Read it all here:
In the slow-moving train crash of international Anglicanism, a decision taken in California has finally brought a large coach off the rails altogether. The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (TEC) in the United States has voted decisively to allow in principle the appointment, to all orders of ministry, of persons in active same-sex relationships. This marks a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion.
Both the bishops and deputies (lay and clergy) of TEC knew exactly what they were doing. They were telling the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other “instruments of communion” that they were ignoring their plea for a moratorium on consecrating practising homosexuals as bishops. They were rejecting the two things the Archbishop of Canterbury has named as the pathway to the future — the Windsor Report (2004) and the proposed Covenant (whose aim is to provide a modus operandi for the Anglican Communion). They were formalising the schism they initiated six years ago when they consecrated as bishop a divorced man in an active same-sex relationship, against the Primates’ unanimous statement that this would “tear the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level”. In Windsor’s language, they have chosen to “walk apart”.
Perversely, it seems to me, the bishop still does not see this as a reason to recognise the ACNA:
The question then presses: who, in the US, is now in communion with the great majority of the Anglican world? It would be too hasty to answer, the newly formed “province” of the “Anglican Church in North America”. One can sympathise with some of the motivations of these breakaway Episcopalians. But we should not forget the Episcopalian bishops, who, doggedly loyal to their own Church, and to the expressed mind of the wider Communion, voted against the current resolution. Nor should we forget the many parishes and worshippers who take the same stance. There are many American Episcopalians, inside and outside the present TEC, who are eager to sign the proposed Covenant. That aspiration must be honoured.
He’s an academic. (par excellence) Academics can see both sides of the argument (not that non-academics can’t) so, as I was told by a social geographer PhD, ‘we sit on the fence and are wishy-washy academics, able to see both sides of the situation and so unable to come down on any side.’
Well, that’s one explanation! The others (among others) are that he is a biblical scholar and a bishop – and I think they have a hard row to hoe.
But it does seem to me that he is having a subtle alteration of mind.
And I can’t help feeling that being wedded to the status quo of the current hierarchy plays its part.
It does not appear that the “Train Crash” is so slow moving now.
Incidentally, please go easy on us Geographers. I am a Physical Geographer, PhD. as well as a Priest and I try not to sit on the fence.
Here’s my two cents.
Way back in 2001, and today, the then ACiNW now ANiC in ACNA, argued that it was not they who were leaving Orthodox Anglican Christianity (when they walked out of synod in New Westminster, and now in the forming of ACNA), but it was the Diocese of New Westminster (and arguably the ACofC as well as TEC) who had departed the faith once delivered to the saints.
I believe this is the same line of reasoning being deployed by +Wright. TEC is walking away from the communion. The communion on the other hand has stayed put. As TEC does this, we (the Anglican Communion and its instruments) need to do all we can to insure those within her who remain faithful as Anglicans, whether churches or dioceses, be assured full communion with the Anglican Church worldwide.
On ACNA, I think +Wright would say something like, “your argument that these in Canada and the USA have departed from Orthodox and received Anglican Christianity is sound ACNA, but don’t think your lifeboat launching is anything less than leaving the communion.” In other words, “ACNA, you can’t have your cake and eat it to.”
As a so-called traditional, reformed, evangelical priest in the ACofC, I wrestle with this all the time. Do I agree with the ACNA, or not? If they had not “left” would the global church have eventually created her?
Let me put it this way. Why did Packer et. al. feel the need to walk away so abruptly, when people like Wright, Stott, Green and many others have not? And finally, how is it that the ACNA can say, “We are out of communion with New Westminster, and the ACofC and TEC,” and at the same time seek recognition from the Church of England and the ABC, both of whom remain in communion with New Westminster, TEC and the ACofC?
The serpentine answers that must be deployed to make sense of all of this is I think why, as many say, +Wright is right…at least for now.
Oh, and just so people know. I am a former Regent College student, who studied under Packer, worshipped at St. John’s Shaughnessy, and later, well after 2001, was also an intern there. I know most of the major ANiC players, some of whom are friends, and was even in Burlington at the launch of the ANiC. I have also read most of N.T. Wright’s academic works. I am currently an Anglican Priest in ______ . (Yea, some of you know where).
I say all of this not to toot my horn, but to give some context to those who read the above comment, and especially to those who may be angered by it.
For #5
The reason Dr. J.I. Packer and others not only felt the need to leave the Diocese of New Westminster but realized there was no alternative with an apostate as the so-called bishop. I fail to understand why many believe there can be some sort of unity between apostasy and orthodoxy. It is totally impossible for the two to live in the same house. We are NOT dealing with liberalism vs. conservatism but apostasy vs. orthodoxy and it is long since past the time for claimed orthodox leaders to stand up and be counted – the same action as that taken by Dr. Packer and others.
The CofE Synod’s motion to recognize ACNA is a surprising (and refreshing) move. Faithful Anglicans in England are not merely waiting for the Instruments of Union to slowly digest the recent schismatic acts of the TEC – they are doing something about it.
Whichever way that particular vote goes, it is encouraging to see even the patient, even-handed Anglican luminaries such as Bishop Wright express clear frustration with the TEC, acting as it has despite all of the warnings over the past six years.
The schism within that portion of the Body of Christ known as the “Anglican Communion” has already happened – the institution is just starting to catch up to the reality.
So, without at all delighting in this schism (we are still wounded from the Schism of 1054 and the Schisms of the Reformation, aren’t we?), this recent flowering of the Anglican Communion starting to live its Christian witness in truth (GAFCON, FCA, ACNA, etc) will surely strengthen the worldwide Anglican Communion and lay the ground for a closer, future union among all Christians.
Don’t Panic (#5), it is interesting how perspectives vary. You speak of Packer feeling the need to walk away abruptly. A well known american evangelical blogger and podcaster, Michael Spencer (aka the Internet Monk), talked about Packer in a recent podcast and expressed strong admiration for his incredible longsuffering and willingness to wait many years – decades perhaps – in the hope that Canadian Anglicanism could still be salvaged, before deciding to walk away. I know that the time perspective of some Anglicans is much like God’s – a thousand years are like a day – but I still suspect that the word “abrupt” doesn’t accurately describe Packer’s decision process.
#5 – I don’t think that the church would eventually have “created her”. If you had been a postulant in Ottawa in the last five or six years or so, and openly evangelical, you wouldn’t have been ordained. ACoC is just going to wait for people who think like you do to retire, and only ordain revisionists or people who won’t rock the boat.
Don’t Panic (#5), you express a rather negative opinion of people with whom you have, over what must have been a significant period of time, worshiped, studied and worked. Yet you go out of your way to make your comments anonymous. Perhaps you should show a little more courage.
Perhaps you shouldn’t judge other people’s motives. I didn’t see negativity, just an honest wrestling with the issues. I’m sure he has good reasons for remaining anonymous. I notice you didn’t use your last name.
# 5 Don’t Panic: Re: “Why did Packer et. al. feel the need to walk away so abruptly, when people like Wright, Stott, Green and many others have not?” There is quite an easy answer to your question: The ravening lion was prowling in their backyard.
Had the motion to bless unholy unions not been passed in New Westminster, they may well have waited–along with Wright, Stott and Green–for the Episcopal Church to reach global recognition for its heresy before saying or doing anything substantive.
Walking away from the Diocese of New Westminster wasn’t a question of patience. It was a question of faithfulness.
#11 I did not intend to have a negative opinion of any people whatsoever. By characterizing Packer and others’ departure from New West as abrupt, I was simply making an observation, an observation that may have been incorrect, as #9 has pointed out. And when I say abrupt, I do not mean it was a thoughtless decision or one made ad hoc at synod. But the truth is, at synod, they got up and walked out. They did not stick around and wait to see what might happen nationally or internationally with the instruments of communion.
I was simply trying to draw a parallel between the logic of those in ANiC that they have “stayed” (remained Anglican) while those like New Westminster (as a diocese) have “left” (departed from Anglicanism). I believe Wright is arguing that TEC is “leaving” in this same way (departing from Orthodoxy and communion), and thus furthering the “train wreck” or schism.
When I say, “Do I agree with ACNA or not” I certainly agree with her theology, but I am not sure if I agree with her ecclesiology. And that leads to the following points (which might be relevant to the point #13 Irena makes on faithfulness):
I agree that the issue with +Michael Ingham was Orthodoxy vs heresy (something not new in the history of the Church and its leaders; cf. Arius), and I personally and at a public meeting with +Michael in my parish then in Vancouver called him to account for his heretical Christology. I also understand why the then ACiNW folks believed they could not receive episcopal ministry from +Michael. But the fact is, +Michael’s heresy was well known at least since the publishing of Mansions of the Spirit in 1997. But no one felt the need to walk out of synod then, when he denied the uniqueness of Christ, embraced the world religions, and marked evangelicals (he calls them exclusivists) as the enemy of the faith. Indeed, ALL the churches that became ACiNW received his episcopal ministry after 1997 through till 2002, as far as I know. My point being that same-sex blessings was and is simply a fruit on the tree of Michael’s heretical Christianity. I believe the reason they did not walk then was that it had not been structurally institutionalized and affirmed. But I am not sure faithfulness starts when structures err.
David Short has written a well argued paper on Communion, one that I commend to all who read this blog. You can find it here:
http://www.anglicannetwork.ca/pdf/crisis_in_koinonia_0504.pdf
In it he says,
“To remain in structural fellowship with any body that formally promotes and recognizes what God’s word condemns as sin is to have communion with the unfruitful works of darkness. In biblical terms, any body that promotes or legitimizes same sex unions has effectively removed itself from the fellowship of the gospel, and the catholic and apostolic faith.”
His point is that from a New Testament standpoint, we can no longer remain in communion structurally with the likes of these, hence they walked out of synod in 2002.
Furthermore, he writes:
“It would be a mistake however to think that a structural solution will heal all our ills. At the risk of oversimplifying, what lies beneath the rift within Anglicanism are two different religions: two different Gods, two different views of the fall, sin, salvation, humanity, the cross of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the work of the Holy Spirit, the coming judgment and the mission of the church. Blessing same sex unions is one manifestation of a deeper conflict in the divergent movement of two irreconcilable theological tectonic plates.”
From here he argues it is time for the Anglican Communion to realign.
I tend to agree with David. This is why I am perplexed by ACNA and her intent to get recognition from certain Anglican quarters (one could even ask my next question of the alignment with the Southern Cone). On the one hand, ACNA has launched a new structure of Anglicans in North America, away from TEC and the ACofC in the spirit of Short’s argument above. On the other hand, they seek recognition, from primates and instruments of communion, many of whom remain in communion with the ABC and therefore TEC and the ACofC. This is what I meant by having your cake (we are out of communion with TEC and ACofC) and eating it too (we remain in communion with the ABC, other instruments, and provinces who are still in communion with TEC and ACofC).
When I use the word “serpentine” I surely do not intend to mean that ACNA, ANiC or the then ACiNW were putting forth devilish reasons for the legitimacy of the new structures, I simply mean that their arguments have to weave around the facts of the Anglican Communion and its complexity.
How else can we remain Anglican and Christian at the same time? I am a Christian first, and an Anglican second, but my Anglican heritage is important to me. Besides, the primates representing the vast majority of Anglicans in the world are orthodox. What else would you have had us do?
Kate, I couldn’t agree with you first sentence more. How can we? As a priest, this as the question I was asking God when he began to tug draw me into the Anglican Church in 1996. Back then I was your garden variety evangelical, charismatic, non-denominational church hopper. But I sure would never have hopped to an Episcopal Church, that was “the dead church” to those in my quarters. So I was surprised to find Christians and God himself hanging out in these places.
Three thoughts. First, Kendall Harmon once wrote somewhere something to the effect that there are a variety of legitimate responses to the crisis we face. We need not hold too tightly to any one response because the times they are a changing. Second, a prof at Regent who will remain nameless, but is ANiC once told me the future of the Anglican Church in Canada is evangelical. I agree. And that future is coming sooner than later. Finally, patience and love. We have to be patient with one another, and love as Jesus commanded. There will come a day when ANiC churches and ACofC churches will have to come to the altar together again, precisely because of my second point.
I really hope it does happen one day. I’m not optomistic that I’ll see it in my lifetime.
For #16
Firstly I should say that I believe Kate (#15) is really saying one must first be a Christian before he/she can be an Anglican. That fact should be plain to you as a priest and I am somewhat concerned that you would continue to serve in a church which is no longer a Christian Church. Your ordination vows before the Lord place priority on your commitment to Christ and not to any bishop, particularly those that are clearly apostate. You should be leading your people to Christ and that is severely hampered when you allow yourself to be governed by what might be best called “polite apostates”. To repeat what I have said before, it is impossible for apostasy and orthodoxy to live in the same house and the Primate and the House of Bishops are taking no action to bring the church back to its roots. Our primary concern must be whether we are in communion with Christ – not whether we are in communion with Canterbury.
The question posed by kate in 15 and agreed by Don’t in 16 is found in the two great commandments. If Love is the singular motivation which I believe is in many in Essentials and in ANiC/ACNA as well as some in TEC an ACiC than the beautiful song “It is well with my Soul” is received with Joy. I am reminded that loving the church is not part of the two commandments. Also a vitally important statement to the motivation process is “perfect Love casts out fear.
#18 Frank, I am beginning to think you are not reading my posts well, and I sure don’t think you are in any position to judge whether or not God has called me to serve where I am or not.
Of course one SHOULD be a Christian first, and then perhaps Anglican. And yes, this is plain to me. But the fact is that, as in any church, there are very many people who are Anglican (or whatever) first, and not even Christian at all, and I have been called by God to serve them all.
You may have also missed the fact that I was concerned that God would call me to vocational ministry in the Anglican Church. But I have discovered, and I think scripture would back me up, that God actually “goes with” stiff necked, idolatrous, rebellious disobedient people (Exodus 32-34) like you and me (cf. Romans 2:1).
And, what would give you the idea that I had placed my bishop ahead of Christ? I do not recall ever saying anything of the sort. In fact, in my comment #14 I take take note of those who would have broken communion with +Michael Ingham over same-sex blessings, and not over his CHRISTOLOGY, which has been clearly apostate since 1997.
Finally, I agree with your final sentence in part, but it assumes that being IN the ACofC is to be OUT of communion with Christ. I would strongly challenge this assumption. People do not lose fellowship with God, or eternal salvation, or the Holy Spirit merely because their pastor or bishop has proved unregenerate. And if this is the case, then I think we can extend the logic to a national church structure. I think Article XXI and XXVI in your BCP might shed some light on what I mean. Yes, at some point vows will become a problem, but that point has not become absolutely clear nationally in Canada, and certainly not in my diocese, no matter how liberal my bishop is.
And so, as a final comment, I think it is fine for ANiC and ACNA to go, and for others to stay as long as their consciences bound by Scripture allow them in Christ, as mine for now has. But what they cannot do is point fingers at their brothers and sisters on either side who in good conscience have for now made such decisions to go or stay, and judge them for actually trying to remain faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ. I have not intended to do this here or above, although I have been critical in the true sense of the term. I have been wrestling with some issues, and offering my thoughts about these things. If I have offended anyone, I apologize.
I think that is a faulty assumption. I believe that people wanted to give the ACoC time to call +Ingham to account for his Christology. When that didn’t happen – when he was allowed to go further and further without discipline, then people moved. The same sex blessing issue was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
To #18 & 20 When we see the Church we grew up in go into
apostasy it provides a dilemna for all those who are orthodox
believers. Each and everyone has to make his or her’s decision with what they feel is the Lord’ leading. One has to remember that the Lord always had a faithful remainder when Israel wandered off the path of righteousness. For over thirty years we’ve known that our Anglican Church was heading into serious error. The Leaders of the Churchs I attended until I retired were Leaders in Anglican Renewal. The Church I attend in a little town; the Viccar preaches the Gospel. Someday we may have to leave our heritage. When God leads I will go, but I feel quite confident that I’m were God wants me to worship at this time. Several years ago our Rector felt that he had to leave and he took half the congregation with him because of Ingham. Both Halves believed the same, but half stayed to fight the good fight from within. Even though we lost half our Congregation our tithes remained about the same. We were taught to tithe and even though we were a blue collar congregation we never bothered to have fund raisers since we believed that we were called to give.
The point is God looks at the hearts of his people and if they are faithful to him he will be faithful in leading them to where he wants them to Worship. Let us let God lead rather than us trying to do his work.
I think it is crystal clear, in both Canada and the USA. Just look at the motions that were passed, and more importantly the ones that failed, at Gen Con in the States and General Synod here.
I don’t remember what diocese you are in – presumably your bishop has given lip service to the idea of a conscience clause (ie not requiring priests or parishes who think that they are wrong to do them), but would you be required to send a same sex couple along to a parish that would marry them? Is that not saying that this is an issue upon which Christians of good conscience can agree to disagree? Is that what you believe? If not, how could you obey your bishop if he insisted that you do send them on to a parish that would marry them?
Church structures are supposed to suppport the faithful, we aren’t supposed to have to protect ourselves against them. I have no doubt that you preach the faith once delivered to the saints in your parish. What happens when you leave, or retire? Can you be confident that your replacement would also preach that faith, or something different?
Short answer: I could not obey my bishop in such a situation Kate, and then I either find a believing bishop and diocese, leave the Anglican Church of Canada or go into construction.
Dear “Don’t Panic”,
I would welcome a coffee with you if you ever drop by our parish in the Diocese of Toronto! (I’ll withhold its name for now, such is the fear of speaking out.)
I am perplexed by your perplexity at ACNA’s stance. With your knowledge of pre-Nicene Christianity, surely you see how priests (such as Arius) and bishops could go years and even decades publicly pronouncing heterodox and heretical views without being immediately held to account. I suspect it will take another ten or twenty years, if not longer, before ACNA supplants the TEC (and possibly the ACC??) as the true, continuing Anglican Churcn in North America. It will start with bonds of recognition from GAFCON and other informal groupings, then leading Anglican churches worldwide, and then finally the formal Instruments. In the meantime, a corresponding delinkage will occur with the TEC (and maybe ACC??). This process will be messy, and logically inconsistent for a while, but it will finally right itself.
You seem to be the type of pastor we need to speak out on this issue – I hope you don’t get too quickly disillusioned with the inevirtable “political” aspects of how this will play out!
Blessings in Christ
How do you know I’m not in Toronto right now? Bwahaha!
Recently I heard a theme that once again we are being called to go before the Lord and anounce His coming I think it was ++Bob but I’m not sure. If anyone knows???? if the source is found out I believe that “Panic” and “Encouraged” would be well served to review it.
Don’t Panic,
I think that you are asking some very interesting and tough questions. I’d like to respond to a couple of things in an earlier post (#5 I think). You ask the question about why Stott, Wright and Green haven’t left he Church of England while Packer felt compelled to leave the ACoC. The simplest way to put it is, the different response is connected to the difference of geography. As far as I know there is no official same-sex blessings in the Cof E (yet- that’s the pessimist in me). I’m not sure the three would respond like Packer, or even in a similar fashion amongst the three of them.
You also ask about the issue of being in communion with those who are in communion with those you are not in communion with (still with me?). To make it clearer, let’s say that I for whatever reason can no longer maintain fellowship or communion with Kate (sorry Kate, you should have seen this coming…), but I’m still in communion with Warren. There is a real problem with my being in communion with Warren if he is in communion with Kate. I think this is the point you were driving at, and you are right about it. However, there is also an issue of timing. I have thought for a long time (assuming no repentance on the parts of AcoC and TEC) that the need was for the removal of TEC and ACoC from the communion and the inclusion of a substitute structure in the US and Canada. The problem is that to achieve this it may be required that the substitute be built, and then accepted and then the ACoC and TEC can be removed or replaced. There are at least these three distinct steps, and each one could take a while (given the lightning speed at which Anglican structures work). But I think in the end if I am out of communion with Kate, and Warren continues in communion with her, I can no longer remain in communion with Kate. I think that eventually the Global south and others will put pressure on the more natural provinces to take a stand and in a sense chose between them and TEC (and ACoC). It seems the inevitable conclusion if there is no repentance.
your fellow unworthy servant in Christ,
Brian De Visser
Pastor Kanata Lakes Fellowship.
Brian dear, your sense of humour is going to get you into trouble one of these days…
(and yes, folks, we know each other in real life)
Kate,
I think that you need to review your use of tenses…..
Brian
lol
Frank #18 said “Firstly I should say that I believe Kate (#15) is really saying one must first be a Christian before he/she can be an Anglican.” Isn’t that like saying one must be a woodsman before being a Boy Scout? Or if I may, how can one be a Christian and not be a member of the Body of Christ? I did not become a follower of Our Lord when I was baptised Anglican at 3 months old. but because of my family’s involvement and full participation in the Anglican Church I became a follower. I believe we humans were given The Church to assist us in becoming Christians and boy isn’t there so much that we have missed!! It is the Church that will prevail not neccesarily us Christians.
I don’t think you can, but it is certainly possible to be be an Anglican without being a Christian.
Kate – True, thanks for the clarification. I shall study this further.
Praise God