Conservative Anglicans determined to stay within church
Nov 28th, 2008 by David
From the Journal
About 50 conservative Anglican leaders, including eight young theological students, gathered in Toronto for a one-day consultation on Nov. 25 and emerged with a determination to remain within the Anglican Church of Canada. They came from 16 dioceses across the country.
Rev. Brett Cane of St. Aidan’s Anglican Church in Winnipeg is chair of Anglican Essentials Federation who was quick to point out that the organization is going through a name change. He said that the “Essentials” label has negative connotations in some parts of the country. He said that the federation is loosening its connection to the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC). “We will still maintain links of fellowship with the network but we will not be organizationally tied together.”
ANiC includes 23 congregations, 14 of which are churches that left the Anglican Church of Canada, and the rest are new church plants. They are under the episcopal oversight of Bishop Donald Harvey, formerly of the Anglican Church of Canada, and under the primatial authority of Archbishop Gregory Venables, primate of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.
Mr. Cane said that the federation will continue to meet together with those involved in ANiC, “being together in preaching, youth work and mission.” “We are all still brothers and sisters in Christ; we need to recognize their pain because it isn’t easy to leave the denomination you love.”
He said that the one day consultation dealt with “reformulating our vision” rather than issues around structure. He said he saw this conservative federation as more of a movement within the Anglican Church of Canada than an organization.
The concerns of conservative Anglicans reach beyond the blessing of same-sex unions, he said. There is a need for theological reflection on the uniqueness of Jesus, biblical interpretation, marriage, and the rights of children. Mr. Cane says the federation – whatever its new name – will be encouraging theological students to become engaged in these conversations.
He said there are five key areas on which the federation will focus: giving voice to the issues at various meetings of dioceses and synods, continuing to network with other conservative organizations and denominations in Canada, international representation (Mr. Cane says he will attend the Common Cause Partnership meeting in December as an observer), encouraging conservative theologians to meet and work on the issues, and working with theological students and others under age 40 to “help the rest of the church affirm authentic Anglicanism.”
Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, sent a lengthy pastoral letter to the consultation in which he acknowledged differences in biblical interpretation and expressed appreciation for the fellowship’s determination to work within the Anglican Church of Canada.
In his letter, the primate said that “the St. Michael Report itself acknowledges that ‘the interpretation of scripture is a central and complex matter’ and that, at times in the church’s history, ‘faithful readings have led to mutually contradictory understandings, requiring on-going dialogue and prayer toward discernment of the one voice of the gospel.’
Mr. Hiltz said he was “deeply mindful of your conscientious struggle over this matter. I acknowledge with deep gratitude your faithfulness to Christ. I recognize your commitment to remain within the fellowship of the Anglican Church of Canada, to support its witness to the gospel and to take your place in its councils. I assure you that there continues to be a place for your voice at the table. That assurance is in keeping with an abiding conviction that as Anglicans we value the comprehensiveness so long a characteristic of our history and tradition as a church.”
“I recognize your commitment to remain within the fellowship of the Anglican Church of Canada, to support its witness to the gospel and to take your place in its councils. ” A quote from Mr. Hiltz.
” Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.” A quote from the Psalm 1.
My prayer is that while the Federation may be in the ACoC, they will not be “of” the ACoC.
That certainly is my hope too, and I’m concerned that the Federation is giving succour to Fred Hiltz. I hope we will expose the differences between ACoC’s gospel (lower case initial intentional) and the true Gospel. My position now seems to be about half way between that being taken by the Federation and that of ANiC.
If given a choice between being a member of an ANiC Parish, or a member of Anglican Essentials and attending an ACoC Parish, I would of course choose ANiC. But where I am geographically, I do not have that choice.
I wonder. How many others are there who are like me?
Hiltz should not confuse my attending ACoC with anything resembling loyalty to him. Given another choice, between being loyal to a Bishop, or Faithful to Jesus, I will always choose Jesus. That one is easy.
“There is a need for theological reflection on the uniqueness of Jesus …..”
No one has any quarrel with the “uniqueness of Jesus”,
so also would all the religions of the world say. But there is a contention about the divinity of Christ, that he is God and that ” Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:12
Jesus said unto him, (Thomas - added for clarity by me), ” I am the way, the truth, and the life : no man cometh unto the Father but by me.”
The term “unique” is a nebulous term. We have heard it used by non-believers. So was Buddha unique and Muhammad, Zoroaster and Confucious.
Come, let us be alert and not be fooled by this popular epithet for Jesus.
There is a really good editorial in the December edition of “Anglican Planet”. Those who have left for the ANiC have done so because there has been no choice i.e. being under the jurisdiction of Ingham. I think those of us who have orthodox Bishops do not consider ourselves “safe” but waiting for future events which will trigger our own action to leave. I have no doubt after 2010 the “leavings” will pick up apace. There will be some who will never leave because of their own reasons. This is happening in the Episcopal Church too at this time. The Lord knows the future and we have to listen to His voice as He leads us. We must not criticise those who go and those who stay - we must uphold each other as fellow Christians.
Will the Federation or whatever they intend to call themselves recognize the New Province which is planned to be launched in a few days?
That is the Question.
Sure feels like a stab in the back.
J [#6], I’ll be staggered if they don’t recognise the new province.
#6 - It does, doesn’t it? It saddens me greatly that Federation feels that they have to distance themselves from ANiC. It seems to me that is akin to tacit agreement with the “the worst sin is schism” attitude that seems to be prevalent in the leadership of the Anglican church.
#6 and #7 - the Federation is not a church, as I understand, and so its ability to “recognize” is of a different order. So much so that I’m not sure the question is actually meaningful.
Kate [#8],
“the worst sin is schism”
I believe that schism being a major - maybe not the worst - sin was one of the undertones of the recent Federation consultation.
J and Kate [#6 and #8], try turning the situation around. The Federation leadership may feel abandoned by ANiC. Casting stones at each other here really isn’t going to help.
You are quite right, Gordon. That’s exactly what I was annoyed with Radner for doing in his article, wasn’t it? Mea culpa.
In what way do the actions of The Federation differ from the efforts of various clergy and laypersons over the past 40-50 years (or more) to resist the relentless encroachment of liberal theology into the ACoC?
I don’t know. Maybe Pete Molloy is reading this and would care to comment?
#11 while you may be right about the Federation “feeling” abandoned by the network, there is a “but”. As someone who is network, we prepared the “lifeboat” with their knowledge and the understanding that we prepared it with everyone in mind, we not only extended the invitation to all, we believed they would eventually come with us. Abandonment means to purposely leave someone behind (my interpretation). We all have choices in this matter and I too believe that everyone may not be called to the same place at the same time. If the Federation “feels” abandoned that is a true feeling but not necessarily a truth. I do not wish that feeling on anyone and for that I do feel sorry.
“he saw this convservative federation more as a movement within the Anglican Church than as an organization.”
I agree with Warren,#13. The 5-point plan of “action” is no different from what Anglican evangelicals have been doing for the last couple of decades. It seems to me that the Federation-that-was has met to give themselves permission for inaction and and anonymity. After watching this blog for over a year I have finally felt compelled to express my profound disappointment.
I used to coffee with Pete so until he comes I will ring my chime. As for schism being the worst of sins, if this is so then we should all go back to Rome right away.
As for Federation I suspect what they will do and become will reveal itself over the next couple of years as next to nothing. I don’t see them becoming the rallying point of much since they are apparently more concerned about the reform of a national church than the Gospel. No line will ever be drawn in the sand, even though our Lord and his apostles made many lines quite clear. Jesus does not want our religion, he wants our hearts. He wants authentic Christians. With Packer I think Anglicanism is one if the best expressions of Christianity, but not when it is rank with heresy on points ultimate to the faith such as the divinity of Christ, the uniqueness of salvation through Him, and the Bible as God’s authoritative Word written.
I believe that any success the Federation achieves will be primarily due to the existence of the ANiC. Without the ANiC - a legitimate alternative to the ACoC - the leadership of the ACoC can continue to ignore and marginalize the Federation (as was the case for Essentials prior to the creation of the ANiC). The more vibrant, flourishing and outspoken the ANiC is, the more inclined the leadership of the ACoC will be to at least pay lip service to the Federation. They know that failure to do so will result in even greater hemorrhaging. If I am correct, the apparent abandonment of the Federation by the Network is, in actuality, their only real lifeline within Anglicanism.
I share some of the frustrations expressed, but I’d join Gordon in asking that we not throw stones or set up roadblocks. Sometimes, hard as it is to say on a blog, it is best not to comment and wait to see how things play out.
The good thing is, the lifeboats (or perhaps the new ship now) are still available to the ship-repairers, and should the latter prove succesful in their endevours, vis-versa.
An excellent article has just appeared on the Stand Firm site which addresses this very issue. Read it all.
That the people in the Federation and in the Network should have valid but different ministries is reasonable and is consistent with scripture: See 1 Kings 18 for the Federation (Obadiah) interacting with the Network (Elijah).
My concern is not that the Federation will be invisible, but that they will be TOO VISIBLE: In 2002, Michael Ingham was very quick to trot out into the public view some of his conservative clergy that were supporting him. He was hoping to prove that the seven conservative congregations that left his synod were just a lunatic fringe. And I am confident that Fred Hiltz will happily drag out some conservative anglicans who have vocally opposed the Network and CCP (see for example Nov. 24 article in this blog)
Gordon (#11) and Peter (#19), this is unrelated to the original post, but you have, deliberately or otherwise, injected question of whether moderating blog comments is preferable to open discussion - even if it is abrasive at times (”casting stones” if you will). To the extent that there is value in a blog such as this - and I believe that there is - which is the preferred approach? If the goal is to convince people of the value of a certain position, how is that best achieved? My personal opinion is that it is better to err on the side of free speech - something that I think distinguishes conservative blogs generally from liberal ones (especially in politics). If discussion is overly restricted, it is probably better to eliminate it altogether and to just post “news” (which then becomes a reflection of the opinion of the moderators or operators of the web site). I don’t envy the role of moderator. I think it requires the wisdom of Solomon to do effectively - and I believe the moderators here have demonstrated that kind of wisdom.
I feel it is very important that we stay in close fellowship with those in the Federation. I may not agree at staying with ACoC at all cost (or at what cost?) but I respect their decision to do so. That being said, I disagree with their take on unity. ANiC made this move in part in order to stay in the Anglican community worldwide. It is the ACoC and TEC that chose to walk apart from the global body. As someone said they “tore the fabric of communion at the deepest level”. (I may not have that quote right but the message was that). If the Federation is going to use unity as a focal point then please put the focus where it belongs.
There’s often a bit of a balancing act going on, that’s true!
Overall, if you check our ‘blog rules’, we err on the side of free speech. However, we have been known to do some ad-hoc moderating on occasion, where really required.
I’m not proposing to moderate this discussion, but just encouraging charity in this, that whatever frustrations there are, to support each other in love.
#20 Pauline
Excellent article at Stand Firm. Shows the two distinct purposes which I believe also apply to our two groups in Canada.
What may also be forgotten is the fact that many of us are witnesses in parishes which would not succeed in a vote to join ANiC if such a vote were called at this time. And at the same time we also do not have other Anglican churches in our communities to run to if we did want to join ANiC and abandon our role as witness within the ACoC. Personally, we have always said that we would stay and witness until we were “thrown out” and that is exactly what we are still doing in spite of several attempts to get rid of us in the past. Even at the worst of times God still has His seven thousand within Israel who have not bowed the knee to Baal.
The article is a sad example how the unity of orthodox Anglicans (within the ACoC and outside the ACoC) can be destroyed by ill conceived statements. Federation is with Network one of the 2 partners of Essentials. By wanting to disassociate itself from Essentials and ANiC Federation has caused an unfortunate rift. Much prayer will be needed to heal this. This also means that Federation has moved from being determined to “stand” to being determined to “stay”. If this was parlamentary politics it would be called the “lame duck” position.
Would someone please post the ’stand firm’ web site. Thanks
Chuck #27
The article referred to is at :
http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/?p=330
Stand Firm (which is linked in the right hand column above on this site) has comments posted on this at:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/18207/
I shall be posting the ACI article shortly, as I think it poses some interesting questions.
Warren [#22] suggesting that people cool it falls far short of my idea of moderating a discussion.
#3 AMP wrote:
“If given a choice between being a member of an ANiC Parish, or a member of Anglican Essentials and attending an ACoC Parish, I would of course choose ANiC. But where I am geographically, I do not have that choice. I wonder. How many others are there who are like me?”
I’m in the same boat, AMP. Like it or not, I’m restricted to an “inside strategy,” even though I identify with ANiC.
Regarding blog conversations, I’m grateful for the leeway given here to explore contrarian views and I appreciate the moderators’ firm but gentle boundaries surrounding our discourse.
Advent blessing to all:
“I look from afar: and lo, I see the power of God coming, and a cloud covering the whole earth. Go ye out to meet him and say: Tell us, art thou he that should come to reign over thy people Israel?”
The problem as I see it is what does one do if one is a member of a faithful parish, under a faithful priest and bishop, in a (so far) faithful diocese. There is probably enough difference of opinion in most dioceses that even the most faithful bishop is not going to take, as in the US, an entire diocese into the Southern Cone. And for a parish to leave such a diocese would be a slap in the face to such a bishop. I think such a person must, for the time being, remain where they are. The rubber will truly hit the road, so to speak, in 2010. That is when real decisions will have to be made, because, short of a miraculous intervention by God, I believe that is when the ACoC will vote to depart totally from Biblically ordained sexual morality. Even the Federation people must be looking that far ahead and preparing for what they must do, come that day.
#32 John K.
Thanks for your comments, I appreciate them. You touched on my position a bit. I am one of those that attended the Federation consultation. I’m also a member of CoGS and the GS 2010 Planning Committee. I’m in those positions because I truly believe that the Lord is calling me to be there. I pray that I can be a voice for those still in the ACoC who believe that our church is going in the wrong direction. I’m fortunate in having the bishop that I do have. Our diocese has passed motoins declaring that we are in communion with the Newtork bishops and clergy. We also passed a motion that we adhere to the “Solemn Declaration.” We did not pass those motoins lightly but sincerely meant them. A Network Bishop and a lay person were the speakers at my parish in a conference entitled, “Growing Taller.” In December, there will be a meeting between some diocesan leadership and network leadership. It’s prime goal is to ensure that our lines of communication remain open. The stance of our diocese has left us open for sharp criticism from folks in both the ACoC and the ANiC. I guess people will all have to draw their own conclusions. So be it.
Be assured that, if I lived in some other unamed location, my line in the sand would have been crossed a long time ago and I would have already departed the ACoC. That decision is still open to me.
May the Lord be with you all,
Ross
Ross,
I pray that I can be a voice for those still in the ACoC who believe that our church is going in the wrong direction.
Do you believe that your voicing the concerns of the orthodox still in the ACoC is going to effect a change of heart in the leadership, or are you doing it simply because you believe God called you to, and that is sufficient in itself?
I’m not being critical of your position - it’s an honest question.
David,
That’s a good question. I’m not sure there will be a change of heart in the leadership. All indication seem negative. Some, on both sides of the issue, are looking at GS2010 as a watershed. I think there will be more of the same unless motions are worded so that all delegates understand exactly what they mean. Maybe that’s why I’m involved. There are many conservatives and moderates in our church that have been silent, by choice or ignorance. Maybe I’m involved to somehow encourage them to stand and be counted. I believe that God called me to for a reason, I’m struggle with not being sure what that reason is.
#31 Noli, have you ever sung that, or heard it sung? We used to sing that antiphon every year, back in the days of our “high church” choir director.
#36
As a matter of fact, Kate, we sang that Advent responsory in choir this morning to Palestrina’s setting (which is why I had it in mind last night).
NA #37 and Kate #36,
You could have heard the same setting on the Advent responsory at the Advent Carol service at a large ANiC church out this way. It’s very moving!!
Ross (#33 & #35),
OK, you can scratch my comment #21 that members of the Federation should be less visible!!
I am very grateful for your visible support of both the Network congregations and of the unborn! And I want to encourage you in your role in the ACoC (which is either a “void crying in the wilderness”, a “burr in the saddle” or a “pain in the neck” to the liberal establishment).
I will pray for you to have confidence in your calling.
Thankyou!
Yes, the Palistrina setting is the one I was thinking of. I think I could sing the alto line from memory, I love it.
Jack (#39)
Thank you for your comments and prayer. Regardless of our choices or callings, we faithful must keep the lines of communication open and keep each other in our prayers. While our journeys are on different roads, I believe we are all moving towards the same destination. Being public about our common principles and goals will keep the enemy shaking in his boots.
I was at the consult and I wonder if one of the Federation leaders would please post an answer to this question. When will timelines for goals in the 5 areas of action and the goals themselves be posted on this website and/or sent to the 50 or so participants?