From the Journal:
The Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) has been approved as one of 28 dioceses and dioceses-in-formation in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), which is comprised of 12 church organizations that have broken with the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church over theological differences around human sexuality.
The ACNA will hold its first provincial assembly from June 22 to 25 in St. Vincent’s Cathedral, Bedford, Texas. Delegates to this assembly will be selected by the 28 constituent dioceses and dioceses-in-formation. A draft constitution and a comprehensive set of canons (church bylaws) will also be presented for ratification at the assembly.
“It is a great encouragement to see the fruit of many years’ work,” said Bishop Robert Duncan, archbishop-elect of the Anglican Church in North America. “Today, 23 dioceses and five dioceses-in-formation joined together to reconstitute an orthodox, biblical, missionary and united church in North America.”
Bishop Don Harvey, moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada, said “ANiC will consider this as the province to which we now belong…. For a period of time, I would imagine we’ll have two lines of authority, our prime authority would be the Anglican Church of North America, but I would still be a member of the house of bishops of the Southern Cone (of America) in an honorary capacity until such time as we feel we can cut the cord as it were.”
Bishop Harvey said that the number of people in ANiC parishes, about 3,500, could have qualified for two dioceses. “But we thought it was much simpler for us at this stage in our own formation to keep as one diocese for Canada,” he said. “I would say formation into more dioceses will come in the next year or two,” he predicted.
ANiC will contribute 10 per cent of funds from its national office to the ACNA, said Bishop Harvey. ANiC prescribes a practice of tithing that expects parishioners to contribute 10 per cent of their income to their local church, and local churches to give 10 per cent to ANiC.
Created in December 2008, ACNA has not been recognized as a province within the Anglican Communion, but it was recognized by seven conservative primates as an “emergent province” in a statement issued earlier this month by the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) primates’ council. The council is a product of GAFCON, a large gathering of conservative Anglicans held in Jerusalem in 2008. Many of the bishops who attended later chose to boycott the 2008 Lambeth Conference, the once-a-decade meeting of the world’s Anglican bishops, because of deep divisions over the place of homosexual people within the church.
But Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church in Canada, said, “At this point, it is a conversation among the GAFCON primates…. They want to create a new province in North America. They want to create it along the lines of theology and orthodoxy,” he said, noting that this “in itself is a departure from the normal ways in which provinces are created in the Anglican Communion.” Provinces are usually based in a geographic region.
Archbishop Hiltz noted that the approach to creating this new province is also unusual. “They are quite public in saying, with or without the Archbishop of Canterbury’s blessing, they are going ahead. They haven’t followed the normal processes through the Anglican Consultative Council, the only body in the whole Anglican Communion that can create a province.”
The Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) is meeting in Jamaica in May, and Archbishop Hiltz said the question of the new province will probably be raised. But, he said, “My sense is that it is not likely to get a whole pile of attention there because they simply haven’t followed the due processes that the ACC has in place for creating a province.
Is it my imagination but is Fred’s bluster index going down with each announcement?
The pot calling the kettle…
“Haven’t followed the normal and due process…?” like New West, Gene Robinson, now Niagara, Ottawa, Montreal, Huron and Toronto did?
Dear Blog Managers, Two things:
1. Could you please report on the results of the Federation Council’s Meeting in Toronto last week?
2. Do you think it news worthy that the Bishop of Toronto asked Stuart Mann, the Editor of the Toronto Anglican to NOT publish Catherine Sider Hamilton’s letter, signed by 14 clergy and then published in that paper how the Diocese needs to hear from everyone in order to discern God’s will!! Is this not abuse of power and deceitfullness?
Help me with something here. This story is ten paragraphs long and the first seven are the ANiC goal of being part of a potential new province in the Anglican Communion. I would think people on this blog would be glowing in praise.
The Journal writer, producing a well balanced piece, has three paragraphs of reaction from Archbishop Hiltz. So the first three comments, are they talking about the wonderful possbilities ahead for ANiC as seen by Bishop Harvey? Nope, same tired old pot shots at the ACoC. I don’t understand.
Keith #4
AMEN !!!
[#3],
Do you have a reference for either item?
[#4], [#5],
Actually, no-one criticised the article; also, to call criticism of the ACoC a ‘pot shot’ is in itself a pot shot.
On the positive side, everyone I know in ANiC is getting on with the life of the church in worship, preaching the Gospel and outreach. What you see here is blog acculturation; love it or hate it, it’s the nature of the beast.
Keith & Jack (#4,5)
Could it be that most commenters on this blog know that Bishops Harvey and Duncan articulate a faithful Gospel and Mr. Hiltz does not?
If you have any doubt about the latter, look up “Does the Anglican Church of Canada actually know what the Gospel is?” in the Blog “Anglican Samizdat”. What you will hear is beyond appalling!
Every time the revisionist Anglicans do something unprecedented, they claim they are being “prophetic”, or “God’s truth is evolving”, or the “Holy Spirit is leading” them.
When they accuse the orthodox of departing from tradition, why not just repeat their own arguments back to them? Sauce — goose — gander.
#4 & #5… “balanced” ?!?
The Journal writer continues the revisionist spin that ACNA, ANiC, and GAFCON have formed “over theological differences around human sexuality” with no reference to the monumental revisions that undergird the sexuality debate — the ACoC’s drift away from Biblical authority and the uniqueness of Christ to name just a couple. It seems that everytime the Journal writes about orthodox bodies they are completly unbalanced as they cite our reasons for leaving.
Paul D (#9), to be fair to the journalists, they are of the earthly kingdom and view the situation through worldly eyes. From their perspective, and likely from the perspective of most of their readers, they are doubtlessly striving to be balanced. They probably see the question of “biblical authority and the uniqueness of Christ” as a foolish one – and they are responding in the way the Bible tells us to expect unbelievers to respond to the gospel (unless the Spirit is working in their hearts). We shouldn’t be surprised.
Warren (#10), I agree. From a secular journalist’s view, there is not much more than sexuality issues going on here. However, my concern is with Christian publications (though liberal they may be) that know better (or should) that these bodies are forming for a number of complex issues (laid out in several documents and communiques) of which human sexuality is one — I’m just highlighting the spin that I see in how the ACoC reports on these developments.
Paul D (#11), you’re right. I was using the term “journalist” in a more general sense.
#6 through #12
My original question remains unanswered and it is an earnest question. I don’t understand why folks on this blog take an article, such as the one we are discussing, which provides tremendous positive energy for the ANiC to talk about their vision and actions pointed to the future of their organization and turn it into another opportunity to slam the ACoC. One doesn’t have to read this blog for very long to understand the contempt with which many seem to hold Archbishop Hiltz and the ACoC. I have no interest in entering that discussion because I do not believe it is a faith filled way to deal with differences. On balance, should not we as Christians spend more time speaking the positive than rehashing the negative?
Keith [#13],
I think there was an attempt to answer your question. To reiterate: ANiC is growing, orthodox and dynamic; if you are interested in the positive things that are happening in ANiC, please go Here.
Again, it is the nature of a blog to bring out strong opinions, and many of those with strong opinions on the ACoC have them because they are being sued by a diocese that is a part of the ACoC, have been locked out of their buildings, have rectors that have been fired, threatened with trespassing and threatened with eviction from their homes.
I believe you are still in the ACoC; perhaps you could take your own advice and contribute something positive about your church and its leaders.
Even the saints weren’t “positive” all the time, Keith. The writers of scripture had some pretty sharp words for members of the community whom they felt were straying or misbehaving.
I make no secret that I am in the ACoC and in fact I do contribute positive pieces regularly in my Diocesan paper and through other media work. When I feel people in the ACoC are being overly negative, I say the same things I have said on this blog. We could enter a long discussion about lock outs and lawsuits and all those other things, but I doubt that we would come to an agreed upon conclusion as to who did what to who, nor would it help to bring anyone to faith in Christ. I simply believe that as people of faith we should look first to find the positive. We’ll never agree on everything, but if our first call is always to the negative, our divisions will simply deepen. Naive, likely, but it’s still what I believe.
Keith,
I think a large part of the reason we have reached the present crisis point in the Anglican church, is that there has been too much complacence, too much tolerance for apostasy, too much of a Pollyanna outlook and too much reluctance to speak out against what one disagrees with.
The fact that this has changed somewhat, I see as an entirely good thing.
David
I’ve never had a problem with people speaking out. But for me, it’s how you choose to speak out. Many years ago I took a course in Critical Thinking and while the terminology and references have long since drifted from my mind, I still remember that in structuring and shaping an argument, there are some clear points that need to be remembered. You can’t make an argument in favour of your position by simply running down the position of your opponent (for lack of a better word) To make an argument you must first put forth the positives of your own position. While blogs are known for “strong opinions” one needs to remember that simply repeating something again and again doesn’t advance the position. You may disagree, but the ACoC contains faithful Christian people who are willing to engage in discussion and based on their understanding of theology and Scripture work to share the Gospel message with their friends and communities. I am now and always have been willing to discuss, debate, agree and disagree about things spiritual when it is done in a positive, life giving way.
Keith,
I would not disagree with the assertion that the ACoC contains faithful Christians.
I don’t think people here are repeating the same thing over and over: in this particular case Abp Hiltz has made a point – which he has repeated a number of times – and there is a reaction to it by those who disagree.
You say you are willing to discuss and debate – I’m not sure what you would like to discuss – but only in “a positive, life giving way”; what exactly does that mean?
Keith (#18), your prescription makes a lot of sense in the secular realm, but leaves little room for the prophetic voice. Applying your methodology to the Bible would render large portions of it invalid. There are times to argue and persuade, and there are times when falsehood and sin must be revealed for what they are. This is the example set by Christ himself.
Keith is right in that the Anglican Journal has consistently provided reasonably balanced reporting and should be commended for that. Having worked with media for years, I have to say the Journal is very professional and provides surprisingly fair reporting considering it is the de facto publication of the ACoC. The Journal claims to be independent and, in large part, they live up to that.
The previous comment about the consistent spin that the division in the Anglican Communion – and Canada – is about same-sex blessings, is also accurate. I do not think the “liberal” or secular mind is unable to comprehend the much deeper theological issues. Rather, the ACoC has a huge vested interest in position this division as merely over issues of sexuality – rather than about core, foundational matters of faith. Can you imagine the consequences to church attendance and offerings if the average Anglican in the pews were to finally understand that this whole brouhaha was about ACoC leadership rewriting the very tenets of faith – rather than simply a bunch of bigots walking off in a huff? And can you imagine the consequences to the current court cases if there was anything resembling a public admission that the same?
Archbishop Hiltz is maintaining the same position he has consistently maintained – no surprise.
#21 Joy
I would agree that SSB’s is not at the root of the disagreement and I would also agree that these are complex theological arguments. But I think were the discussion gets off the rails is that because these are complex issues it’s easier to argue about SSB’s which brings considerable passion from both sides. I’ve sat in on many of these discussions and heard all the arguments, but I’ve yet to hear a good public discussion between the two sides that goes behind SSB’s and talks about interpretation of the 39 Articles, that gets at the exegetical work needed to interpret the themes of Scripture and actually get down to the nuts and bolts of what this is about. I’ve had these conversations on a personal level, in small groups, with people who hold a variety of positions and they are wonderfully enlightening. But it seems for the most part the public discussion goes right back to SSB’s and then the emotions rise and the discussions end