From the Journal
A majority of parishioners from St. Matthias Anglican Church in Victoria, B.C. voted March 8 to leave the Anglican Church of Canada and join the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC), a conservative body opposed to same-sex blessings and more liberal interpretations of Scripture.
In a special vestry meeting held at the Church of the Lord on Blanshard, a Reformed Episcopal Church, 170 parishioners voted in favour of a split and 10 voted against it, according to an ANiC news release; seven ballots were spoiled. The vestry also received a declaration signed by 32 individuals opposing the meeting and vote, as well as letters of support from 20 parishioners who were unable to attend.
The parishioners said they are now under the episcopal oversight of ANiC moderator, Bishop Donald Harvey, and the primatial authority of Archbishop Gregory Venables, primate of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.
“Yesterday was a very sad day in the life of St. Matthias parish and in the life of the diocese of British Columbia,” said Archdeacon Bruce Bryant-Scott, commissary to the bishop and diocesan executive officer of the diocese of British Columbia, reacting to the news on March 9. “People have made this decision to leave us and that is a traumatic thing for the people there; in some cases, friends are leaving friends to go to another faith community.”
Archdeacon Bryant-Scott added that it was also sad because the clergy “who we trusted to be acting on behalf of the bishop decided they could no longer do that; and, in fact, while holding licence from the bishop, worked to undermine the authority of the bishop.”
As in other dioceses, it is not a question of undermining the authority of the bishop but of adhering to the Gospel and upholding the the authority of Scripture.
He also said that the vote was not legitimate since, under the diocese’s canon, a parish cannot remove itself from the diocese. Individuals and clergy can decide to leave but “the parish as such is a unit of the diocese.”
This is a canon added recently in anticipation of such a vote. Canon or no canon, the majority of the people in the parish have left; surely the church and the parish is the people, not the structure.
He said that the rector of St. Matthias, Canon Ronald Corcoran, had been “specifically ordered by the bishop and myself not to allow” the vote to take place, but that he chose to defy those orders. The resignations of Mr. Corcoran and three other clergy have been accepted by the diocese; they have since applied for licences from Bishop Donald Harvey, ANiC moderator.
It is interesting to note that, rather than attempt to understand how we have come to the point where such a vote is likely to occur, the bishop chose to simply order that it not happen.
Bishop Harvey welcomed the St. Matthias vote, saying the group was joining “a growing movement of Anglicans throughout North America seeking to remain in the mainstream of global and historic Anglicanism.”
A total of 16 parishes have voted to leave the Anglican Church of Canada over the blessing of same-sex unions. St. Matthias is the third parish in the diocese of British Columbia to have voted for a split. The diocese of British Columbia has 56 parishes in total. The other two parishes where a majority voted to separate are St. Mary’s Anglican Church in Nanoose Bay, and St. Mary’s Metchosin. Clergy in these parishes have resigned and have since been replaced.
Archdeacon Bryant-Scott said about 40 parishioners attended last Sunday’s service at St. Matthias, down from its usual 180. The future of St. Matthias, which was founded in 1911 and which puts its roster of membership at more than 350, will be determined by parishioners who have remained and by the diocesan council, he said.
He expressed the diocese’s hope that the parishioners who have left would not contest ownership of St. Matthias. The ANiC release has said the group would meet in the Fairfield Community Centre beginning March 15. Last year, the former clergy of St. Mary’s Metchosin sued the diocese for exclusive possession of the church property but were unsuccessful.
Asked what he thought the reasons behind the departures were since the diocese of British Columbia has not even considered blessing same-sex unions, he said it could be that “there are a significant number of people who have been attracted to these parishes who are not well-grounded in the Anglican tradition.” He said Anglican tradition comes with an understanding that “within our community we do have this broad comprehensiveness where you’ve got high church, low church, evangelical, liberal, Catholic and so forth. And it’s not that you have watered down positions – it’s that your strongly held position is held within a larger community where you know that there is a diversity of opinion around these kinds of things.”
This is not an issue of high vs low church, nor differing styles of worship – all of which are encompassed by ANiC parishes. The reason parishes are leaving the ACoC for ANiC is that they are no longer prepared to accompany the ACoC down the road of liberal heterodoxy that it seems determined to tread.
He added that the diocese’s proximity to the diocese of New Westminster, which has allowed same-sex blessings in some parishes since 2002, could be another factor. “The situation there is very polarized; there’s a spill-over effect there,” he said. “The very simple fact that we remain in communion with the diocese of New Westminster is a simple enough affront to these individuals that they just make up their minds that they need to leave.”
The ANiC release said that the parishioners were “determined to remain biblically faithful and true to historic Christian and Anglican doctrine,” and that the decision had been made after “months of systematically examining all sides of the issues, searching Scripture for direction, and seeking God’s leading.” It added: “The decision to join ANiC demonstrates the deep faith, conviction and courage of the people of St. Matthias. Parishes that earlier made this decision have faced hostile court proceedings, eviction and other punitive action by Anglican Church of Canada bishops simply because they seek to continue worshipping in their buildings – which they paid for and maintained through the years – while the Anglican Communion addresses the theological divide in the global church.”
Archdeacon Bryant-Scott said, however, that the decision had been made “based on misinformation and biased information,” noting that “almost no opportunity was provided for anybody from outside the parish and in the diocese to give a balanced response.”
After experiencing the diocese and its policies first hand for decades, one wonders what Archdeacon Bryant-Scott thinks he could possibly have said that would change anyone’s mind.
He said the process that the parish went through “led them to the conclusion that they had no choice but to leave the diocese, whereas, in fact, there is still very much in this diocese many conservative, evangelical churches which have chosen to stay within the diocese, to stay within the Anglican Church of Canada and do not see that as a problem.” He said this situation was also true in dioceses across Canada.
I have to wonder Mr Bryant-Scott means when he says “many conservative, evangelical churches which have chosen to stay within the diocese”? As far as I know every Congregation that has had a vote has decided to realign. So what kind of choice is he referring to? And what kind of choice will he accept going forward? Priests have been ordered to shut down discussion and to forbid any more votes from taking place.
To bad for Mr Bryant-Scott that people will continue to talk, no matter what he orders, and will continue to vote with their feet, no matter what he forbids. It’s a pretty sad day indeed when the lay members know the Faith better than the Bishop!
I went back to my parish church, St. Matthias, last Sunday to worship with the family I had left, a while ago, and to share in their pain of this break up. As I sat there reflecting on all that has happened I began to piece together what I had witnessed in this place. A charismatic leader, learned and dynamic personalities and some vulnerable people with real life issues – a frightening picture.
I pray to God that those intelligent and learned people that are leading this movement will come to know the real Jesus. The Jesus that lives with the marginalized, the street people and the sick. The Jesus that shows unconditional love to us all.
There are many of us that left because of the confusing message we were being taught. As Christians we are challenged in several places in the bible to “test the preachers” that we have and to be responsible for removing ourselves from “false prophet and false teachers”. Be very careful and be aware of what you listen to.
Ruth [#2],
Perhaps it’s just me, but I am somewhat confused by your comment:
It sounds like a pastor ministering to his people. Why is this frightening?
By “this movement”, do you mean ANiC? If so, I can assuage your concern: Don Harvey, Charlie Masters and the other leaders in ANiC do know the real Jesus.
I am sure that there is no ANiC leader who would disagree with that; part of Jesus’ love does mean that he asks all of us to change behaviour that is not pleasing to God, though.
Agreed; that includes comment number 2.
[2] Ruth
It seems to me that the very same criticisms that you level at the local clergy would be more appropriately leveled at your bishop.
The new interpretations of scripture and tradition that the ACoC have adopted has made Canadian Anglicans lepers in the wider Anglican Communion.
If there is a “movement” to be identified here, it by the ACoC away from the faith once delivered towards some kind of evolving social dogma.
Peace,
|im
“Archdeacon Bryant-Scott said about 40 parishioners attended last Sunday’s service at St. Matthias, down from its usual 180.”
Especially considering how many of the congregation were present at the vote last Sunday, I wonder how many of the parishioners present for the Sunday service at St. Matthias (the building) were just there for the day….
like Ruth (#2)?
Ruth: I learned some time ago not to enter into a controversial discussion in this forum. If you do, I would not be surprised that you will meet with much criticism, and even personal attacks. Perhaps some ANIC supporters will know people in your parish that they will threaten to unleash on you. No, I simply read what some people say on here and shake my head at how unchristian and uncharitable their words are. I thought it wise to let you know my writings on this blog were not welcomed and I did meet with personal attacks. But, that is simply my experience. God bless.
Rev. Randy, your behaviour in the conversation you are referring to also left much to be desired, and you and Gerry were both spoken to and asked to cool it. Please don’t generalize one commenter’s behaviour to the whole blog.
Kate: Your response simply proves my point that anything contrary to the views of ANIC members or supporters are not welcome here. Thank you for proving my point. By the way Gerry’s was not the only hostile responder to my points.
I suppose it depends upon how you define hostile. If it is hostility to disagree and say so, so be it. I reiterate that we enforce the blog rules equally, no matter what the opinions expressed are, and your characterization of the commenters here is simply inaccurate.
#2 Ruth: My apologies for singling you out in my comment #5. It’s just that I’ve been aware of other occasions in which the diocese in question filled empty pews with members of other churches in an attempt to fool the media and the courts about the true allegiance of a congregation.
#10 Irena: Bless you for that. My allegiance is to God and the teachings of Jesus and I believe we each must look to our own as well as our neighbors.
Dear Ruth #11:
Your expression “allegiance to God and the teachings of Jesus” leaves me perplexed. Is there another way you could phrase your faith for the sake of those who are reading this blog? The teachings of Jesus do not save anyone on their own.
Jesus asked his disciples “Who do you say that I am?”. Our personal answer to this question is of eternal consequence and it’s usually a question that true believers love to answer!! (cf. Canon XVIII)
I think someone who left a congregation due to theological disagreement with the rector should not then come back after the whole process of deciding to join ANiC is over and participate in the “pain of the breakup” with the “family” she had left some time ago. Since 94.5% of the “family” weren’t there, I wonder at Ruth’s definition of “family” and wonder at her appearance now…after the fact. It seems to me that Ruth’s breakup with her church family happened some time ago, as she wrote. What is the point of “participating in the pain of the breakup” that occurred after she had left the parish?
Criticizing people and leadership who led a process from which you absented yourself is not helpful to either side in these divisive debates in the ACoC. Also, I think Ruth hints that people were manipulated in their vulnerability. I think people who take the serious step of voting to join ANiC, knowing the serious repercussions of such a vote, need to be credited with greater intelligence and competence to make their own decisions, just as Ruth made hers.
With respect. S.
Thank you Sam. That is exactly what I was thinking, but I couldn’t think of a polite way to put it.