Received via email:
To those conservatives who are within the Anglican Church of Canada, particularly the Anglican Communion Alliance, who are considering how to respond to General Synod 2010’s proposal of ongoing “dialogue” on human sexuality:
Apostate Waffle
Canadians are known for making waffles, and liberally dousing them in maple syrup. The Anglican Church of Canada has put a Sexuality Statement made of lack-of-progress flour, and seasoned with hypocritical salt into the waffle iron, hoping that when they take it out again (in three years at General Synod 2013, and in six years with the Anglican Church of Canada Anglican Covenant discussion timetable), the world-wide Communion will be ready to pour liberal helpings of maple syrup on it. Sugary sweet graciousness cannot cover the fact that compromise theologically on this issue of human sexuality is not of God. Jesus said, “Whoever is not with me, is against me” (Matthew 12.30).
The lack of a definitive vote at General Synod 2010 affirms the status quo (same sex relationships are sanctified, GS2007), which is to the liberal Anglican advantage. The majority liberal Anglican Church of Canada now claims it has not violated moratoria at the national level, while turning a blind eye to violations at the diocesan level.(1) This is achieved by continuing the “dialogue” on human sexuality. This is the text of Resolution C011 as passed at their General Synod 2010:
C011: Ongoing Study by the Canadian Church (carried as amended):
Request that all Dioceses, ACIP, Military Ordinariate, and Religious Orders engage in theological and scriptural study of human sexuality in the coming triennium, in conversation with gay and lesbian voices, and with the full range of theological opinion in the Canadian Church.
Irresponsibly deciding to allow the pain of indecision to become the status quo is to reject calling for godly repentance, for a return to biblical authority, and a submission to God’s Word. To allow theological confusion to reign is to preach relativism, which is not the Gospel of Christ. To confuse the people pastorally is to lead them astray. The bible says that those teachers who lead little ones astray would be better off with a millstone round their necks and tossed into the sea (Matthew 18:6). In my opinion, lack of leadership qualifies for this prophetic punishment.
Conservative Anglicans should not participate further in the charade of fruitless “dialogue.” First of all, dialogue is not informed debate. It has not got a stated goal. Nor does it have parameters beyond what has been decided upon at General Synod. And those parameters are remarkably flawed as will be discussed below. Second, “dialogue” implies that there is something that can reasonably be disputed, or that there is leeway for interpretation afforded by the Scriptures. No compromise can be reached on the issue of same sex blessings. Either homosexual sex is blessed or it is sinful. The Anglican Church of Canada has already given its blessing to homosexual sex; therefore, nothing remains to be discussed. By participating in “dialogue,” conservative Anglicans legitimize the hypocritical position of the Anglican Church of Canada, which is in fact breaking the moratoria at the diocesan level and in intent at the national level. Agreement to participate in the facade to protect the Anglican Church of Canada from international Communion sanctions is a position that conservatives should not put themselves into, as it is contrary to the goal of conservative Anglicanism, which is to uphold the authority of Scripture. If conservatives protect the apostate theological position of the Anglican Church of Canada, they will undo the work of the Primates and the Windsor Commission and the goal of the Anglican Covenant, and even Lambeth 1.10 for Canadian Anglicans.
Conservative Anglicans must not participate in “dialogue” that is exclusionary. At General Synod 2010, an amendment was proposed which would have specifically included the voices of ex-gay Anglicans. This amendment was soundly defeated, and ex-gay Anglicans were referred to on the Synod floor as “so-called ex-gays.” There were even comments that there weren’t enough ex-gays to matter in this proposed continuation of “dialogue.” This lack of perspective regarding the participants is hardly surprising. Liberal leadership of the Anglican Church of Canada has consistently denied the ex-gay group Zacchaeus Fellowship a voice in dialogue and debate on Synod floor, while allowing and promoting visibility and voice of Integrity (the national pro-gay group). Having set the parameters to deliberately exclude the voice of the people who really, really know what they are talking about – who have walked both sides of the fence, and have made godly and terribly difficult choices to be obedient to Scripture – liberals can proceed, happy in the knowledge that the most dangerous of their opponents has been excluded. Given the prejudicial exclusion of the ex-gay voice, the outcome of the “dialogue” has been pre-determined by General Synod 2010 in favour of blessing same sex unions. Conservative Anglicans cannot and should not participate in “dialogue” under these biased restrictions.
Conservative Canadian Anglicans should now call upon the international Communion to sanction the Anglican Church of Canada for its wilful breaking of the moratoria, for its apostasy, and for its exclusion of those faithful Christians who uphold the authority of Scripture in their own obedient lives. Any Synod which can give the Moderator of the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A., fresh from ordaining a partnered lesbian bishop, a standing ovation, has wilfully broken the moratoria theologically, if not in actual national governance.
(1)People should be aware that the Dioceses of New Westminster, Montreal, Ottawa, B.C., Huron and Niagara are blessing same sex relationships. The Parishes of the Central Interior and the Synod of Ontario want to offer same sex blessings, and the Diocese of Toronto offers “pastoral support” to same sex couples.
Update to the footnote:
New Westminster, Ottawa, Niagara, Huron, Rupert’s Land, Montreal and the assembly of the Anglican Churches of the Central Interior in B.C. have all voted to authorize the blessing of same sex marriages (although official ceremonies have not yet commenced). The Diocese of Brandon is offering a “generous pastoral response”that stops short of a nuptial blessing.
Sara Plumpton
Christ the King, Victoria, B.C.
Anglican Network in Canada
June 12th, 2010
It is worse than tragic to see the stated dioceses misleading people by claiming to “bless” same-sex unions. As I have stated previously it is impossible to bless something that is totally and completely contrary to Scripture. Purple shirts, white collars, and pious wording is nothing less than deception. Those participating in this practise, including so-called bishops and clergy, should carefully the warning in James 3. The authority of Scripture is not subject to the will of so-called bishops or the passing of any motion at synod or any other meeting.
The Scripture clearly states homosexual conduct is a sin, the same as other sins – adultery, pedophilia, theft, etc. – and the church should be a witness to the world and not allow the world to be a witness to the church.
I continue to pray for the conversion and repentance of the apostate bishops and clergy within the ACoC.
The “inclusive” Liberal Church process is to simply talk-talk-talk-talk while “excluding” all response unacceptable to its nefarious directions until all opposition simply runs out of gas or becomes totally exasperated. David is right in suggesting that Conservative, Orthodox, Bible Believing Christians should refuse to participate in these useless and fruitless “conversations!” Like the “ex-gay” lobby, any Bible Based True Christian presentation will simply be ignored and/or belittled by those pretender “gods” as they march resolutely onward toward their goals.
True Christians remaining within the ACoC need to consolidate and stand firm within their own associations. By publicly gathering together within the Fellowship of the Jesus Christ of Holy Scripture they will be strengthened by the Real Holy Spirit to make public proclamations of the True Righteousness of Almighty God – thereby effecting highlighting of the Liberal sin and its inherent lack of Godly logic. The time for “conversation” is over and needs to be replaced by strong, firm, unrelenting, and clear showing forth of the Inviolable Word of God thus illuminating the devastating ends of the Liberal diatribe!
The second paragraph of the Sexuality Statement coming out of GS states, “Our conversations affirmed the full inclusion of gay and lesbian members in our churches…”
And this is what David reports from the Synod floor, June 10th:
“Motion C011 Amendment to add “in conversation with gay and lesbian voices and with the full range of theological opinion in the Canadian Church” Amendment Passed.
“A second amendment to include “ex-gay voices” too. This will be an interesting one.
Speaker: Dio of Montreal – speaks against 2nd motion. All ready includes “so-called ex gays” [good grief]. The ex-gays are too few, apparently – watering things down.
Speaker: agrees with the 2nd amendment – wants to hear the voice of ex-gays – all part of a spirit of generosity.
Second amendment – defeated! So much for inclusion – Galloping hypocrisy.”
NOW this is the mind of the General Synod. And it was steered this way at the start by the Primate’s opening address to Synod, and steered throughout by an overtly manipulative discussion, reporting, and documenting process, as well as an emotional and lengthy dramatic presentation of how good it is to be, well, you know… culminating in full inclusion by the church.
Thankfully, we have, in “Article of Religion” #21, that states “church councils can err”, but that the final test of conciliar authority is that all decisions made must come under scriptural authority as the final test (paraphrased).
I will argue that the mind of GS is not the mind of the ACoC, or CoGS, for that matter. In the ACoC, there is some support for the notion or process of transformation – in this case from unwanted same sex attraction to surrendering thoughts and activities to the submission of Christ and His Word, and for the reception of grace, to meet the pains of life within a god-fearing and faithful community.
This support was represented at GS: 1/3 of clergy/laity, and 1/2 of the bishops. But since the church continues in error and manipulation, this is a minority support. And as error continues, this support diminishes, as accommodation to error wins adherents away from orthodox positions, seen now as commonplace within the ACoC. Orthodox departures diminish support as well, but many have fought to their own personal line-in-the-sand, as I have, before departing for a more wholesome church situation.
This cavalcade of grief has been decades in the making, of course, and this battle within the church has long roots. But the life-giving agency of the faithful within, and the support of the godly global south interventions and creation of GAFCON/FCA, and later ACNA and affiliates, breathes life into a terribly shattered global Anglican Communion.
And for this I thank God repeatedly!
As an afterthought to GS membership, most delegates come to Synod, with a pre-conceived stand on how they will vote on the important issues of the day. For them, dialogue is over, or is to be endured until the yellow cards start flying.
Integrity and Integrity-minded members have secured a majority position within the Synod. Even the Integrity Eucharist was announced from the microphone at this gathering.
Now this is a hard-won majority that has taken some 20 years or so to secure. Does anyone really think that allowance will be made for an ex-gay position? A position that is threatening to the very existence of the pro-gay movement and its sympathizers? A position actually in line with historical church tradition and teaching?
No allowance at this time of our darkened reality.
“No allowance at this time of our darkened reality.”
……And God Said .. Let there be light, and the Spirit of God moved across the face of the peoples….. and there was light.
I thank God for that light and for Daryle, Frank, Sara, David and so many others from which this light is emitted.
I too am grateful to the conservative voices within the ACC and those that were forced into the painful choice to leave the ACC. I would be interested on your thoughts of the next two battles ahead:
(1) Reception and adoption of the Anglican Covenant by BOTH the ACC and ACNA.
(2) Even if there is no sacramental effect to an ACC diocese or parish when it blesses SSUs, how do conservative parishes and dioceses respond? A rector of St. Jude in the Rainbow purports to bless something that the rector of St. Barnabas by the Book believes is sinful. Do we just avoid these clashes? Do we hope the former’s doctrinal errors will eventually wither on the vine? What about our common witness to Christ in the meantime?
God bless you Sara Plumpton. You speak God’s truth.
#6 asked “…………..how do conservative parishes and dioceses respond?”
If conservative parishes and dioceses within the ACoC conscienciously chose to close their cheque books en masse, I expect that the progressive agenda within the ACoC would collapse in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, that will never happen. Excuses will be found not to do so, and the hersesy will continue.
I see a possible future were heretical so called christians will join forces in a tour de force of inclusion with other world religions. This “world church” will gain tremendous support from the secular world including agnostics and atheists. This will (could lead) to the outlawing of orthodox Christian thinking (as in some cases it already has.) using terms like phobic, bigatry, hatred, etc. This (could) clearly set (s) the stage for the dire scriptural warnings ie;
11.Matthew 24:9
Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.
I am not afraid of dying under these circumstances, but I am terrified of failing when (if) the time comes to stand.
I think it is time to leave this world to its devices this includes the heritics. To adopt in unity the bond of peace to edify and strengthen one another in likemindedness which is to say “In Christ”. Through perfect love to present ourselves (the Church) without blemish In accordance with the word given and the examples prepared. To stand at the foot of the cross and hear again our saviour say “It is finished”. Finally to gather the oil that makes light, in preparation for that great and dreadful day of the Lord.
#6 Remnent;
“What about our common witness to Christ in the meantime?”
My guess is this was unintentional. However it does allow me to speak to a small area of weakness in our new/old orthodoxy. before we can truly take “the redeeming love of Jesus Christ” to the world – we must SHOW & LIVE that love in the body. This is the unity of the “Faith once given”. We must be a witness not to Christ but OF Christ and this must be that which is COMMON.
I appreciate the message. The Resolution is wishy-washy and most people can see through it. I once heard John Stott say that those who can stay, should do so as a witness. In a community without a Network church, some have visited Network churches in other communities but have now left the Anglican fold. Some have stayed but continue to stand firm and need a shepherd. God knows His own, and His sheep follow His voice and have moved on to His mission. Baptism is full inclusion. Pray!
“Baptism is full inclusion” – and THERE you have it…. Thanks siena!!
#7 – Winter Traveler
I’d like to explore your idea further of “closing cheque books en masse”. I have only anecdotal evidence of this, but my sense is that parishes that are experimenting with “inclusion” and SSBs are living off the endowments of past generations, rather than attracting new parishioners. So I suspect those in the ACC of this ilk can well live off this capital at their parish level for at least a generation. So whether or not my particular parish “closes off the cheque book” to the diocese won’t make a difference there.
But if my diocese (bishop, suffragans, support staff) are themselves promoting this, then that is a different issue altogether. Just compare Niagara, which seems to have done a good job of driving away its conservative and evangelical members, with Toronto, which does seem to be trying to strike a balance between its vibrant evangelical parishes at one extreme and its “inclusionary”, experimental parishes on the other. I can see why St. Hilda’s formerly in the Niagara Diocese may have been forced into the decision it made to leave, but it will be more difficult for a conservative Toronto parish to whip up its parishioners into enough of a lather so as to take on the diocese over “pastoral” behind-the-scenes, low-key responses to SSUs.
I’m just rambling, but I do appreciate all of your thoughts. This transitional period to a more robust global Anglicanism will be difficult at the local level.
#12 – A Remnant
Thank you for your observations.
As I see it, it matters not whether heresy is being promoted at the parish, diocean or national level. Scripture is clear that our response should be that we will have nothing to do with it. Accordingly, many have left the ACoC and many more are now considering leaving.
Unfortunately, there are some faithful Anglicans within the ACoC that do not have the benefit of a ANIC parish in their area (at least not yet) so for them leaving may not be an feasible option.
Howver, they can still tangibly express their objection to the course the ACoC has set for itself by reducing or withholding their tithes, which are being used to fund the ACoC’s revisionist agenda.
You are quite right that many parishes/diocese are living off their endowments and they are doing so because they are losing members (and revenue) at a tremendous rate. Withholding tithes will reduce operational revenues even faster and make greater drawdowns on these endowments necessary.
It might appear that the withholding of one persons tithe would be insignificant in the big scheme of things but believe me it’s not. The ACoC is currently attempting to address its current deficits by closing parishes and terminating programs and staff. A further 5%-10% reduction in operating revenue would not be insignificant in these circumstances.
I believe that the withholding of tithes is a faithful and appropriate response to the current situation within the ACoC. Quite frankly, I can’t see how any biblically faithful Anglican remaining in the ACoC can, in good conscience, continue to tithe to an organization knowing full well that their tithe will be used to promote false teaching and heresy which will lead innocent people away from the tranforming grace of God through Jesus Christ.
#13 – Thanks for the suggestions.
I am only an amateur student of church history, but I know that Arian dioceses and parishes co-existed with catholic ones for many years, even decades before the church universal was of one mind (381 AD) and before discipline could be taken against heretical clergy to protect the laity.
In the case of the ACC, I think there is no question that the mass of clergy that supported SSBs are having a harder time biblically justifying this (the Rothesay Report was an interesting read), and the continued emphasis that they must justify it (a) biblically, and (b) to the wider Anglican Communion, is having an effect. Just compare the 2004 Synod (where a poorly thought-out resolution on SSBs was tabled and pased), to 2007 (where a very confusing resolution was passed that this issue is not a matter of “core doctrine”) to 2010 (“we aren’t of one mind on this”).
I see a helpful trend here within the ACC. I don’t at all fault the ANiC brothers and sisters for doing what they had to do in their particular dioceses (and their firmness itself sent a clear message to the ACC leadership), but there are multiple strategies we need to continue pursuing from within the ACC. Some ACC dioceses may be too far gone (New West, Niagara, Ottawa) but most others have not are are likely still salvageable with more effort.
I’m afraid I disagree with you. I think that the apostacy is much higher up the “chain of command” than that.
#15 – Unless your talking about someone like an ECUSA (so-called) Bishop Spong, what do you mean by apostasy and what would be some examples in the ACC? I am asking quite innocently, because all churches have their doubting clergy who go through the motions, but are there particular prominent examples?
AMOTR (#13), co-existing is a rather mild way of putting it. Read up on the life of Athanasius (a fascinating story by the way). If you like lectures, this is very well done:
http://www.theologynetwork.org/historical-theology/getting-stuck-in/introducing—-athanasius.htm
Re #15, I don’t think Kate is talking about doubting clergy going through the motions. Personal doubt and going through the motions is entirely different than deliberately teaching what is contrary to God’s Word – or teaching that God’s Word is not to be trusted or taken seriously.
Some here may choose to give you examples, but, assuming you are a believer, I would encourage you to be like the Bereans and test everything you hear against God’s Word. There is no substitute for personal study and examination.
I think the apostacy is higher up because the bishops of Ottawa, Niagara, and New Westminister were not disciplined for their actions. The bishop of New Westminister has written a book in which he denies the basic tennants of the Christian faith, and he was permitted to remain a bishop. That tells me that the ACoC leadership has gone wrong at the highest levels.
For a member of the remnant. From your comments it would appear that your priest and possibly your diocese are simply content to sit back and disagree with the apostasy rather than taking appropriate action against it. We have heard from bishops that claim to be orthodox but they too seem content to simply sit back. This does nothing to correct the deception but rather encourages and promotes the actions of the apostates. Bishops that claim to be orthodox should take the appropriate steps by removing their dioceses from the ACoC and become part of the Network. Sadly many believe that apostasy and orthodoxy can live in the same house but we know that is impossible. Failure on the part of claimed orthodox bishops to speak up means they are willing to allow the apostates to try and steal properties of orthodox congregations. If your priest and/or bishop claims to be orthodox you should challenge him in that respect.
#17 – I’ll take you up on the Athanasius study, although I’d note his battle with the Arians was over decades, not years. I guess my basic point is that 50 years from now, it will be obvious where the lines of apostasy ran over this SSB debate, but it’s more difficult right now to decide which dioceses have crossed the line and which haven’t, particularly where my parish is biblical and orthodox and my diocese is respecting that, albeit permitting some behind-the-scenes experimentation in certain parishes.
#18 – No question, the Primate of ACC should have deposed (whatever the word is) Mr. Ingham in 2003. But if we had had the Anglican Covenant back then, maybe New West wouldn’t have gone as far as it did. (It is interesting that the 1860s Colenso controversy over South African polygamy triggered the first Lambeth conference.) Ultimately, I see national churches as co-ordinating bodies between local dioceses and the church universal. Hopefully the Covenant will instill in our national leaders more responsibility than they’ve shown to date.
#19 – My parish priest is most definitely not sitting back. He found even the recent Diocese of Toronto “pastoral” approach to SSUs to be unbiblical and has been vocal about it. Unlike in New West, no attempted change of doctrine has occurred within our diocese, just what we suspect is turning a blind eye to experimentation in certain parishes. This is hard to weigh: do I sever all the bonds of charity/agape that bind our parishioners as a constituent member of the Body of Christ over this? That’s the part I am struggling over. Some of the commentators on this blog have clearly crossed that bridge over to ACNA – us in the ACC remnant aren’t staying out of apathy, but a sincere struggle not to yet abandon years of a shared witness in Christ.
Since Ingham has no qualms about denying the resurection and continuing to hold his office, I doubt very much that the covenant would have made any difference at all.
They are much more than that. They hold moral authority, and if we can’t trust them to uphold the faith, where does that leave us?
That blind eye is the first step to changing doctrine.
According to St. Augustine the church is a “mixed body”; we always have unbelievers in our midst. My father atteneded church all his life, but he didn’t start reading the Bible until the last nine years of his earthly life. There is always hope for unbelievers in our midst.
Kate: You have it right and no mixing of your words. Good for you.
Those who stay in the ACoC and do nothing to help make changes on behalf of our Lord and the Holy Scriptures are as much apostates as ArchBishop Hiltz and the TEC’s Katherin Jeffers Schorri.
These people are evil and nothing else and cowards besides.
These people will be dealt with when Jesus returns with the new Jerusalem…………… see Revelation 21:7-8 (New King James Version)
7 He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. 8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
The ones who stay in the ACoC and do nothing are as bad as The Primate of the ACoC (Hiltz), and the Bishops of those Dioceses that are openly preaching apostasy such as New Westminster, Niagara, B.C., Ottawa, Huron and Montreal and those fiddling with it like Toronto and others that I do not personally know of. Cowards.
For a member of the remnant:-
I fully agree with Gerry O’Brien. If your situation is the same as in New Westminster, your priest may well not agree with performing such “blessings” – a fraud in itself – but will have to refer persons to priests that will follow their wishes. This is the quiet way of forcing a change. It is time the church revived the old hymn (121) from the blue book of common praise:-
“Christian dost thou see them
On the holy ground,
How the hosts of darkness
Compass thee around?
Christian, up and smite them,
Counting gain but loss;
Smite them by the merit
Of the holy Cross”
He might also answer the question posed in #410 – “Who is on the Lord’s side. . .”
The time has long since past for orthodox Christians to take up the battle against apostasy. “Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war.” We are in a war and it is time for us to wake up. And an aside note for #22, yes we will always have unbelievers in our midst but if we do not show them the light they will never come to believe.
#21 – Kate, my point about the Covenant is that the national leadership would have felt more obligated to have done something about Ingham if it was in place 10 years ago. Just a meek letter from Canon Kearon to our Primate the other week had an impact.
#23 – “These people are evil and nothing else and cowards besides.”
So, are we in my parish “cowards”? I guess it depends on your definition of courage and when to apply it. If Ingham was showing his true colours in the late 90s, why did all those ANiC parishes break away only after he permitted SSBs? There was a concrete point where his apostasy became intolerable – when some diocesan act forced them out – and I just don’t see that yet in the Diocese of Toronto. I guess that is what I’m trying to elicit in these back and forths – where is that point? Where is “Stuck in Toronto” to provide some context here?
#24 – To repeat my point again, the Diocese of Toronto is not the same as New West. (See comments to #23 above.) I understand this battle for some of you has struck personally because of the betrayals of the diocesan bishops and parish clergy that were supposed to be your faithful pastors, but that just isn’t the case (yet?) for thousands of orthodox, bible-believing Anglicans within the ACC.
I notice neither of you have addressed the issue of severing existing bonds of agape. I am not advocating unity over truth, since without truth there can be no Christian unity. But if the search for “truth” must be resolved immediately, rather than struggled for over years and decades, then we can only do so by tearing existing bonds more forcefully than God perhaps may want for us.
Maybe this thread has exhausted itself. I’d still like to hear from “Stuck in Toronto”!
Well, yes, I do see your point. I just don’t think that you are right. I think it would have been ignored just as the moratoria were ignored.
Maybe not – but I would argue that the apostacy has become intolerable at a national level, and that it is really only a matter of time before every diocese is affected. How many orthodox people are being ordained in Toronto? How likely is it that your next priest or bishop will be orthodox? In Ottawa, if you are too orthodox it’s pretty much a fait accompli that your discernment process will end in a no. Your next priest could easily stand up in the pulpit and say that the virgin birth is just a story. I know that mine won’t.
That having been said, I would not put it as strongly as Gerry did, and I was very blessed in that my parish made a decision as a family to leave. I do understand that leaving a parish that you have a long association with is a heartwrenching decision.
#25 – Re: #23 “evil” —— I believe in calling a spade a bloody shovel if the need should arise and I believe that those who stay within the ACoC, knowing what is going on within it are “cowards” and afraid to move out of it. Now, whether they are afraid of leaving the comfort zone or some other reason it really doesn’t cut much of a swath….. it is still being cowardly. Whether you move on to ANiC or to another church that is full gospel doesn’t really matter, just that staying where you are will eventually tar you with the same brush that Hiltz and Ingham have been tarred with.
Kate #26 – That having been said, I would not put it as strongly as Gerry did, and I was very blessed in that my parish made a decision as a family to leave. I do understand that leaving a parish that you have a long association with is a heartwrenching decision.
Kate, you are too much of a lady to put it as strongly as I have, however, you still made the move, didn’t you. We, in my Church here in NL all made the move individually from different ACoC parishes to a new parish of St. Stephen the Martyr (ANiC) which was well into it’s formative stages before we had a Priest. God looked after that for us in sending Rev. Howard Hynes to us… truly this was God’s leading in every thing that we did AND THIS IS MY POINT…. Make the move and God will have His Hands all over you and the others who move to form a new church “outside” of the ACoC.
There is no room in Christ’s Churches for those who want to sit and wait or for those who are to “afraid” to move….whether they be afraid of what their friends, family or others will think or whether they are afraid of the future….. God holds the future and He will hold their hands if they decide to walk with Him.
Some of us are not afraid to move, but since there is no ACNA provision within less than 45 minutes’ drive, our only options are to stay put and protest or to swim the Tiber.
Gordon (#28), why only ACNA or RCC as options?
Well – I drove an hour each way to go to church for years. Granted, I was living in the back of beyond and had to drive a long time to get anywhere…
A Member of the Remnant: You raise very good points…points we all have to debate or have debated with ourselves before moving to ANiC or elsewhere, points we are still debating as Anglicans. I ask you to consider what it is like for your priest to go to clergy conferences in your diocese. Does he or she come back uplifted or does he or she dread going? Do your synod representatives gear themselves up for battle for each and every synod or do they look forward with enjoyment to praising God with friends and doing the business of the church? Does your leadership receive pastoral care from your bishop? Do you dread your bishop’s sermons should he preach at your church? Are you constantly on the look out for heresy in the diocesan newspaper? Are you sick of the Millenium Development Goals having replaced the Great Commission? Does anyone besides your priest preach that Jesus is THE way, or rather do the priests of the diocese all follow Fred Hiltz, the Primate, who says that Jesus is A way? Can you work with fellow parishes in mission? Can you organise a regional praise and worship evening without worrying about having to say you don’t want to sing SHE FLIES ON?
What does your parish assessment support? Where is your money going? Are any of the experimenting parishes being supported as “mission churches” in your diocese? Does your money go to fund their experimentation? Which theological colleges are supported by the diocese? Where does the bishop say that candidates are required to attend seminary in order to officiate in that diocese? When was the last time a conservative priest was hired in your diocese? How many conservative priests have “retired” early, succombed to illness and not returned, left for personal reasons, gone to ANiC from your diocese? How many supportive clergy colleagues does your own priest have? Why should he or she have to worry about who is orthodox and who is not in the first place?
And if the national church committed by vote of General Synod 2007 to saying that same sex relationships are sanctified, is the ACoC not in a position of hypocrisy by not blessing them immediately, based on its declared belief?
Church should not have to be endured beyond the little pocket you call home. It should be so much more than that.
God bless you richly as you wrestle with these weighty questions. I hope the dialogue you have participated in here helps rather than hinders you to catch the move of the Holy Spirit leading you in all Truth.
A Member of the Remnant: How difficult is it for your priest to be faithful to his or her vows to uphold the Bible and obey the bishop at the same time? Will there come a time in the near future where a choice will have to be made?
#26 – Kate – I appreciate your comments.
#27 – Gerry – I sincerely hope you don’t evangelize in the way you are blogging right now! I too call a spade a spade, but I wouldn’t go as far as to call fellow Christians “evil”. But we don’t know each other, so your comments are all said without context. Enough said.
#28 – Ah, swimming the Tiber. I was raised RC before drifting away from the faith in my late teens and then coming back home to my local parish church in the ACC. I admit being pretty dismayed at the lack of discipline and “franchise control” in the ACC that seems natural to the RCC. But worshipping with Cranmer’s liturgy and singing the glorious heritage of Anglican hymns – nearer my God! Then Pope Benedict’s invitation to bring back Anglicans into the fold – that may be a more significant development that all of this in-fighting we’re experiencing. I can’t say this isn’t an appealing option, but I’ve invested too much with too many good Christians to just jump ship now.
#31 – Sam. My parish priest came within a whisker of quitting the ACC in 2004, but he’s decided to slug it out defending our parish and very vocally challenging our diocesan bishops over any move to normalize SSBs. In doing so, he (and other priests like him) have helped tip the balance to where the secular forces of “inclusion” in our diocese have been fought to a standstill. There is no question we were at the precipice, and the diocese took a step back. It will be the next few years that will decide our paths forward, and I’d very much like to keep in touch with folks like you (maybe Mr. O’Brien too, if he’d just stop his rant!).
Blessings to all of you
Gerry and Frank (in love)
I think you are being a little hard, even somewhat judgemental on our brother (or sister) from the remnant. I am in somewhat the same postion. I mentioned in another comment that I retain ties with a faithful ACoC church in a so-far faithful diocese (Edmonton). In the community where I now live I attend a Baptist Church, but it is my hope and intention to return to Edmonton and my former cogregation.
But we all have our tipping points, don’t we. There came a time, no doubt, when you decided you could abide no longer what was happening in your own corners of the world, but I would hazard a guess it was not at the first whisper of apostasy. I’m sure the situation built up until you could tolerate it no longer, and then you made your move.
Frankly, as I’ve said several times on this blog, I would have some difficulty joining even an ANiC church, as long as they are involved in lawsuits, especially those launched by the ANiC parishes, as, I believe, is the case in New Westminster. I think it is a terrible Christian witness to the world to be fighting over buildings in public. I think that 1 Corinthians 6 is as much God’s word as any passage on sexual immorality. To me, …”why not rather be wronged?” means walk away and start over with God on your side. God knows those who are His, and He will bless them. I know I am probably in a minority position in this matter among members of this blog, but before God, it is my sincere conviction.
Remnant, I cannot comment about something I have no clear scriptural direction. But since you asked I will quote;
1 Corinthians 13:1
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
Corinthians 13:11
Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.
You are very fortunate to be part of the community you describe. Are you and they truly prepared for the as yet unseen tribulation to come? Does Cor 13:11 describe your congregation?
John K;
“I think it is a terrible Christian witness to the world to be fighting over buildings in public.”
I have dithered over this very issue back and forth, forth and back. Like on a swing, the more energy the higher the swing goes. In fact after a particularly well written discertation by a priest describing a “defence of Christ” I pledged donation to the “defence fund” -(and made it) no sooner that, then the swings momentum with new thoughts send it hurtling back. One thing is truth for sure. Contrary to your comment this is not “Christian witness” in any way shape or form. However I believe ANiC recognizes this and limits funds from specificly identified donations for that cause only.
You do know what happened to St. Chad’s Dufferin St., Don’t you?
Warren [#29], I am episcopalian (note the smell e) and fairly high Church in outlook (weekly Communion is essential), so the Evangelical Churches would not really suit me. The Lutherans might be another option if they were not so closely tied to ACoC. The use of “we” was probably not very clear, as most of the post referred specifically to me, but Anglican or Roman Catholic are really the only possibilities for me at this point, and I have too many doctrinal problems with Rome.
#33 – Remnant said:
“#27 – Gerry – I sincerely hope you don’t evangelize in the way you are blogging right now! I too call a spade a spade, but I wouldn’t go as far as to call fellow Christians “evil”. But we don’t know each other, so your comments are all said without context. Enough said.
Dear Remnant: I do understand your comment, however, if you read who my comments were directed to, I don’t think you (at least I can) can call those ‘evil’ people “Christians”…….Perhaps I am being uncharitable and that puts me on a slippery slope also, but at least I think I have a better grasp on the meaning of the word “Christian” when applied to what people are or are not.
“nuff said”
#34 I absolutely agree with you that we shouldn’t launch lawsuits. On the other hand, I’m not sure that 1 Cor 6 applies to us when we are being sued, because I don’t think that the people we are being sued by are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I think they follow a new thing.
For John K #34
Just to make a correction with respect to the lawsuits for property in the Diocese of New Westminster. These actions were mandated due to an attempt by the diocese to oust our trustees and priests and replace them with persons of his own choosing. Responding legally to that order – which was later found to be illegal by the courts – was our only alternative. Further you mention Christians taking Christians to court. The situation in the ACoC, at least in the Dioceses of New Westminster and Niagara, are lead by apostates who are no longer Christian and have traded their allegiance to our Lord and are following the gods of political expedience and political acceptance.
The ACoC can no longer claim to be either Christian or Anglican by reason of the apostasy that reigns at the leadership level. I do indeed pray for conversion and repentance but that does not mean we should simply allow the apostates to steal our properties which have been paid for and maintained by faithful Christian Anglicans.
I cannot tell others to stay in the Anglican Church of Canada or not. I can share others with my story. Many years ago, one of my cousins, a member of the Alliance Church shared with me the Gospel. But I didn’t make a decision to follow Jesus. About six months later an United Church minister in northern Ontario used his sermon to open my eyes to see that salvation has three tenses. Then books of John Stott helped me to begin my spiritual journey. What I saying here is that people from at least three different denominations have helped me in my Christian walk. We should share the Gospel with others wherever we are. Perhaps we should stay where you are and fight the good fight!
Frank;
“we should simply allow the apostates to steal our properties which have been paid for and maintained by faithful Christian Anglicans.” (not)
Prior to the most obvious of heresies (SSB’S) it was generally recognized that properties were “owned” by the whole community, this was generally acknowledged and understood to be at the diocesan level. As the Spirit of Jezebel appeared to grow in the HOB and ultimately took us to the scriptural and traditional contradictions we (Canadian Anglicans) are faced with today. This forced many to act upon the correct perception that many of the existing leadership had abandoned scipture, tradition, and reason for a new and very different kind of church. This liberalized new-age thinking is, in my opinion “anathema”
BUT……
the church of Mr. Hiltz in spite of the obvious schism created still view ownership in the old way. They have a point so I don’t think “theft” is the right word. perhaps dishonest perception might be closer to the truth. This inevitably will come back around to bite fiercely (Remnent, and others please note). Long before ACoC finally gets around to telling the truth about the direction they are being led or to put it in the venacular, push comes to shove, the Orthodox Parish councils of this land will no doubt seek clarification on who IS responsible (ownership) for the materialism within a parish. Without repentence by the ACoC this will lead to very serious changes to the philosophy (the old way of doing business) by the ASA. (I think this means actual sitting Anglicans please clarify if I’m wrong) This of course will hasten the demise of the unrepentent who are betting their lives on sufficient response from the secular world for survival.
And now to God the Father God the Son and……………………..
#38 – Understood Gerry. This very debate over the last two days shows us struggling with how we in the Church call heresy when we see it. The ancients used the term “anathema” and I think they meant it in the sense of calling out false doctrine both to stop its spread and also to try to shock the perpetrators back into the fold.
#35 – I would guess the parish I belong to is of one mind about the importance of Scripture (a small minority supports SSBs, but I haven’t yet heard any of them articulate a Scriptural view for it). What they aren’t of one mind about is where we fit into our diocese with its tolerance for certain parishes to experiment with “pastoral” approaches to SSUs.
#34 – John K – I appreciate your comment about the “tipping point” – that is exactly what we in my parish and diocese (and maybe the whole ACC) need to articulate more clearly. That if a diocese does “x”, that is anathema and severs our communion.
#36/#42 – From a legal perspective, I have resigned myself to the position that, at least in Toronto, the diocese “owns” the property. But at the same time, this trust to which the diocese holds the property was settled by generations of donors that, among other things, gave under the concept that we were one church with the “Church of England throughout the world”. If the ACC does something to sever its link to the rest of the Anglican Communion (and here the Covenant will become very helpful in determining who is in and who is out), then the diocese has breached its terms of trust. In my personal will, I am now thinking of tying my bequest to my local church provided it is still an Anglican “Covenant” church. No point bequesting to your local conservative parish so that in 10 or 20 years a liberal rector can use some of those resources to “experiment”.
As a final point on property use, I equally believe those of our persuasion that remain in the ACC must fight to maintain the legacy of past generations that built this great Church. If we always give ground to liberals in each diocese by seeking refuge in other denominations, we’ll give them the appearance of victory and our financial spoils. God’s Word will eventually prevail, but if we’re not yet at a “tipping point” of heresy, ceding our churches and endowments to these people actually helps their cause.
#25 – It’s OK, two of the four blog admins can be found in the camp of the cowardly
It’s a little more complex than that in many cases; I don’t believe sweeping judgments are accurate.
For more information re what is and is not a tipping point for people in the Anglican Communion, and what is happening theologically in the communion: read Never Silent about the Rwandan Church heeding the call for help from conservatives in the U.S., and read The Bishop or the King by Rev. Ron Corcoran about the state of the ACoC, the human sexuality debate, and the discernment process of his (Diocese of B.C.) parish. Never Silent is available in Christian book stores and on line. You can contact me via the blog team and I can sort out mailing a copy of Rev. Corcoran’s book to you, as he is my rector. Actually, if you go to our church website you could order it from there: http://www.ctkac.ca
There’s also a press release about it on the ANiC home page – and now that really sounds like a plug! Sorry! I’m a big fan of people having as much information as they can in order to make informed and godly decisions.
#44 Peter:
Well, you are the one who has to deal with yourself. I am expressing an opinion based on Scripture. I know that “it’s complicated” but that is usually a term used when one doesn’t want to try to explain away something that really cannot be explained away.
Peter…..You guys do a great job on this blog and perhaps it’s a place that I should stay away from because if it isn’t Fred Hiltz doing a tap dance around the issues, it is those who ‘want’ to be off the fence but are still sitting on it and are afraid that if they jump off the fence they’ll land on the wrong dance floor if you get my drift……
I kinda like sweeping judgements but only when I feel they are used in the right context. I just have difficulty, no, more than difficulty, trying to understand people who stay in a church that is preaching apostasy from the top down.
I see the 1 Corinthians 6 lawsuit passage has risen its head again in connection with buildings, and rightly so (despite J I Packer’s argument against – I’m reluctant to disagree with J I Packer, but on this I do). Someone has raised that the ANiC parishes are being sued for their property. The issue in 1 Cor 6 appears to be the wealthier Christians in the congregation taking their poorer, less powerful (and often thought to be ‘less spiritual’) brethren to court to exact money or to restore their honor. Paul, I believe largely directing his comments to their richer/powerful and exploitative fellow-Christians at Corinth, tells them that they have already failed. He also tells them that it is better that they be wronged than to take their fellow (weaker) Christians to court – though the principle could be applied the other way, too.
So, first point – the Dioceses that have taken ANiC parishes to court have failed. They are the ones who ought to be willing to be wronged rather than to go to law. Further, 1 Cor 6 by no means stops the defendant – in this case ANiC parishes – from defending themselves at law. It only addresses the provocateurs in a legal case (the ‘wrong’ happens before the legal case – it isn’t the legal case itself; though the legal case is wrong in this case).
Second, there is no doubt that going to a secular court is a failure. But we ought to be careful of applying Paul’s words in a blanket fashion to say it must never happen. In circumstances where, lamentably, sin has got the better of the Christian community, then sadly secular courts are a place to seek some justice – it’s retrieving some good from a very poor situation. In this case, sin has very much got the better of ACoC Diocese that want to take faithful churches and ministers to court. So, reluctantly, it is worth defending (even prosecuting) the matter if there are resources – acknowledging that if God’s Spirit working with God’s Word prevailed, it wouldn’t be necessary to go to court.
Third, we can’t divorce these matters from the context of 1 Cor 5 or 1 Cor 6:9-11. The principle from 1 Cor 5 is that if a people who call themselves Christian continue to sin in an obvious, public way, then fellow Christians ought to hand those people over to satan – they ought to have no fellowship with them – they ought to be expelled from the church. And, of course, 1 Cor 6:9-11 says that, among a number of sins, homosexual practice excludes one from the kingdom of God. When those themes are put together, there is a clear reason to respond to the Dioceses that take parishes to court. These people are false brothers/sisters. They ought to be excluded from the church – in this case, the ACoC – and ANiC and ACNA are attempts to do so. But reclaiming buildings dedicated to the work of God, paid for by generations of faithful Christians, respects the good and godly heritage of those before the current generation. Why should faithful Anglican churches simply capitulate to the ACoC and give up their property? It just gives more resources into the hands of sinful people to prolong their sin and gives further power to them to affect other people’s faith in the meantime.
Has anyone looked into using Canon XVIII to challenge a bishop for “teaching or advocating doctrines contrary to those accepted by The Anglican Church of Canada”? The Metropolitan overseeing the bishop would have initial jurisdiction. I don’t know if a layperson anywhere in the ACC can initiate such a review (a layperson in Saskatchewan in the 80s seems to have done so regarding ordination of a bishop under the BAS). Now, GC 2007 has said something to the effect that SSBs are not contrary to the “core doctrine” of the ACC, but that formulation is quite contorted, and I don’t think would be determinative for a Canon court (although probably persuasive).
The hierarchy of the ACC obviously has no willingness to challenge the actions of Ingham, Bird, etc under canon law, but can’t the laity? Has anyone here looked into this? What were your conclusions?
At this point, even if it were possible, I think it would be closing the barn door after the horse is gone.
It is worth exploring for those of us who still see horses in the barn!