s from the equation and the ACoC is still in apostasy.
Randy, as I read your comments, you provide a strong argument for the ANiC. Your predominant concern appears to be process and politics – a concern shared by secular organizations who pay no allegiance to God. You also seem to value unity above all else, even if it means trampling all over essential doctrine. Of course, it can only be unity on the ACoC’s terms – who gives a hoot about unity with the church universal; past and present.
Randy [#17],
I thought I just said the opposite: one of us has drifted into an alternate quantum reality.
I must be missing something. Isn’t a bishop’s role to defend the faith? Isn’t doctrine theirs and theirs alone to detemine? Christianity is not based on democracy but a theocracy. When did doctrine become a matter for determination by vote at General Synod? I suggest that the HOB has failed to exercise their responsibility, and has delegated it the GS. No wonder the ACoC is adrift.
#21: I heartily agree with you that a bishop’s role should be to defend the faith, but, under the present state of the Anglican Church, I’m uneasy with giving them the job of forming doctrine. Think Spong or Ingham!
The happy thing though is that the Holy Spirit has been given to believers to lead them into all truth. And the Word of God continues to teach and regulate doctrine for those who would come under its authority and plain teaching. Synods and Bishops may totally miss the boat, but the Lord Jesus, the Good Shepherd, knows how to hold his own together. Always has. Alleluia!
I feel compelled to comment on what is happening in the ACoC, from my perspective of 26 years, ordained within it.
How liberal attitudes arrise, is largely because we are afraid of saying “no” or upsetting people. I constantly get people seeking baptism and confirmation for their children, wishing to get married in the church, sitting on vestry, or attending synods etc. who have virtually no church connection, in terms of actual fairly often church attendance. They expect me as a represenative of the church or God, to bless whatever they are seeking, without question and without jumping through any requirements.
Although I try to explain things, I am accused of refusing. The consequence of this is to either: find another Anglican church that will comply (and there are many out there) or write a nasty letter to my bishop. This has happened many times, and although I would love to comply and be thought ‘nice’, my conscience and what I know of Christ, always stops me.
It is much easier and far less painful and confrontational to comply with what society wants – and this for me is the root cause of liberalism. Go with the pressure, rather than God’s word.
Another problem is that the great majority of people both inside and outside the church, are biblically illiterate and apathetic. Relying more on what they have, heard or read, rather than going to the sourse document itself. And I do not mean ‘proof texting’ but getting the whole broad themes that emerge. Such as, from the Old Testament, Yahweh picks a certain nation to exemplify holiness and be a moral and ethical example to all whom they encounter. Over hundreds of years we see a process of cultural assimilation based on pure reason or pressure – other gods are added to the Temple, Sabbath is ignored in favour of trade, the disadvataged are abused, sexual sins are rationalised, etc. etc. And finally the entire nation collapses in a series of exiles.
On reflection of why this national disaster happened Pharisaic Judaism emerged – so keep a multitude of laws and everything will be O.K.
Jesus comes along in the New Testament, preaching, healing and forgiving, to all who show the slightest interest in him. But his most stinging criticism is of Pharisaic Torah. He introduces us to God, rather than a concept, ‘we don’t have to know him, but if we keep his laws he will not clobber us’.
So if you read superfically just the New Testament, you can arrive at a concept of God as so loving that he is prepared to tolerate anyone and any sort of behaviour or belief system, in direct opposition to the wrathful God that can be read out of the O.T. So once again we have the seeds of liberalism, God blesses everyone and everything.
The church’s goal is to present a real. living, individual and personal encounter with Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, for every person that walks through its doors, be it extending love where it is needed, or by challenging where it is needed.
Everything else is secondary, the buildings, our form of government and its structures etc.
A final word on who should be ordained, we have to discern their call be it male, female or any other catergory. Not whether they have the right qualifications, desire or even abilities. Wrong priests can destroy a congregation – right ones can build up.
[23]
Rev Mac,
Thank you for your fine post.
Peace,
Jim
Rev. Mac (#26), you raise some interesting points. I have a question about this statement:
In the denominations and churches I’ve been associated with over the course of my life – and there have been many – I’m certain that the scenario you have described rarely occurred; and when it did, the pastor wasn’t afraid to say no. Why is the ACoC so different? Could it be that many priests are just reflecting what they were taught in seminary and are perpetuating a liberal malaise? I agree with your concluding statement and believe that much of the responsibility for the Biblical illiteracy of the sheep lies with the shepherds.
I guess my comment above should have been directed to Rev. Mac (#23). Apparently I can’t count.
Back to the HoB statement; I see the statement primarily as an attempt to but the best face on a divided HoBs. Given the result I expect something like the following occurred.
On one side is a vocal group of “liberal” bishops arguing:
- We must show leadership and proceed with the blessing of SS unions, we have waited long enough
- We need to provide this pastoral ministry to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters
- These cross-border interventions must be stopped, it is tearing the fabric of the ACoC
In the opposite corner aer a few “conservative” bishops pleading:
- We must follow the process, this is an issue of doctrine, we need to take it to 2010 synod
- We need to have a moratoria on the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination to the episcopate of people in same-sex relationships
- If we don’t do this it will tear the fabric of the worldwide communion
- They must keep quiet on faith/theological arguments because they are no longer effective with the majority in the HoB
Most bishops are in the middle saying
- Empathising with both the liberal and conservative bishops concerns
- Crying “Can’t we all just get along”
- Saying, why don’t we all compromise a bit and agree to three moratoria — on the blessing of same-sex unions, on the ordination to the episcopate of people in same-sex relationships and on cross-border interventions — until General Synod 2010.
Disclaimer: (I have no inside information on the HoB and the above is my personal speculation)
Thank you, Rev. Mac. It is very nice to see more priests commenting on the blog.
Re: #11
Randy,
Kendall Harmon has a short, excellent video on how SSB is merely the tip of the iceberg in the Anglican crisis. Randy please have a look at this video before you make any more accusations that ANiC is a one issue movement. I think it will broaden your understanding of the movement. I hope the link below works. If it doesn’t go to the ANiC website, and click resources, and then videos. Kendall is at the bottom of the page
mms://69.93.51.164/americananglican/Tip%20of%20the%20Iceber%20Streaming.wmv
As I read Randy’s post it brings many different thoughts to mind. Randy, the Anglican Church of Canada has ceased to be an organization that is focused on proclaiming the Gospel as it is written. It’s an organization that seems mostly interested in putting it’s time and energy into being culturally relavent and talking about it endlessly without resolution. That’s why I personally cannot support the denomination and left when my church left. My time, money, energy and prayers need to go towards two things and two things only, a) bringing people who don’t know the Jesus of the Bible to Jesus and b) personally growing closer to God, including accepting ALL about what he reveals about himself in his word, including what is taught about sexuality.
That being said, I will admit my own disapointment with ANIC. Like the ACC they seem to have forgotten that it’s all about Jesus. I find it sad that almost every press release I see is about lawsuits and church’s joining. In fact I can’t recall a single press release about ANIC launching new ministries to reach the unchurched. I find it disapointing that they have all the money in the world to pay for lawyers, and all the time in the world to talk to the press about it but they haven’t been able to set up regional youth ministries, or establish any form of missions, or support/training networks for lay leaders, establish summer camps for kids, etc.
Jonathan
Well, Johnathan, ANiC has been around for less than a year…give it bit of time! Remember that, aside from local priests and church staff, ANiC itself has (I think) three employees, and I think at least one of them is part time. I can only speak for my own church, but we are very concerned with evangelism. I think that is primarily the job of the local church. Also, the money for lawyers is only coming out of the legal defense fund. That money was specifically donated to that fund, to be used for that purpose. ANiC is not spending a penny of general funds on lawyers (please correct me if I am wrong, Marilyn or Cheryl….)
Kate,
I know it has been less than a year, and it is a very small organization. However, the same argument could be made in defense of the ACC; that as soon as they are done discussing the ins and outs of SSB they will get back to proclaiming the work of Christ to the world. How many calls have been made to “give it more time?” Being the church needs to come first, the operational aspects of buildings and bank acounts needs to come second. This is the case if you’ve been in existence for 100 years or 100 days (really, buildings and bank accounts are in God’s hands anyway). My impression is that if the network leadership got together with the intention of NOT discussing a) money b) lawsuits c) buildings d) the most recent church to join ANIC or e) church structure that they would have absolutely nothing to talk about and that’s a problem. I can’t help but feel that my church would have been better off leaving to joing the Baptists of the Pentacostals where the money sent to the denomination would be spent on ministry.
I am a reasonable person, and I wasn’t expecting ANIC to launch 50 ministries in the first week. I also know that there are operational things that do need to get established in order to support ministries. However, I find it hard to believe that over the past year or so they haven’t been able to find enough time or money in their budget to hire someone to establish regional youth ministries, or to hire someone to start coordinating evanglism, or to get someone to start coordinating missions, or to even take enough time off from talking to the press to do it themselves. I am just running out of patience, ANIC is starting to “smell” like ACC, all talk, all the time, none of it about Jesus.
Jonathan
Jonathan, not to sound judgmental, but I happen to know personally 90% of the ANiC clergy and many of their ministries and churches as well, and what you have said is simply not true about them as people or the churches in their care or their ministries. Yes, the wheels may be spinning a bit, but many are being sued, and they are only in the first year as a formal organization. Considering these two points alone I suspect a little more grace is in order. Dome if the ANiC folks are retired. Others have families. But the fact is they have been working their butts off.
Now you may know them all too, and if you do then you know what I am saying is true. Nut if you are as frustrated as I am (an active priest in the ACofC) don’t take it out on ANiC. Take it up with Jesus.
Jonathan,
You are a very demanding fellow with lofty expectations, that appear more borne of a desire for dispute than any real concern for ministry. I only speak for myself when I say that what ANiC is doing at the moment is the most monumental of missions. Perhaps it is true that ANiC may appear to your internet eyes to be void of any desire for ministry, but you are sadly mistaken and in need of some material to back up your argument. Member churches of ANiC are, in many cases, continuing their service to community, youth, poor, church planting, you name it, despite the great difficulties and tribulations intentionally placed on them by certain ACoC diocese. They are a Christ-centered people who continue to introduce Jesus to a hurting people. As ANiC, on a national level, is a Christ-centered ecclesial body ministering to an injured and fearing flock of faithful Christians. You cannot judge a people simply by what you cannot see.
By the way… I’m hungry, with no food and I keep telling my family that Jonathan will be here to help soon… but I guess he’s spending too much time being critical on the blogs to actually do any kind of ministry… He’s all talk, and none about Jesus. See my point?
I would like to retract my last posting (34), sort of. It lacks grace and was spoken harshly. I stand by my point, but, I did not intend it so abrasively and fear it may appear to be a personal attack on Jonathan (particularly the last paragraph). That is surely not the intent. I only presented the case as an experiential lesson, with no intentional discredit to anyone. Apologies to Jonathan.
#32 Jonathan, how effective do you think regional coordinators actually are? They cost a lot of money and are a huge drain on local church budgets (take the 25% ‘offering’ that some parishes have to give to their diocese to pay for a bloated staff). In South Carolina they have changed their focus to the local church and have instigated the 10-10-10 solution: in this model every person tithes, the church tithes and the national church tithes (toward missions). This allows the local church to focus on local evangelism, youth ministry and other programmes without there being a drain on their resources. I believe this is either similar to, or the same, as the model ANiC uses.
#32 – ANiC is intentionally lean, organizationally. Its main purpose, I believe, is to free up the local church to be church, and it is doing that admirably well.
How do you know what the network leadership is discussing? What are you basing your impressions on? ANiC newsletters and this blog are mainly concerned with getting the news out, and most of the things you have cited come under that heading. Besides, all that stuff (well, with the exception of d) needs to be dealt with, in order to free the local church up to be church.
Perhaps I haven’t state my point in the clearest of ways. Take the most recent ANIC newsletter, there are roughly 2-3 articles about what ANIC is doing that could any any way be considered ministry (The clergy day before synod, news about their cross Canada info tour). There are 17 articles about money, churches leaving here and in the USA, priests getting inhibited, etc. There are two articles about evangilism at the end of the newsletter, one about the diocese of Sydney distributing Bibles, and one about a church in South Dakota. I have been reading the blogs, reading the newsletters, keeping up to date with what is going on, etc, etc. I am tired of the focus being on things that simply don’t matter and should be left up to God, and I want to focus of ANIC to be on proclaiming the Gospel. However, when you go and read the newsletter and a vast majority of the articles are about money, churchs leaving, etc it looks like their purpose is to break up the ACC and rub their nose in it and the ACC looks like an institution that wants to be culturally relevant at all costs, when neither is the correct purpose for a denomination to exist.
I grew up in a very small denomination, probably not much bigger than ANIC currently is, and yes they only had 4 or 5 staff as well. However, the purpose of those staff was to support larger scale, coordinated ministries, I would like ANIC to do more of that.
Just to make sure I am clear. I do attend an ANIC church I have no issues with what the church has been doing. They have done a great job from keeping discussions buildings/money/SSB from taking over everything and have stayed focused on the ministies they had going before they split.
#39 Exactly. ANiC is dealing with most of the political stuff in order to free up the local churches to do these things.
Jonathan,
At this point I think ANiC is doing exactly what God has called it to do; and I am very grateful for it and its staff.
If you think something is lacking, why not volunteer your services to help fill what you see as a gap?
Jonathan, I didn’t grow up as an Anglican either and I am sympathetic to your comments – the ANiC does appear to be placing considerable focus on property and the “politics” surrounding the departure of parishes from the ACoC. I also understand why others on this blog are reacting as they are.
Overt evangelism is not in the DNA of Canadian Anglicans as it is in some other denominations and it is not realistic to think that certain activities, that have never been a focus of the church, will suddenly become a priority. That said, it is possible for the balance to tip too far in the other direction, and I believe that the ANiC church I attended was just as or more effective in outreach as other churches I have attended that strongly encouraged things like street evangelism.
Evangelism happens at the local church and individual level. If people in the local church are being nourished and well shepherded, I believe that evangelism will be a natural outgrowth. If they are not, no amount of effort, organization or publicity at the national/regional level will make much difference.
Further to what Warren has just mentioned, I am a lay person in a new ANIC church plant and would like to share what we have been experiencing in our area. One of the first committees we formed was our Outreach committee. We have begun to actively pursue outreach in three areas; within our parish, within our community and outside the community. When we started we were approached by an individual with a homosexual background looking for a place to belong. We gladly welcomed him, letting him know our intentions to include him as a family member but we also lovingly discussed our beliefs on the issue. He came to our first Sunday service last Palm Sunday and continues to come regularly. We have cared for his mother who does not attend by visiting her in the hospital, cleaning her house when she came home, bringing her food etc. Currently we are preparing to send some much needed personal items to a personal care home and community center at Oxford House. We also have been promoting missions by bringing in speakers from International House of Prayer and were able to send them back a good donation. Our congregation is growing, and oh yes, the fellow I first mentioned, works in a public place and is constantly telling his fellow workers that he has found a place that cares for him and even his family who do not attend, he also tells them the gospel message every chance he gets. This is just one example within our ANIC church there are many more and even more in others I am sure. We probably don’t heart about some of these things because we believe that we are only doing what we should be doing, “going about our Fathers business”
….also we are thankful to the ANIC executive for taking care of the political things at their level so as Kate says, we are free to focus on these local outreaches.
I am a member of the Church of the Good Samaritan in NL and we have committed 10% of our offerings to mission work and have a running mission committee. I think your point is valid. While the ANiC leadership has to spend a lot of time on issues of property, money, and politics to get us through these rough times the people in the pews need to focus on both strenghting their relationships with JEsus and going outreach.
Jonathan, I omitted to mention one thing in my previous comment (#42), that I think is also important. In one of your earlier comments you suggested that your church may have been better off joining the Baptists or Pentecostals (an interesting association which would have raised more than a few eyebrows in the Pentecostal church I grew up in – but I digress) – denominations that hold to an Arminian theology (although I know that there are also reformed Baptist churches). Orthodox Anglicanism, on the other hand, is essentially reformed in its theology. All Christians are called to proclaim the gospel, but the methodologies considered appropriate for doing so should have a theological underpinning. If you believe that you must convince people of the truth of the gospel and persuade them to make a decision for Christ, you are driven towards a certain form of evangelism. If you believe that you must simply present the gospel, and that it is the Holy Spirit that does the persuading, and that God has chosen His children from before the foundation of the earth, you are driven towards a different form of evangelism. If you are not comfortable with the latter, then you may never be comfortable with Anglicanism.
Hang on now, Warren – you don’t have to buy into predestination to be Anglican….
Kate [#47],
I think Warren had to say that….
[39]
Jonathan,
Why on earth would you expect local ministry to be performed at the national level?
I too am a proud member of an ANiC church. I came from a fine caring congregation in Niagara that is valiantly attempting to stay out of the “politics” of the wider Anglican Communion. Having said that, their hands on ministry was exclusively inward looking to the needs of it’s members. Yes, there were many members who worked on a broad range of outreach initiatives independant of the parish and there was parish money funneled to worthy causes.
At St. Georges there is a world of difference. There are three off shore missionary ventures being sponsored. A church plant is under way. Outreach isn’t a committee, it’s a way of life.
I am also a volunteer at the National office. Never have I seen so few people accomplish so much…and most of the full timers work for the love of the faith as volunteers.
ANiC has grown out of the decline of the ACoC and blossomed into an effective arm of the body of Christ. We are blessed to be part of it.
Peace,
Jim
I didn’t mean to cause such a ruckus, and I am in no way suggesting that all ministry is the responsibilty of the national church, and not of the local church. I am just expressing my disapointment that the centralized body of ANIC hasn’t been able to get much work done beyond church politics. I’ve grown tired of press release after press release and newsletter after newsletter that is nothing but church politics. I was hoping for more.