A Message to the Church in the Ecclesiastical Province of Rupert’s Land
Nov 17th, 2008 by Peter
Received by email and from here.
A Message to the Church in the Ecclesiastical Province of Rupert’s Land
Greetings in the name of the risen and ascended Lord, whose return in glory we await.
We , the Bishops of the Province of Rupert’s Land returned from the Lambeth Conference, profoundly moved by our encounter with the other bishops of the worldwide Anglican Communion and deeply committed to our continuing life together.
As we and the other bishops at Lambeth sought to discern God’s call to us, we discussed many painful and complex issues on which we had deep and intense differences. Yet these differences were surpassed by the unity we discovered as we worshiped, prayed and studied the Scriptures together. One of those issues on which we sought God’s guidance was the blessing of same gender unions.
A significant majority of the bishops gathered at Lambeth requested that as part of our discernment process the moratoria proposed in the Windsor report continue to be honoured.
These moratoria mean that all bishops are asked to refrain from
1. Authorizing rites for the public blessing of same gender unions
2. Participating in the consecration of a bishop openly engaged in a same gender relationship
3. Engaging in cross-border pastoral interventionsOur Primate, The Most Reverend Fred Hiltz, has requested that we enter into a time of ‘gracious restraint‘ by honouring these moratoria.
We, the bishops of the Ecclesiastical Province of Rupert’s Land, give thanks for the courageous and pastorally sensitive leadership of our Primate. We commit ourselves individually and collectively to honour the moratoria. We do so with the clear understanding that in so doing we are not in any way prejudging the results of the discernment process.
Having committed ourselves to entering into the time of ‘gracious restraint’ requested by the Lambeth Conference, the Archbishop of Canterbury and our Primate, we call upon all those who consider themselves members of the Anglican Communion to honour this request. We especially call upon those bishops from outside of our Province who have chosen to interfere in our dioceses to immediately cease their activities. We call on all individuals within our Province who have aligned themselves with outside groups to return to their parish family and enter into open and respectful dialogue with us about how their concerns can be addressed and their gifts utilized more fully in the proclamation of the Gospel and the building up of the Kingdom of God.
May the Holy Spirit fill your hearts and lives with joy as you prepare for the season of Advent when we anticipate the celebration of the birth of our Lord Jesus as Saviour of the world and await his return in glory as the Judge of that same world.
The Bishops of the Dioceses of
The Arctic
Athabasca
Brandon
Calgary
Edmonton
Keewatin
Qu’Appelle
Rupert’s Land
Saskatoon
Note: There are currently no bishops in the Diocese of Saskatchewan
We call on all individuals within our Province who have aligned themselves with outside groups to return to their parish family
“Will you walk into my parlour?” said the Spider to the Fly,
‘Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy;
“We call on all individuals within our Province who have aligned themselves with outside groups to return to their parish family and enter into open and respectful dialogue with us about how their concerns can be addressed and their gifts utilized more fully in the proclamation of the Gospel and the building up of the Kingdom of God.”
First of all we tried to have dialogue here in Brandon but we were continually shut down. Second, this statement infers that we were not respectful in any dialogs that did take place and thirdly our gifts are being utilized to their fullest right where we are! Do these people think that only those within the ACoC can use their gifts fully? To “call” us back is somewhat insulting language as if we were disobedient children but then this letter was to be read in ACoC churches not ANiC churches so not sure if we were really meant to respond anyway. Lastly, how does this letter expressing their adherence to a moratoria on SSB fit with the recent news of Rupert’s Land Synod passing SSB?
“We commit ourselves individually and collectively to honour the moratoria.”
Did they blink? It looks like a blink.
It is definitely far better than what has come from the Diocesan Bishops of Niagara, Ottawa, and Montreal.
I still have not heard from the newly elected Diocesan Bishop of Huron on what his intentions are. His silence is intriguing. Is Bishop elect Bennett watching to see which way the wind now blows?
At the very least we now have a public statement from the Ecclesiastical Province of Rupert’s Land that commits them-selves to honouring the moratoria. Thus we have time (even if only a few months, to at most a couple of years) to reach out to the people of this Province and encourage them to come back to God’s Holy Word. We do not need to tempt their Parishes into to leaving them and joining ANiC. Instead, we should offer our support, and resources such as literature and visitations, to hopefully build up a strong Biblically Faithful group within this Province, so that when the time comes, they will do what is right by God.
AMPisAnglican;
I would have agreed with you except that the Diocese of Rupert’s land held their synod the first week in November and apparently passed SSB. Then 3 weeks later this letter is sent out proclaiming they will hold to a moratoria and one of the signing diocese is that of Rupert’s land. It does not matter to me that they added the bit about not taking effect till General Synod, it still comes across as sneaky expecially since the news of this Synod has been kept extremely quiet.
I would have been much more impressed had this statement been released four years ago.
Make no mistake, we are not wanted back in the fold and the liberal agenda has not ended. It has been put on hold due to financial and public relations concerns.
While wishing them well collectively, I do not trust them collectively one bit.
Peace,
Jim
“We call on all individuals within our Province who have aligned themselves with outside groups to return to their parish family and enter into open and respectful dialogue with us about how their concerns can be addressed ……”
I don’t think so. Someone once defined “stupidity” as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. -The great philosopher was right. “Stupid is as stupid does.” (Forrest Gump)
Folks, we’ve been here before. It’s just the same old sleight-of-hand we get from these people:
“1. Authorizing rites for the public blessing of same gender unions”
The key word here, as we have learned from similar statements in the past, is “authorizing”. This simply means that the bishop will turn a deliberately blind eye to SSB rites in his diocese, either pretending (unconvincingly) that he doesn’t know about them, or else admitting that he knows but insisting it’s okay because he hasn’t officially “authorized” them. SSBs are then redefined as “pastoral care” of LGBT parishioners, and continue unabated.
But can’t we at least reach out to the Parishes who’s delegates voted against ssb? Is there no hope for these people? If this Province is not honest in its committment, than will these people need a life boat, or not?
My father used to say: “You do me once, it is your fault; you do me twice, it is my fault.”
Although the Province of Rupert’s Land may have pledged to hold to the moratoria, they have not pledged either to put the subject to rest rather than dialoguing others into the kingdom of darkness, nor have they pledged to treat the faithful fairly.
AMP, the “hand” of ANiC has been extended to those in the province of Rupert’s Land, and I think it always will be. All they have to do is ask. Our prayers and tears are with those left behind.
At least four of the nine bishops listed in the signature list have given ample reason in the not too distant past to not trust a word they say. The wording of this document leaves room for any bishop to exercise diocesan independence to move ahead as desired despite this letter. There is no reason to take heart when this group is involved.
Further, the heretical liberal ploy is always “let’s keep talking!” Talking has been going on for well over forty-five years now. But the liberal concept of talk is “we keep yakking until we wear you down and you either agree with our heresy or you leave.” Many of us, in the past six years, have called for open and honest discussion concerning the matter. But, on the rare occasion when talks have been held, such has always been under the “leadership” of one fully in agreement with the anti-Scriptural heretical approach using materials specifically designed to support their tenets. Requests to have both sides equally presented by proponents of the two sides with appropriate material have been, in the experience of this writer, unilaterally either refused outright or sidestepped. Any reference to opposing thoughts from Holy Writ against the heretical liberal approach have been made anathema.
Further, as Ann V has pointed out, there is thus far no evidence that this letter has been sent to anyone who has left. Rather it would seem that the document is nothing more than an internal political document intended to “stop the bleeding” and further dupe the faithful Christians who have, for the time being, remained within ACoC in the vain hope of restoring honesty, integrity, and true faith within that community. These latter need our prayers and support.
A further purpose of this deceptive missive would seem to be to continue the cry of unfairness against the protection that the Province of the Southern Cone and Archbishop Venables have given to the Faithful Bible Believing Anglican Christians who needed a place where they could go to continue as full members of the Traditional Reformation Anglican Communion. The ACoC had determined to walk away from True Christianity. Archbishop Venables has graciously given his protection to that Faithful Community until a Truly Christian Anglican Community can be safely established in North America. This must scare the living daylights out of the heretics as the new Province will undoubtedly draw those desiring to remain in Reformation Anglicanism by participating in this reformation back into fellowship with the Worldwide Anglican Communion.
May Almighty God bless and strengthen us and may He open the eyes of the Blind Guides within ACoC.
When I first read the document, I was annoyed that so many dioceses had signed on to it (a number of them being conservative). It is obvious that the authors’ focus was on Cross Border Interventions (clearly the Unforgivable Sin of the Liberal Anglican Church), and no effort was made to call upon bishops who continue to permit same sex blessings (this being just a minor disagreement).
However, on reading it a second time, like Ellie (#7) I noticed the slimy Weasel Wording which says “authorizing rites” which is different from the wording that came out of Lambeth.
Finally I will note that this document appears to have come from only one source, DeanRobin, and reading his Sunday Homily, I can now understand where Weasel Wording come from: He notes that the BAS describes the Bishops responsibility being “to guard the faith, unity and discipline of the church” which being translated from Weasel into English is “the faith of the church, being determined by the latest vote in Synod is to be maintained by forced unity and severe discipline”. Quite different from the BCP “to banish and drive away all erroneous and stange doctrine contrary to God’s Word”.
I was actually struck by the interesting wording:
Note the specific use of “our dioceses”, “our Province” and “their parish”. If taken literally, this letter condemns only those “foreign interventions” which occur within “Windsor-compliant” dioceses. Abp. Venables is NOT here chastized for taking under his wing parishes in New Westminster, Niagara, Huron, Ottawa, etc. Very significant. Second, it could be argued that, again literally, the next sentence calls only on those who have left ACoC parishes individually to return to those parishes. For example, St. Matthew’s Anglican Parish in the Diocese of New Westminster departed en masse for the Southern Cone - for a St. Matthew’s parishioner to return to “their parish family” would see them return to a Southern Cone parish.
It is hard to argue with my interpretation of the first line, but I do admit that the second line is open to several interpretations (i.e. that the Parish of St. Matthew’s did not leave the Diocese of New West, its just that everyone left the “parish family” and are now being called to return). But I do offer up that this statement isn’t quite as “liberal” as it might first appear.
I think the pastoral letter should be heard as Larry and Ann have to laid out. It’s just more blah blah blah, bad ANiC! Blah, blah, blah.
I think the proof of my scholarly analysis is seen in the Diocese of Rupert’s Land’s synod resolution noted by Ann in comment #4. Clearly the pastoral letter is meaningless if these same bishop’s actual actions undermine the words. What could possibly be the point of holding to moratoria on same-sex blessings in a pastoral letter and passing a resolution to the contrary the same week?
Do they think the clergy and people in ANiC and the ACofC are stupid?
It appears that Rupert’s Land does not have an Internet presence, or at least cleverly hidden from Google. Some Wiki info. Spooky sounds like a star chamber to me. Dean Robin seems to be the only documented source for this little missive. Hand delivered in darkness in a plain brown envelope? I wonder if Jim is steamed at Robin+ for posting it.
It is my understanding that the pastoral letter was to be read in all parishes in the Rupert’s Land Province, so Dean Robin is just posting what went out in the mail to the priests to be made public in their services on either the 16th or 23rd. Just one last comment that I would add here is that the pastoral letter is continuing along the thinking that SSB is the only reason that people and parishes have left. They still don’t get that the change in theology is the main issue.
Ann, they realise that the problem is really one of overall theology based upon God’s Divinely Inspired Holy Scriptures. However, politically, they need to keep the focus upon the one minor “presenting issue,” as J.I. Packer calls it, in order to keep making it look as though their primary concern is “justice” rather than one of totally changing their theology that removes them from the Christian Church while attempting to retain their convoluted sense of power and authority within something they are still trying to call Christian.
To quote the “old philosopher” Harry Belafonte, “It was clear as mud - But it cover de ground - And the confusion make me brain go round!”
Larry +
Father Larry (#17),
We need to be careful as to who “they” are: There may be some believers amid those who are apostate. Although, if these believers are “walking in the counsel of the ungodly, standing in the way of sinners and sitting in the seat of the scornful” they should not be surprised to find themselves coated in the same mud!!
Larry I think you are right about them knowing the real issue but choosing to hide behind the smoke screen. Thanks for pointing that out.
Jack, I think “they” meant “leadership”, but I take your point.
Jack, Kate is correct. I made the mistake of seeing the “they” as referencing Ann’s response to my original statement. I’ll try to be more careful so as not to cause misunderstandings. Of course there are the faithful who are still in ACoC. I referenced this in my first post. And we do need to pray for and support them.