Comments on: Day 10 – ANiC v Diocese of New Westminster – June 10, 2009

By: Cheryl Chang

Cheryl Chang — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:38:37 +0000

#19 Gordon, I didn’t say you called Michael Ingham a liar. However, when I went to the link in your comment, I saw that someone did use the “L” word, so i was speaking in general terms. In fact, (as you may have seen) I posted the same comment on that blog entry as well, responding directly to that person.
I just want to be as gracious as we can in dealing with the issues. How we do and say things is just as important, if not more important, than what we say or do.

By: Gordon Arthur

Gordon Arthur — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 06:20:56 +0000

Fair comment, Cheryl, but I chose my words very carefully. I did not accuse Michael Ingham of lying (others did that), I merely accused him of making a false statement in the witness box, without speculating as to his intent.

By: Cheryl Chang

Cheryl Chang — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 07:57:12 +0000

With all due respect, i would like to point out that some people do make mistakes on the witness stand sometimes. It may be the result of stress or forgetfulness, but sometimes people are remembering a certain point in time in their answer, and they don’t get a chance to re-visit the topic later. I would not like to see this blog degenerate into calling people liars, particularly about something that is easily proven. We can be more generous and assume they made a mistake when it is clear it could be proven to the contrary.
Peace.
Cheryl

By: Gordon Arthur

Gordon Arthur — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 06:03:33 +0000

I think “poetic” is something of an overstatement, but no, I wasn’t being poetic about false testimony. Have a look at http://www.anglicanessentials.ca/wordpress/index.php/2009/06/02/day-5-anic-parishes-v-diocese-of-new-westminster-june-1-09/#comments

By: Noli Aemulari

Noli Aemulari — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:19:44 +0000

#15 Gordon
Were you also using poetic shorthand when you referred to Michael Ingham “bearing false witness?”Or did he actually perjure himself? If so, where? There’s been a lot of material posted here in the last couple of weeks and I seem to have missed the comment where Ingham’s alleged perjury was pointed out.

By: Gordon Arthur

Gordon Arthur — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 16:40:29 +0000

Noli [#11], you are, of course, correct, and I was aware of this, but my shorthand was an attempt to express what I see as the main problem in less than 100 words. Depending on the response, if my letter is printed, I may try a longer supplementary later.

By: Warren

Warren — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:52:53 +0000

Noli (#11), doubtlessly there are those remaining in the ACoC who, in good conscience, believe they are doing so without soiling themselves or validating false teaching; and perhaps some are. In the eyes of most outsiders, however, I suggest that remaining equals consent. I also suspect that some of those who remain are inconsistent and view people who retain membership in other organizations in our society, that have drifted far from their founding priniciples, to be aiding, abetting and validating such organizations. 2 Cor 6:14-18.

By: Ellie M.

Ellie M. — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:48:58 +0000

And I do not mean people like Gordon Arthur, btw, who is fighting back via his letter — ie, refusing to be “useful”. I wish there were more like him.

By: Ellie M.

Ellie M. — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:45:32 +0000

#11 Noli:

“In political jargon, the term ‘useful idiot’ was used to describe Soviet sympathizers in western countries and the attitude of the Soviet government towards them. The implication was that though the person in question naïvely thought themselves an ally of the Soviets or other Communists, they were actually held in contempt by them, and being cynically used.

The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, hostile government, or business, whether or not the group is Communist in nature.’

I would not call the people cited by ACoC’s lawyer idiots, Noli, but if one can get past the offensiveness of the term and consider the role of such people in history — those who by agreement or even by mere acquiescence support despotic regimes — one might see why Macintosh’s examples could fit that category. Whether they intend it or not, they are definitely being used *by* ACoC, and they are certainly useful *to* ACoC.

By: Noli Aemulari

Noli Aemulari — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:28:36 +0000

#6 Gordon
Mr. Macintosh does not argue that the presence of conservative Anglicans remaining within ACoC somehow validates same sex blessings. I don’t get that at all from Cheryl’s excllent report. As I make it out, Macintosh’s actual point seems to be that disagreement over the issue needn’t create an “insurmountable divide,” as evidenced by some opposed to SSB who’ve been accommodated by the conscience clause and shared episcopal ministry:

quote
Mr. Macintosh said the parishes claim that this is an insurmountable divide and “we can’t stay” has to be tested and there are only 4 parishes out of the 78 in the diocese which have been so “intransigent”. The parishes would “convert their intransigence” for an unprecedented use of Cy Pres, he said. He compared the numbers of ANiC (29 parishes with an average Sunday attendance of 3500 people) with the ACoC (1800 parishes and approximately 625,000 members), saying “I have distilled from the evidence that other right thinking conservative Anglicans have taken a very different approach with respect to this”. He named Archbishop Terry Buckle as a strong conservative who at one time was on the same side of the dispute but has since “reconciled” with the bishop. He said Archbishop Buckle wrote to the POR thanking them and offering to cooperate with their recommendations. He also signed statements from the House of Bishops and the Metropolitans deploring the actions of Archbishop Venables and ANiC.

He referred to Rev Sarah Tweedale, who in an affidavit said she opposed the blessing of same-sex unions, but felt the conscience clause was sufficient to accommodate conservative clergy. She is currently on leave from St. Clement’s where she was rector from September 1999-May 2008. St. Clement’s, the only parish in the diocese to seek Shared Episcopal Ministry (SEM) received pastoral care from Bishop Hockin for a period of one year.

He said Rev John Oakes, incumbent of Holy Trinity in Vancouver also opposes same-sex unions, but has remained in the diocese. He referred to a letter Rev Oakes wrote claiming he changed his position and regretted recent statements of Essentials.

He referred to other statements of witnesses (by affidavit) and claimed there is diversity within congregations. The parishes’ “allegations of impossibility need to be tested locally and across Canada”, he said.
end quote