More priests leave the Diocese of Niagara for ANiC
Jan 28th, 2010 by David
I received following via email from a couple of people; there has been no official announcement as far as I know:
Rev. Vicky Hedelius and Rev. St. Clair Cleveland of Holy Trinity Anglican Church, Hamilton announced to their congregation last Sunday that they will be leaving the Diocese of Niagara to join ANiC; they will be starting services in St. John’s United (an evangelical church) this coming Sunday. Around two thirds of the congregation has gone with them. They turned in their licenses on Monday morning and were immediately received by Bishop Don Harvey.
Dominos, In the name of the Lord! Praise God. Announcement? Not! But if there is one, the spin will be obvious and rediculous.
“They turned in their licences on Monday morning and were immediately received by Bishop Don Harvey” is the quote. Does that mean that before they had the intestinal fortitude to leave the ACoC they first had to have a guarantee from Bishop Harvey that he would receive them into his open arms? By the way - what criteria does the ANIC have for such receptions? It appears that the only requirement is to leave the ACoC anything else such as character, theology, etc really doesn’t matter, leave and bishop Harvey will receive you and claim another notch in his belt for the ANIC. One would think that there would be a fairly sophisticated process of going from ACoC to ANIC, but it doesn’t seem so, be a member of the ACoC on Sunday and ANIC on Monday.
Randy,
You seem to be implying that the priests in question acted without courage or integrity, a rather unnecessary and unjustified snipe I think.
I should have thought a willingness to leave behind a certain amount of security for the sake of principle is in itself a mark of character. If you really are interested in the qualifications needed to be a priest in ANiC, I am sure Bishop Don would be only to happy to discuss it with you.
What do you base the above statement on, Randy? Obviously not on facts, as there is a discernment process for both priests and parishes that want to join ANiC. I’m getting the impression that you are very angry with Bishop Harvey, or at least have some sort of personal axe to grind (both of you being from Newfoundland, I assume you would have crossed paths at some point) - or do you have other reasons for commenting here?
Randy 67% of the congregation went with them directly into a new church. This speaks to pre-planning and dialogue among all of the former congregation. I am shocked at your accusation that priests from the ACoC have neither character or theological background. Finally the fact that Priests, Bishops, and Lay persons from our historical and in many cases baptismal church have been welcomed “with open arms” into ANiC from even before its inception reflects on your sad ignorance of the circumstances.
In light of this obvious lack, I STRONGLY suggest that you refrain entirely from any questioning of Bishop Don’s abilities or discernment procedures. Anyone who has met or seen This Bishop knows He radiates with the Holy Spirit. Take care and may God have mercy, that perchance you might see.
David/Kate, Why is it that sometimes when I put in a comment, as above I am not able to see earlier comments such as yours. Had I been able to do so my comments would not sound repititious. Any Advice?
Stuck,
That can happen sometimes if you are typing in your comment at the same time as someone else and they hit the Submit button before you do. Probably not much you can do about it - although you could open the thread in another window and refresh it (F5) before submitting your comment.
Stuck in Toronto: Most Business colleges give courses in helping people to become faster typists. Otherwise, suffer being a slow typist. Just kidding Stuck…..It has happened to all of us on this blog over the years.
Randy:
I’ll just bet that you are quite a fisherman….likely catch most of your fish by “troling”…….ha!
This past weekend we in St. John’s had the wonderful pleasure of spending 4 services from Friday nite to sunday nite with retired ArchBishop Yong Ping Chung, the 2nd Primate of the Province of South East Asia (2000 - 2006) and now exceptionally active with AMiA (that stands for Anglican Missions in America). He delivered four Sermons to the combined congregations of St. Stephen the Martyr and the Church of the Good Samaritan in St. John’s. It would have been a wonderful lesson in humility for you to have attended. He is not a great orator, but is a humble and sincere Man of God who simply tells the Truth. He tells the truth about the Supremacy of Scripture and about the fall of the North American Churches (TEC and ACoC). He tells about the simple fact that no matter where you as an individual priest may stand, IF YOU are hanging on preaching in an apostate church (TEC and ACoC), then you, simply put are as much an apostate as the leadership of the said TEC and ACoC.
Randy, it is so simple…… It must be difficult for the so highly intelligent like yourself to get it. Become as a little child Randy, open yourself up to the Holy Spirit, ask for His direction and guess what, if you were to start up a Church Plant in Central Nfld., I dare say Bishop Don Harvey would be there to receive you the same way he has received the new ANiC church in Hamilton, Ontario.
Don’t be too hard on Randy. Both “sides” suffer from sour grapes from time to time. A simple question as to the process by which clergy are received into the ANiC is valid even if the editorializing is not. I assume there is a process and that aspects of it are not exposed to public scrutiny for valid reasons.
Kate - no axe to grind with bishop Harvey or anyone else, unfortunately my view of him does not match up with yours. Perhaps I was too hard on the two female priests that just joined the ANIC, at least they did not wait for 40 years of pension before doing so. Gerry I have no doubt that Archbishop Yong Ping Chung believes very much what he preached and that he did a fine job of slapping around the ACoC and TEC for the ANIC. I take great satisfaction in that I hear so little of that kind of mud slinging from our own primate and bishops. Interesting enough Archbishop Chung also comes from a Province that does not ordain women, though he has said there is a place for women in the church, he does not appear to support their ordination. Deep down I have always felt that Bishop Harvey himself was never entirely comfortable with it, though he did ordain some while bishop of Eastern NL. And yes Gerry I’ve no doubt Bishop Harvey would love to get his foot in the door in Central NL but it will certainly never be at my invitation I can assure you. Strangely enough, except for the two initial congregations in St. John’s, no other parish in NL have followed suit, I don’t know what that says if anything. Even more strange Bishop Harvey has a brother in-law, retired bishop of Western Newfoundland, and he has not abandoned the ACoC, but as far as I can see is quite involved in his retirement years in that diocese. So no, I leave it to “more intelligent” people than me to interpret.
Nope, no axe to grind with Bishop Harvey at all. You’ll forgive me if I have a hard time believing that, I’m sure.
Again, making a huge assumption and jumping to conclusions. I have heard absolutely no mud slinging from the ANiC leaders, at all. If you are going to accuse, please provide links and evidence.
Gerry, did anyone record the Archbishop’s sermons,and are there plans to put them online?
Yep……That Randy is a fine fisherman when he trols…….
Kate: I will answer your question #14 after I get the answer for you.
Randy: I cannot speak for Bsp. Harvey’s Brother in Law but I do know that he preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that he does not ‘hate’ ANiC as I see some doing. Don’t accuse others of mudslinging Randy unless you stop slinging it yourself.
And the blind go on leading blind and the deaf do not hear…..
“It appears that the only requirement is to leave the ACoC anything else such as character, theology, etc really doesn’t matter, ”
Well, they have, presumably, the same character and theology they had a couple weeks ago, when clergy in good standing in the ACoC. So, one must assume that Bishop Harvey’s standards are at least as high as those of the ACoC. One suspects his standards are higher, and that he probably requires presbyters to uphold their vow to uphold the faith as it has been delivered to the church and doctrine as laid down in the BCP.
Randy said;
It appears that the only requirement is to leave the ACoC anything else such as character, theology, etc really doesn’t matter, leave and bishop Harvey will receive you and claim another notch in his belt for the ANIC.
Randy, in attempting to be gentle, I look at your statement (above) and wonder just how you can even attempt to claim character for a church that has lost it’s character and gained apostasy. The ACoC still has theology, but it’s not the one it used to preach, it now has the “new age” theology of changing Scripture to suit its’ needs and embracing the social justice issue as the new theology…..in the process, the ACoC has let go of the foundation of The Holy Scriptures and the Faith once delivered.
As for Bishop Donald Harvey and YOUR words of “another notch” for his belt, they are just that……Hollow words without substance, just words thrown into the fray to deflect the simple inadequacies of the ACoC gone far astray. Bishop Harvey doesn’t count “notches”, rather I would say that He and thousands of others rejoice with the Angels when a new ANiC church is planted or an established ACoC church breaks from the stranglehold of Religion and comes to that place where they can once again simply Praise Jesus, Praise the Father and Praise the Holy Spirit, knowing that they are in a place where some wayward Bishop won’t be trying to teach them a “new theology” such as we see across the world of TEC and the ACoC.
Randy, I really do pray that one day, the veil that has been lowered over the eyes of the ACoC and others of like mind will be lifted and that there will be new eyesight received and that new hearing will once again enable them to hear the Truth of the Holy Bible.
It doesn’t appear for the Diocese of Niagara to have taken very long to shut down the website for Holy Trinity Church. Guess they don’t want people looking at it now that it is no more.
Have been absent awhile so have missed many of the Niagara Anglican untruths ( lies and slanted articles ). You ask why other anglican clergy are leaving the ACoC for ANiC or another religious affiliation? One only has to read the piece of trash written by the newly appointed rector ( Susan Wells ) of St.George’s in Lowville in the recent Niagara Anglican to realize distancing themselves from people such as this was a good decision.The two articles written by Michael Bird and Michael Patterson were also a hard read knowing who these people are and what they claim to be. All in the God”s name they claim. What a comforting thought to know I made the right decision in Feb 2007 to view people such as these while looking in the rearview mirror.
I would suggest if the other Anglican Diocese’s in Canada have the same type of so-called leadership as demonstrated in Niagara then the ACoC is headed free fall
I would like to introduce a new medical phenomenon that has been springing up of late. Since there has been no medical papers as yet presented I feel confident in naming this new disease. BBB Syndrome. Unlike other syndromes this group of symptoms are very easily recognized. Brokenness, Blindlyness and Baffleitus. Although taken on their own these symptoms are easily dealt with, when they are found together they take on a compounding effect that makes identification difficult and puts them out of reach of most common remedies.
In the Postmodern world Brokenness has taken on epidemic proportions since the disease of non-accountability began during the nineteen-sixties and with the introduction of the so called wonder drug deniability, you may remember it was manufactured by AORF Pharmaceuticals (assumption of Rights and Freedoms). Consequently left unchecked it led to (the coined word) blindlyness.
This you may also remember was the breakdown of neurons leading from the eye to the cognitive part of the brain and instead re-routing to what is now known as the rotundus damaginus or damaged rotunda. and this of course is where we find the origins of Baffleitus. Many learned and scholarly in the field feel that this is strictly a “new age” phenomena. However, some including myself, feel that this viral disease began from eating a certain fruit a long long long long time ago. It laid dormant until a complete eradication was presented a long long time ago. Unfortunately almost immediately following this undeniable astounding projection it very slowly began to be argued about. This very quickly led to the dismantling of one ingredient, unity. and with that the virus was allowed to slowly mutate and grow. As a result we now have the common condition known as baffleitus.
Taken from the Journal of Dr. Felicity Bloggins who is famous for Her travels with her uncle the late Bilbo Baggins.
…but I LIKE apples.
Not THAT kind of apple Gordon!! But since you mentioned it, it must have been delicious because in spite of dire warnings in anothor chapter of Felicity’s Journal, human kind have been eating it ever since. In fact she identifies one of the mutant virises as the now preposterous multi trillion dollar industry called “fashion” which as you know goes directly into the rotundus damaginus. This, so I’ve been told, is the primary reason that our woman folk have lost the Spiritual act of keeping their heads covered in church.
Take cover Gordon……. incoming!
RE: RANDY
While I cannot say with 100% certainty, I feel confident in my conclusions that Randy is a priest from one of the NL dioceses. My experience has shown that he spends much of time stalking with ANiC websites, keeping a breast of every move they make and causing choas and turmoil unnecessarily. I admire his fascination and inquisitiveness.
My suggestion for Randy would be that if you spent as much time as stalking the steps ANiC and its leadership and devoted that to proclaiming the Gospel and being a witness to the light and love of Christ in your community, you might see revival come to your community and spread throughout the island.
“Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: For I am God, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:22
Grand Falls really is a beautiful community.
Well, he has said that he is from Newfoundland:
http://www.anglicanessentials.ca/wordpress/index.php/2009/11/13/anic-synod-some-final-thoughts/#comment-194182
And I also recall his mentioning that he is ordained:
http://www.anglicanessentials.ca/wordpress/index.php/2009/08/26/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-anglican-church-of-canada/#comment-183724
Get out the fishin line the trol is identified ….. Again!
Sorry Gerry, but I did indeed feel it needed to be erased.
Kate, if you feel this should be erased, please do so.
Blessings on Your day.
Might I suggest Thom that you know what you are talking about before you write. You know nothing about me, the town I live in is one of the most Christian towns you are likely to find anywhere in Canada I would suggest. I don’t mind saying who I am, I am rector of the Parish of Grand Falls, a very dynamic parish in Central Newfoundland, with much ministry going on in the parish and beyond in the town. I feel it is sometimes necessary to speak up for the church I belong to, and I would suggest that if some of the bloggers here spent half as much time speaking charitably and in the spirit of kindness much more could be accomplished for Christ in the greater community. My experience here is that unless you belong to ANIC, and if you have an opinion that does not jive with ANIC, you are a trol or you are apostate, and judged unchristian. If the administrators of this blog tell me not to write again I will not. As for revival Thom, I would suggest that Central Newfoundland, indeed Newfoundland, may be further ahead than you think. I will continue to defend the church I belong to whether its here or some other place, and I refer not to a few dioceses or bishops that may not be in line with the official stance of the ACoC, but rather the doctrines of the church that despite what gets portrayed here is still intact in the ACoC, such as the creeds, the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. Where I am in this diocese none of that has changed, and frankly its gets more annoying when I hear those “holier than thou” that stand in judgment of the church and those who belong to it. So Thom and Gerry and everyone else that would like for this to be my last post here, I hate to break it to you but the ANIC is not perfect either. Again, by all means ask the adms of this blog to ask me to post no more and I won’t.
P.S. The fact that Kate felt the need to erase Gerry’s comments simply gives credence to part of what I spoke about above - “unchartitable and in the spirit of kindness” Obviously Kate felt that his remarks should not be printed, so I can only imagine how vicious they may have been
Randy [#27],
This appears to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black considering in [#2] you said:
Your comment wasn’t deleted but it seems to me to be uncharitable, without a spirit of kindness and certainly within hailing range of vicious.
A troll is someone who posts simply to stir things up. I did a search and read quite a few of your comments, Randy, and quite frankly your behavour fits the definition. Certainly almost every time Bishop Don’s name comes up you have had something uncharitable to say. There has been at least one other ACoC priest who has commented here, who obviously disagreed with us, but managed to stay constructive and civil - which is something you seem to have difficulty doing. If you insist on behaving like a troll, you probably shouldn’t be insulted when people call you out on it.
#27 Randy, Gerry’s comment that I deleted was no more vicious than yours. I deleted it because he obviously wasn’t sure if it was appropriate, and he gave me permission to. If he hadn’t, I might have left itup, as itdidn’t quite cross my line of “civility”, although it was pushing it.
Kate & David: It seems your definition of vicious is utterly lacking, I would call it responding justifiably to the vicious responses I receive. I see that you are very much sided with only ANIC supporters and you wish only to hear from them - be it known that I have read between your lines and now know that I am unwelcome to blog here, uncivil as you would call it. It is fine for ANIC bloggers to bash the ACoC Primate, bishops and priests, but as soon as one takes an opposite view or because one does not support Harvey its vicious. Don’t bother to reply for my sake as I will never see it because once I post this blog (delete it if you want) I will not be returning to this sight ever again. Your response tells me that my views are unwanted and unwelcomed here simply because they don’t back up ANIC. And I’m sorry David that the bishop Harvey you know and the one I know are not the same, if thats uncharitable I am sorry. No more uncharitable I’m afraid than a lot of what I have read on here about the ACoC primate, bishops and priests, myself included especially.
Randy [#31],
My definition isn’t particularly relevant; here’s a dictionary definition:
1. Having the nature of vice; evil, immoral, or depraved.
2. Given to vice, immorality, or depravity.
3. Spiteful; malicious: vicious gossip.
4. Disposed to or characterized by violent or destructive behavior. See Synonyms at cruel.
5. Marked by an aggressive disposition; savage. Used chiefly of animals.
6. Severe or intense; fierce: a vicious storm.
7. Faulty, imperfect, or otherwise impaired by defects or a defect: a forced, vicious style of prose.
8. Impure; foul.
I don’t think anyone has said anything that falls entirely within any of those categories, although I think yours come close to 3.
Not at all; everyone is welcome to comment here within the bounds of the published guidelines.
In #27 you accused Gerry of making a comments that you imagined were “vicious”!
You have made that promise a few times now.
As I said above, you views are perfectly welcome; just because they are welcome, you can’t expect people to agree with them, though.
Randy, I am not saying this to goad you, but the overall tone of your last comment is one of petulance and anger, seemingly because you have not managed to convince anyone to agree with you; even your grammar is beginning to disintegrate. It is rather childish.
Since Randy refused to respond to or even acknowledge the questions and comments that I directed towards him, I can’t say I’ll miss him. He certainly didn’t take a conventional approach to winning friends and influencing people. I’ve had strong disagreements with other people on this blog, but am always happy to see a comment with their name on it.
We’ll see. He has threatened to take his ball and go home a few times now, but his anger always draws him back - at least, that’s how I see it.
Randy please don’t go. You certainly don’t have to win friends. Of course we are all here to attempt to influence others. As for answering Warren’s questions I could not find them, they must be in earlier streams. I did not expect you to comment on my #5, the facts speak for themselves. However when someone makes an entry to this blog they do so for one of two reasons, either to influence or stir the pot. Surely as a trained priest you are most capable of influencing others. You should be doing this every Sunday at least. Please step back from the frey, it does not become your office. Say something that influences me. “Come, let us reason together”. If you won’t, so be it! If you can’t, then you must join the ranks of some your gospel starved colleagues and leaders who have chosen to falsely minister Christ to a fallen culture whose major gods are mammon, eros, and mars. To the end, that silence is all that is left.
I have been sitting in the weeds for a while watching this little skirmish develop and, while I totally disagree with Randy on the substance of his posts, I believe we need to take some notice of his observation that the current rules of this blog do not encourage much critisim of ANiC. In order to foster a debate there should be two distinct and conflicting points of view. It seems to me that we are more and more tending to limit decenting opinions on the basis of ” a lack of charity”. May I suggest that we need to be careful that we do not to turn this blog into a vehicle for violently agreeing with ourselves.
Randy:
I’m not going to ask you to come and play anymore….I’ve had it with you.
I think Brother THOMsaid it all so nicely back several posts ago in #23? I think it was when he suggested that you (Randy) spend more time preparing your work for Sunday’s sermons and looking after your flock (I’m sure some must be lost) that The Parish of Grand Falls would be much better served. Perhaps that Bishop from Western Newfoundland (You know, Bishop Don’s Brother-in-law) could come over to Grand falls and try to get your Parish up and on it’s feet.
Now, before you get upset, I know you have some wonderful people in your Parish and some wonderful Christians among them at that, ones that I will attend Church with anyday and not feel that I am amongst the apostates.
Grand falls is a Beautiful town amongst some of the prettiest scenery in the Province - won’t it be a joy when the day comes that there is an ANiC church in it’s midst and believe me Randy, that will happen - whether you like it or not.
Back to the light of the kerosene lamp me old trout, get the pen going and concentrate on the Gospels - put your flock in shock on Sunday with some hellfire and brimstone!
Criticism of ANiC is fine. Reasoned debate is fine. Potshots (directed at anybody) are not. Anybody is perfectly welcome to post, keep it civil is all we are asking. I actually think the mods, myself included, are sometimes harder on ANiC supporters than we are on other folks. (I might add, the only person who has ever been blacklisted from this blog is an ANiC supporter.)
Gerry and Randy, could you please stop winding each other up? It isn’t really contributing to real debate, or even conversation.
It’s too bad that Randy has taken his marbles and gone home. I would have been interested in his rebuttal to these comments from Martyn LLoyd-Jones:
Kate:
So long as randy keeps coming with his useless diatribe, I will be responding. If that is considered winding him up, I guess he is just “one of that kind”. I will try however not to be too hard on him or on you.
It is possible to respond without pouring gasoline on flames, you know.
KATE- me thinks that you like to wind me up also…..not going there this morning, off to church….Have a blessed day all.
Warren #40
A truly excellent encapsulation. Would you mind elaborating on who Martyn LLoyd-Jones is, as I am not familiar with the name?
Martyn Lloyd-Jones:
http://www.misterrichardson.com/mlj.html
What did you quote from, Warren? I’d like to read more.
Gerry my brother; I want you to ….. no wait-a-minute….. I demand in the name of our sovereign Lord that you read, meditate and pray about 1 John Chapter 4. The whole chapter serves to explain in great detail the punch line “perfect love casteth out fear”.
Randy, this would serve you as well, as a matter of fact it would edify all the company of this Blog, past, present, pro and con.
Warren your quote is indeed thought provoking ….But…. I question most vehemently the last line “in the name of the church, can deny the essentials of the faith and nothing happens? You have heard it said “men who live in glass houses should not throw stones.” My argument is not in defence of the apostate but for the righteous to consider judgement and action when we ourselves are so lacking in the “essentials of the faith”
Winter Traveler (#44), here is the Wikipedia article on Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyn_Lloyd-Jones
Some have argued that he was the greatest preacher of the 20th century (but, of course, that is subjective).
I guess you’ve been getting ripped off in terms of warm weather during your winter travels this year (assuming you headed south).
Kate (#45), the comments I quoted were made by Lloyd-Jones during an address in 1963. They can be found on pages 48 and 49 of this paper.
Lloyd-Jones didn’t always see eye-to-eye with Anglican evangelicals, and here is an interesting excerpt from the Wiki article:
If Lloyd-Jones were alive today, I suspect that he would view the liberals of his day as being relatively tame in comparison to those who are given positions of leadership and authority in the current church.
Stuck (#47), I don’t understand the reason for your “vehement questioning.” Can you elaborate?
Here’s another Lloyd-Jones quote, of a more personally convicting nature, that I just encountered on another blog (sorry for hogging bandwidth):
Four years ago I left the United Church of Canada and became a member of the ACOC. I contined to blog on the U.C.O.C. website . The personal attacks ( many from clergy ) were unreal . They were far more vicious than any reply Randy has received . Although the website was monitored, the site had to ability to respond directly to the author . These messages were not monitored . Several messages I received were threatening . All because I did not agree with the liberalism that has overtaken this once noble institution . I no longer consider it a church) . Unlike Randy I had to sign off the blog for good because of the attacks.
My point is please do not turn this into that kind of blog. It doesn’t mean we have to always turn the other cheek if the thread contains falsehoods but please lets encourage civil debate. I think Winter Traveller’s last sentence in # 36 says it all.
P.S. Two years ago I left the ACOC for AniC .
Ragamuffin (#51), I hope you don’t take this as an attack (it certainly isn’t meant that way), but I don’t agree with your reference to the UCC as a “once noble institution”. I believe that, institutionally, the UCC represented a concession to liberalism from day one and that it contained the seeds of its own destruction at its birth in 1925. It does serve as a good example of ecumenism gone wrong. Were you tempted to join the Congregational movement of the late 80s?
Warren # 49, This is not the first time I have confused you. Perhaps it is because I am uneducated in the finer applications of the English language. I know that my ability to communicate is often hampered and yet it is one of my hearts desires. Such are the crosses our Lord provides. I am an old dog and thank you for your patience.
If anyone else agrees with Warren I would love to learn the why of it.
The essence of my argument is this: How can Christian people criticise others’ wrongdoings when they themselves are “lacking in the “essentials of the faith”
In #53, Stuck said:
I don’t think your argument relates directly to the Lloyd-Jones quote; I think he was attacking those who would wrongly use the authority of the church to teach things at odds with what the church has historically held true. That said, I’ll give you my opinion on your question.
None of us is without sin (1 Jn 1:8) and, because we are not perfect, we all lack in some aspect of our Christian walk. The Bible teaches in many places that we are to be discerning, to reject false teaching, and that discipline is to be exercised within the body of Christ. Therefore, one does not have to be perfect in order to be discerning, to reject false teaching, or to exercise discipline. This discernment, rejection, and discipline will often be received as criticism.
Now, just because none of us is without sin, it does not necessarily follow that we are lacking in the “essentials of the faith”. It depends on what you mean by the essentials of the faith. Some could take it to mean something as basic as affirming the truth of the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds (without fingers crossed behind the back). What do you mean by essentials of the faith?
Wow all this because two priests dumped the ACoC. Imagine if a diocese did it?
We won’t become that kind of blog. Ever.
Gawk (#55), I plead guilty to verbosity.
Kate, Thank you for that. I was beginning to get worried. Having said that I am always willing to get involved in a good debate . Warren # 52 . No ,I do not take your message as an attack. Thanks for being candid. As a 25 year old renegade who one day decided to attend church for the heck of it I picked the closest one to my residence . It happened to be a United Church . I discovered Christ there and was smitten very quickly by the spirit . As the years passed and I somewhat matured I discovered that the Christ that I had become my best friend and comforter was being left behind in the decisions being made by the moderators . I had no choice but to leave. I did not leave with a” holier than thou ” attitude but in all good conciousness I had to leave . Same thing with the ACOC .
Ragamuffin (#58), an old family friend who was first a missionary to Africa and then a UCC minister for many years (I think he is still active in the ministry in his 70s) is a true minister of the gospel. My father did some lay ministry in the UCC in the 60s and 70s and even considered seminary for a brief time. I know that the truth can still be found in individual churches and I’m not suggesting that all who attend UCC churches are lost. My comment was directed at the UCC as a denomination/institution.
Warren, I agree completely . Take care.
We walk a fine line sometimes on this blog.
On one hand we encourage debate and want people to be free to comment. On the other hand, we don’t want, and will not allow, this to become a flame war.
Randy, I think you have been fairly treated. Your opening post was IMHO trolling, but it’s been allowed to stand. As well, others comments have been edited where needed. This is quite a long way from the modus operandi of blogs on the other ’side’.
Fact of the matter is, most people commenting on here are coming from a particular position on the Current Unpleasantness. So, if you’re coming from a different position you’re not that likely to get universal agreement! That does not mean you are not welcome to comment - whatever lines you read between were on your own script, not ours.
Blessings,
Peter
Warren I had hoped that knowing of my comments in the past you might understand. The essentials of the Faith are not trifling or general in fact they are quite specific and can easily be identified by looking at our history and the successes of the prince of this world. The first clear failing of the church which continues to this day is our inability to recognize the power and necessity of unity which entwines itself with love and the incrementation of Faith. Until we can go back far enough to grasp these truths we cannot move on unto perfection.
Ragamuffin, Pray hard that this might be your last stop.
Gawk you to Pray hard that your #55 becomes unecessary after the Anglican Synod in June.
Stuck (#62), I will doubtlessly frustrate you again, but, to me, this statement is largely a riddle:
All I can discern from this is that you value unity above all else. Despite all your previous posts, I am truly at a loss to know what you really mean by this. Unity exists when there is agreement on fundamental or “essential” matters. What are these fundamental or “essential” matters? Presumably the “essentials of the faith.” Which leads me back to my previous question:
I have never responded to a blog before, but there seems to be a lot of anxiety about ACoC & ANIC (I am a proud member of ANiC); however we must remember in heaven there will be no ACoC, no ANiC, no Roman Catholics, etc - just people who have been saved and redeemed by Jesus Christ. Will Jesus know me or will he say he knows me not; so to quote words from a wonderful hymn I learned in Israel:
It all comes down to eternity – Where will I stand
And who’ll be waiting at the end of the line – Who is this man
And how can the son of G-d be born – What is His name
And how can I know if it’s really Him – Where will I stand
What choice do I have – What choice will I make
To walk alone – Or walk with You
I trust that no-one outside of the Anglican world will ever find their way to these blogs - the lack of charity on both sides is appalling. ’see how these Christians love one another . . . ‘
And, with his vague and unsubtantiated attack (#66), Pat joins the club.
No - indeed I do not ‘attack’ anyone (vague or otherwise) - I simply observe and pray for greater charity. Our internecine feuds will do us all little credit.
Patrick
Again, unsubstantiated. Are individual comments sometimes posted to this blog that could be considered uncharitable? Yes. But you seem to be suggesting that the entire thrust of this blog is wrong. That it would be much better if Anglicans could just ignore God’s Word, paper over all their disagreements - no matter how fundamental - and get along. Am I misreading you?
Do you think the church father’s acted uncharitably in developing Creeds to counteract heresies? Do you think that process was collegial and “charitable”? Do you take issue with Martyn Lloyd-Jones comments in #40? How does 2 Peter 2 fit into your equation?
By the way, I could be considered someone “outside the Anglican World” (at the present time at least). I also think that the word “charity” has been so overused and abused by Anglicans that it has lost its usefulnessg.
With respect, I believe sir that you have misread me. Simply ‘getting along’ is not always best. The history of Christianity and of Anglicanism itself bears ample testimony to this. From controversy often may come light. Moreover, I disagree with your assessment of the early Church Fathers. They spoke plainly, forcefully, and with firm conviction to counteract heresies. The process of creating the creeds was - however - entirely collegial, as it was accomplished as a cooperative effort through the Ecumenical Councils.
I am truly sorry that you believe that the concept of ‘charity’ has lost its usefulness, but pray that it will soon be restored. This was - indeed - the purpose of my original posting.
Patrick (#70), I’m still at a loss as to what changes you want to see. Can you provide any constructive criticism of a specific nature?
Do you think your choice of the word “appalling” in your original post - without giving any example - just might be seen as a little provoking?
Although the participants in the ecumenical councils may have seen the process as collegial, I doubt that those whose teaching the Creeds were intended to counter felt they were being treated collegially - or charitably (even though many of them likely believed that their position was true). I’m in the early stages of a church history course and the ecumencial councils will be discussed in the next couple of weeks. I will bear your perspective in mind in my reading.
Any comment on #40?
Have you read the whole thread, Patrick? Good grief.
In the interest of not excessively extending this blog, I will acknowledge that my initial comment was not sufficiently clear, and has led to misunderstanding. Indeed, it may be read as uncharitable, although this was not the intent. For this I apologize.
Patrick (#73), I’m glad you stuck around - I know I can come on a little strong sometimes. I hope you see fit to contribute to other discussions.
Warren #64 - you said ” All I can discern from this is that you value unity above all else. Despite all your previous posts, I am truly at a loss to know what you really mean by this. Unity exists when there is agreement on fundamental or “essential” matters. What are these fundamental or “essential” matters? Presumably the “essentials of the faith.” Which leads me back to my previous question:
What do you mean by essentials of the faith?
As plain as I can Warren, I VALUE CHRIST ABOVE ALL ELSE. Christ values unity far more than the Church has ever done or yet realizes. Unity exists with likemindedness. nothing more nothing less. As for essentials of the faith, this is not my quote but one taken from material provided by you.
Patrick my humble opinion; this is the place were mostly honest persons sometimes duke it out - Just like Jesus did. Many, many are christians who have shown themselves to do so with love. In spite of human frailties such as frustration even outright anger. Stick around brother, participate for a while. I am confident you will see through and change your mind.
Stuck (#75), I still doubt that I understand what you are saying, but is this what you mean: So long as I say I value Christ above all else I am in unity with you even if I don’t believe the Bible is inspired, I deny the need to participate in the Lord’s Supper and baptism, I never go to church, and I routinely engage in a wide range of activities contrary to the 10 Commandments (and do not believe them to be sinful)? You probably don’t mean this, but I think your comment could be interpreted this loosely.
Let’s go back to your statement from #53:
I apparently don’t get it, so can you phrase things another way?
Apparently so, I shall give you the benefit of the doubt, but fear I shall only confuse you further.
The church Warren. The church. Unity exists with likemindedness. Jesus prayed “that they may be one, as we are one.” Likemindedness begins with two or three, than twelve than twenty ad infinitum. Being one with others is in my opinion a state of Grace whereby we enter into perfection. This can only be acheived when worked in conjunction with love and faith. Which you must have missed in my 62. I think you understand the premier requirement of Love. However faith may need further explanation. It is not just a belief system but an incremental tool that, supported by unity and love, becomes available in all matters of the church from soup to nuts (have I lost you?) another description for it that I have used in past blogs is “The Factor of Faith” To sum up, the church has failed and continues to fail to understand the depth and connection of these other two essentials of (to) the faith. You see Warren it is my very humble opinion that when the church sat at her first council she began to build a Box we call them creeds or edicts and using there own reasoning tried to explain or in some cases defend the church. Kind of putting God in a Box. Of course that’s impossible but what did happen was they built this box around themselves and in doing so shut out the growth of Unity, Love, and Faith.
I can almost hear you grinding your teeth, dear brother but please consider this; If you can come up with a better reason for the apparent successes of loosafur against the Church, from its beginning until the obvious of now. Combining that with the prophetic, were it is written that even the very elect of God would fail save the time be shortened. I would love to hear it. But if you require further enlightenment I fear that like Cohen’s Suzanne “I have sunk beneath your wisdom like a stone”
I think that there has been some confusion about the ancient church’s councils.
First, they were not polite affairs, nor where they what we might call charitable. There are many good reasons for this, the best I think is that they perceived the true evil of mis-truth and confronted it in this light. There are examples of fist fights and physical assaults taking place at these gathering. I guess they took what is said about God a little more seriously then we do (not that physical violence is definitive of seriousness).
Second, the purpose of the councils and their creeds was not to put God in a box, but to provide us with a fence for our thinking about God so that we would not cross lines and think thoughts that are inappropriate to think about God or ourselves. The creeds are to contain our thinking and fence it in, not God. While God is so much more then we can completely understand, in His revealed Word we can clearly see some things that we must affirm about God and ourselves as well as some things that we ought to deny about ourselves and God. What God wants us to know about Him is clearly and publicly made plain in His revealed Word, the Bible. Ultimately this is what fences in our thinking so that we honour and bring glory to God in our thinking about Him (which is what theology is in essence). The creeds are a reasonable (and fairly accurate and truthful) human attempt to speak the truth of scripture in light of specific things that were said about God that were false and dishonouring to Him.
your fellow unworthy servant in Christ,
Brian DeVisser
Thank you Brian and in our limited circumstance your “The creeds are a reasonable (and fairly accurate and truthful) human attempt to speak the truth of scripture” point of view is quite correct. I think it would be safe to assume that you would agree that the schismatic circumstances of the Church’s history is not what our Christ intended. Looking at the early church (still influenced directly by the apostles) the examples of life and the direction of growth was possible by the powerful impact of “the faith once given” and the direct empowerment of the Holy Spirit by the immense faith of the apostles. No sooner completed, it is my opinion, than the hand of the “Evil One” began it’s work. confusion, false teaching, dissention, anger and finally “human attempts” to make correction. When, in fact, we already had the recipe, Unity, Love, and Faith. Further, the debate between Arius and Athanasius which gave birth to the Nicene Creed was, again, in my opinion the hand of Evil working, here I speak of the debate not the result. Unfortunately as you know this did not put an end, but began a series of “councils” that eventually led to the so called great schism.
It is interesting to note the clear changes in the Church from its Apostolic influence to its human one. Herein rests the gist of my argument. The moment we shifted into human reasoning we began the long journey of the diminishment of Love, Faith, and Unity. Which as I am sure you recognize is reaching epic proportions in the world that God Loves. Although in this case the epic does not refer in any way to a hero but rather the opposite.
In summation; “To reason without the direct and overwhelming influence of any one (which I have said bears a direct impact on the other two) of the three impacting circumstances of the fundimentals of our participation in the Church is “anathema”
I must make an adjustment to a grave error. my last word anathema is far and away to harsh. We have Love and Grace from our God, praise and thanks be.
The word should be -dangerous-
Stuck #80, in your concluding paragraph you say:
Two things:
(1) You inserted an opening quotation mark without a corresponding closing mark. Is this a quote or your own words?
(2) What are the “three impacting circumstances of the fundimentals [sic] of our participation in the Church”? I cannot decipher what these three “circumstances” are from the rest of your comment. Or do you mean three fundamentals?
Here’s an example of why I often find it hard to follow your train of thought:
The second sentence is presumably an attempt at humour, but it adds unneccessary words and, in my opinion, detracts from the flow and clarity of your argument.
I apologize for playing the tutor, but you asked for feedback in #53.
No apology necessary Warren. As I have said in the past I accept full responsibility for the results in lack of education. Including my spelling. Yes it is my quote I obviously forgot the period and ….a second quotation mark? would the second quotation mark come after or before the period seeing this is a single sentence? Don’t hurt yourself now.
The three IMPACTING circumstances that you cannot decipher(?) are spoken of clearly they are Unity, Love, and Faith.
As for your last observation (a third thing by-the-way) I’m afraid you are wrong again. My use of the term “epic”, by definition refers to, “a long narrative poem which tells of the adventures and feats of a single hero” Which I hope now will make it more decipherable.
Stuck (#83), I understood the second sentence and the “epic” reference, my point was that it detracted rather than added to the flow of your argument. Just my two cents worth.
I missed the reference to unity, faith and love because, as per the dictionary definition, they are not circumstances (a condition or fact attending an event and having some bearing on it). I’ve never heard of unity, faith or love referred to as conditions or facts. Accordingly, I was trying to find three of something else.
I think the generally accepted convention today is to put the quotation mark after the period (although I definitely don’t get fussed about that).
Back to the original topic. I have just been told that the property of Holy Trinity is already earmarked for a high rise development with the church and the day care stuck in somewhere. Can anyone confirm this. The story is rampant in Niagara circles.
This is getting fun Warren, your two cents are down to a penny. It did most assuredly “add to the flow”. Although somewhat cryptic, I come by it honestly, as the person I admire most in life spoke often thus. Most of what I had to say was to do with the interference of Satan upon the lives of men. By using the term “epic” I drew attention to the size and responsibility for the proportion of loss. Feeling sorry for those who might have difficulty deciphering I added the final (still a little cryptic, gotta keep those teachers on their toes don’t ya know.) sentence.
As for your second point, “(a condition or fact attending an event and having some bearing on it). I’ve never heard of unity, faith or love referred to as conditions or facts.” My dear boy of course you haven’t, that is what my whole argument is about and I suspect why you continue to press the syntax rather than the substance.
Now I shall attempt to enlighten you a final time.
1 John:4 (I wrongly demanded that my brother read this in my #46 perhaps you should take a look)
17Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
“Herein is our love made perfect” sounds like conditioning to me.
Faith is both substance and evidence that, because it is incremental requires growth and in my opinion the single greatest threat to that growth is fear. Hmm conditioning here to, methinks.
Finally unity, growing both love and faith brings us to the final obstacle - self- we are called to be dead to self. It is only with this final (shall we say) growth spurt (as in conditioning) that we are able to practice, unto perfection, unity.
One final thing, this business is far to important -to me- to combine it with keeping the pot stirred, I’ll drop my paddle if you drop yours.
Good night and God Bless
Gawk - no surprise I half expected another casino - oop’s hope the Bish is sleeping.
Stuck,
I appreciate your response. I think the councils attempt was to in fact return to Apostolic teaching and stay clear from human philosophy and reason (in contrast to human reason aplied to God’s self revelation with support from the Holy Spirit). Certainly, at the time of the Reformation, the attempt was to return to Apostolic teaching, which we find in the Bible. When our thinking about God is formed by His trustworthy and commisioned authoritative messengers and what they say about Him, then we can find the unity in our faith, and because of that faith and unity we can find love for each other (since our faith includes that He first loved us).
These messengers are the Prophets and Apostles who are the authors of the Holy Scriptures. When our thinking is formed by the Bible and what it says, then we find faith, love and unity.
your fellow unworthy servant in Christ,
Brian DeVisser
If you want to be understood better, maybe you could try to be a bit less cryptic. Like Warren, I often find you very difficult to understand. Warren is obviously willing to make the effort - many other people will not be.
Stuck, depending on who drops it first, one of us is going to have only one oar in the water.
Brian again I agree with everything you said. However as with our current dilemma, there are negative and positive sides to every situation. This is the evidence of continuing dis-unity. As with your words ” the attempt was to return to Apostolic teaching,” ACNA is attempting the same thing, both were positive yet I fear that like all past schismatic circumstances ACNA will not go back far enough.
You said “When our thinking about God is formed by His trustworthy and commisioned authoritative messengers and what they say about Him, then we can find the unity in our faith”.
Do you really think we have done so?
I ask this question not for the sake of argument but because it forms the reasoning for my point. Please accept in truth, that I wish (and pray) to be shown that I am wrong, simply because I believe the time is drawing short. I earnestly pray, “Lord as you chose in times past to tarry for your purposes, I pray that you do so now…. And Yet… Even so, come Lord Jesus”.
Good Morning dear brother.
I have no doubt as to where Stuck in Toronto’s heart is and no doubt that when he writes it is perfectly clear to him as to exactly what he is saying. Same with Warren. Sometimes it is not so clear to me.
I know that as God works in each of us that sometimes His work is not as fast as we all would have it be, but as it is done, it is a perfect work.
Stuck….. As slow as it may seem, He (God) is doing a wonderful work in both of us…… as cryptic or blunt as either of us may be, He will soften our pen strokes and our words to the point that one day, you and I will not even recognize ourselves.
All of us must make an effort to see that we improve and one of my ways is to stay away from blogging quite so much at least until His work in me is a bit more advanced. Praise God.
Blessings to all,
Kate Hi, I wondered were you had gotten to! Welcome back! ….I think.
Warren - as usual you are confused, I said paddle not oar. That being said, a question if I may, If you stir the pot with two oars is the vortex created faster? Just wondering.
Have a great day you two - I’m off for a root canal.
Stuck in Toronto and Warren —– hint…. both, on the count of three, drop your oars… One …… Two…… Three
Gee I can’t keep up - Blessings to you Gerry - in a mighty way!!
Again Gerry - careful ol son I have a plate in my head!
#93 Ouch.
Since we’re so close, we might as well break the 100 barrier for comments on this thread.
Sure
Why
not?
That’s cheating, Kate. Off to the corner with you.
and smaller minds look on!
Kate; Nothing personal but I bet it didn’t hurt as much as me getting one of Warren’s “Oars” dropped on my head as Gerry hints at. PS the root canal was a hoot - I’m off for a tylenol 3 snooze.
I truly love you all cause the Christ loves me! eieiohhhh
Ugh. I have to get my mouth frozen just to get my teeth cleaned.
Stuck (#104), I feel your pain. I hope you aren’t drooling on your keyboard.
What a sad end to such a long comment run. Did you beat the comment run on women’s ordination? That was a doosey!
Thanks Warren, no drooling, but eieio? sure glad I don’t mess with the illegal stuff.
Heck Gawk I missed that one sure would like to review it. But no doubt it will rear its “elephant head” again However I do remember a 200 + when I first came on board. It even made the ANiC News!!! Can’t remember the title though but what do you expect from a blogger that tries to leave a blessing saying “cause the Christ loves me! eieiohhhh” the more I repeat it the more horrible it sounds - I am sorry.
I am going to approach my argument from a different angle.
1. Do you feel we as Christians have lived up to Jesus’ prayer for oneness, and call to unity?
2. Do you agree that Faith is incremental? If so do you think we have progressed in our Faith?
3. Do you think that Christians by and large have obeyed the given two great commandments on love?
#110:
Dear Stuck: These are very good questions to which I have committed some thought (though I’m not sure why you’re asking them in this context)
1. Jesus asks the Father to make us one, and God always hears the request of the Son. We are one in him. We cannot unify ourselves: this is something the ‘big tent’ idea tries unsuccessfully to do. I’m sure you have experienced inter-denominational Chrisitian unity (even despite occasional sniping). As the song goes: ‘We are one in the Spirit. We are one in the Lord’.
2. Saving faith is materially the same at the beginning as at the end. It is not incremental but binary (on or off). You either have it or you don’t. Saving faith continues to save us beginning at our conversion (like the thief on the cross) to the end our our lives as we persevere. so, in this way, the faith of a child is just as good as the faith of an elderly saint. “How precious did that grace appear the hour I first believed.”
3. Christians are not always obedient. We are faulty and we grieve the Spirit, but when he adopted us the Lord Jeus knew extent of our weakness. He knew it personally and painfully and he is therefore able to present us faultless before the presence of his glory. Though we’re not “long on obedience”, even on this blog you can recognize true believers through our interactions: whether we agree on everything or not, we bow the knee to the Lord who helps us love each other. “You can tell we are Christians through our love.” (By the way, if you include the New Commandment, there are now three great commandments on love.)