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
48 Remnent; “judge not less ye be judged”. This scriptural caution has always tripped me up. Mostly I would guess because the thought of righteous judgement upon me could have only one conclusion’ and it ain’t pretty.
Cont’d – sorry again I pushed the wrong button.
In this regard I wonder often if we have reached a specific time eschatologically were we are called out to “stand fast”. This to me means that we focus only on Christ, building faith with ourselves and each other through the unity (Likemindedness) of love. The “faith building factor”, is for the purpose of carrying “Christ in us” throughout the time alloted which is described as dreadful.
#51 – Are you uncomfortable with resorting to Canonical processes because of the “judgment” aspect? All those on this blog who have left the ACC due to its heresy (and publicly saying so) have certainly exercised precisely that “judgment”! I just wonder why we as a Church are shy about resorting to internal processes designed to address disciplinary issues.
I understand in the 1960s an ESUCA Bishop Pike (Pyke?) was publicly quesitonning key doctrines and was brought up on what was still called “heresy” charges, but not sure where that went. Badly, it seems for ECUSA.
Surely resorting to canonical processes (this is for ACC folks, not ANiC folks, I guess) can’t be worse than either not doing anything or waiting until we have to quit? Exhaust all avenues??
I am very appreciative of both Sara’s article and the volume of blogging that has occured in response to it. Since the opinions are so varried, I will reply in a pot pourrie fashion, as so much of this content applies to me personally as a lifer Anglican, a founding member of the Zacchaeus Fellowship, and a very recent “jump-shipper” to a Network Project.
Historically, I come out of a diocese of rife revisionist-minded activism, that has sought to manipulatively sway traditionalist thought and practise through many a lop-sided discussion and forum event over many years. The bishop feigns polictical neutrality, having, I assume, many reasons for keeping everyone together and dialoguing.
Historically(2), it is interesting to me that nobody has discussed the work and legacy of Primate Michael Peers, who like the past Presiding Bishop Griswold (PECUSA or TEC), was famous for lying to the global primates in signing off on one particular action, and then returning home to live-out the opposite. Bishop Ingham (most prominently mentioned here) is one of many current leaders in the ACoC who were hand picked for leadership by Primate Peers. The work must go on…
I am annoyed to hear arguments based on a fantasy (OK, fiction) that sounds like… “If the Covenant were in place 10 years ago, then maybe…”
As a point in fact, the A. Communion has been on a collision course for many decades. Our leaders have not carried “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” in council together, and in leading the Church, and have practised a sickening and long-standing game of accommodation that has brought us to the battles of our day.
MY preference would have seen the DISCIPLINE of errant priests, bishops and laity before work began on an Anglican Covenant. But instead, both church destroyers and protectors sit together to hash out four proposals (currently), that no one can agree to accept. Good work!
On ‘leaving’ or ‘staying’, I myself have argued for staying for years. I have been unhappy with the obvious outcome that the balance of power swings liberal-ward, leading to a growing revisionist majority, and one so obviously seen at GS. Some have been more long-sighted than I, in seeking to prepare a safer place to worship God in spirit and in truth.
Although in a faithful parish with faithful leadership, and, I’m told, with an increasing conservatism within local clergy ranks, I made the decision after over a year of research, prayer and a growing discernment, to go ANiC. I could not continue to offer my gift at the altar alongside the gift of the ACoC. This was untennable. Also, I saw many leaving my parish – and worse – saw parishes quickly emptying in my former diocese and also across the Country. “Where would these people go?”, I thought. My eyesight simply grew larger than my parish.
I have been stunned by the degree of idolatry around me. (And seeing it more clearly after ‘new’ decisions have been made.) The ACoC has become an idol for some, church buildings, for others. People cannot seem to forsake their beautiful things. This “fight to the death” will be spiritual death for some. The Anglican dogfight has already sent many fleeing away, and I shudder to think about how many have lost their faith – or who have accommodated to the twisting winds of the change in this this season. We can all name many of these people; a post modern tragedy.
I identify with Gerry’s comment (#27), and am fascinated with “remnant”s (#48) Canon XVIII insight.
#53 “remnant”:
As I understand PECUSA politics, the “heresy” charge against Bishop Pike was not upheld. “Waffling” (thanks, Sara) Bishops dismissed the charge. His work (and authorship) was never renounced or disciplined.
I have waited for years for someone with enough authority or just guts to go after an apostate bishop on heresy charges, or not upholding his oath of office. I tried very hard to get my parish council to do this before we left ACoC, but alas, I was overruled by people who naturally did not want to get into a nasty church court business, which would drag out, where we’d see words redefined, and have the cards stacked against us from the outset. I do think this route should have been used before ANiC was started, way before. But, it is not too late to try it, since participating in “dialogue” is useless. Something has to be better than that option for all of us – those within and without the ACoC.
#56 Sam: Don’t hold your breath Sam…. not when it comes to someone going after the apostate bishops in ACoC about anything…it will not happen. That is precisely why ANiC was started and precisely why people must “exodus” from it if they don’t want to be surrounded by these apostates.
#56 – Thanks for sharing that experience. I’d be interested to hear whether your parish council had “standing” (the legal term for the right to commence an action) or whether you didn’t and so had to ask your rector or your diocesan bishop to commence the action. If parishes, and laity in particular, have standing to request these sorts of actions, I for one would be very interested in pursuing this in my diocese. But canon law is something I know next-to-nothing about, and I’d be interested in connecting-up with current and former ACCers that know something about this.
I’ve been busy with other things recently, but I can give Remnant [#48] at least a partial answer. Yes, anyone can bring a charge of teaching contrary to the doctrine of the ACoC, but the charge must be brought within a year of the alleged offence. However, the judges of what constitutes ACoC doctrine are the Metropolitans, who in some cases may not be particularly orthodox themselves.
Gordon – thank you. If the offence is ongoing, that may not be an issue, although I wonder what evidence needs to be collected – public statements, interviews given to newspapers, sermons on the website?
As for biased Metropolitans, forcing them to come public with contorted logic in support of unbiblical teaching, and bringing to light egregious abuses, even if ultimately given a pass, will at least help us ACC “cowards” make clearer decisions.
I find it incredible that so many commenting on this site would look to bureaucratic processes as a means of erradicating hersey and false teaching from the ACoC. Good grief, you’re supposed to be Christians. You should be looking to the Scriptures for answers. They’re right there, and they do not include canonical challenges and wishy-washy, unenforceable covenants.
#61 I don’t disagree, but consider: You and I are very lucky. Our parish voted as a family to leave. Without George’s leadership, would that have happened? As someone who was in the parish before he arrived, I can assure you that the answer is no. How many other people are in our position? Off the top of my head I can think of seven parishes that did what ours did. (I am sure that there are a few more). I share your frustration, and I do think that joining ANiC is the right thing to do. I think we need to appreciate that it is a very difficult decision for some people.
Question for Winter Traveler
What happens when, down the road, AniC and ACNA have a well-meaning but agnostic/apostate clergy preaching false doctrine. The moment that happens, would you (A) say that enforcement of canons is simply “bureaucratic” and leave to join/form another denomination? Or (B) would you ask your bishops to enforce the ACNA canons?
Questions for Kate
Looking back to what happened in NW (and I really don’t know much beyond the obvious stuff after 2002), was there a point at which resorting to canonical procedures against Ingham, etc could have worked? Would your parish in particular have done anything differently?
61, traveler; I am in complete agreement.
Correct me if I am wrong. The purpose of Canon Law is to create consistency and have a means of enforcement. In other words, “bureaucracy” (A rose by any other name).
To me there is nothing added in all the workings of man that is not completely covered by the Word of God. Bureaucracy does however offer opportunity to shift our thinking away from Scripture, to “turn our eyes away from Jesus. To create “church” in our image and away from the teaching of Christ and the direction of the Apostles. This has caused schism, the weakening of faith based action, even our ability to love (in its fullness) and finally keeps us from being likeminded which is the calling of the church militant.
PS I should also mention the deteriortion of disciplines (obedience) that have brought about all this “latter day” nonsence.
#64 Only if it had come from the house of Bishops. Nothing in the Anglican world changes without the support of the HOB, mostly because the bishops have control over who gets ordained, or not.
If Ingham had been disciplined by the HOB – I have no idea what would have happened. An alternate history, sort of like the new Star Trek movie…
65 – Stuck in Toronto
I sense several themes in your response – the need for personal responsibility (ie disciplines/obedience); not focusing on the works of man but shifting towards Scripture – but you too seem to dismiss the utility of canon law as “bureaucratic”.
A good part of St. Paul’s epistles are devoted to the need for sound teaching, for overseers of good character, and for defining when to excommunicate (i.e., the incestuous couple) – uncannily, the very issues we are discussing here. Although these are always issues of our individual relationships visa-vis Christ, they are often also about our corporate relationships to each other as members of the Body of Christ . I don’t understand how a discussion of how and when to use canon law to discipline for heresy is anything other than fully Scriptural and fully Christian.
I honestly find this fascinating that something happened along the course of the last generation that few of those participating in this blog place any importance on canon law.
#66 – I don’t know much about the character of our bishops in the HoB. Just over half voted against SSBs in GC 2007, but then again most voted in favour of a “generous, pastoral” response.
I once heard Bishop Idowu-Fearon from a diocese in Northern Nigeria give a talk on the Holy Spirit. My gosh, compared to our North American bishops who can parse so well and say so little, this one roared like a lion of Judah! It wasn’t so much his intelligence and eloquence (which he had in spades) but also his Christian conviction when he spoke.
But I digress, back to how to prodding our bishops into making real decisions over cases of heresy…
There is nothing wrong with bureaucracy in and of itself provided bureaucracy remains an efficient means to an end, not an end unto itself.
There’s no substitute for hauling out a copy of the canons of your diocese and of the national church, and looking at the ordination vows a bishop makes – and reading them for yourself. How they are applied depends on how the Chancellor of the Diocese interprets them. If you really want to pursue this course of action, inform yourself, pray and ask God to send you people to work with, and iron clad evidence, to get an apostasy charge off the ground. And be prepared to have your life turned upside down, knowing always that God equips and provides for his faithful servants. And you may not win…God may have other plans. I suggest contacting ANiC’s chancellor to ask for an opinion. I am sure this group here discussing this course of action is not the first group to discuss this.
Sam, in #56 you said:
I wish I could agree with you about it not being too late; but I can’t. I think the window of opportunity for meaningful church discipline began closing decades ago and the seminaries have been churning out like-minded clergy for a long time now. If all parties cannot, as a starting point, look to God’s Word as the rock solid starting point against which all else is measured, the is no useful basis on which to proceed.
Sam – thanks for all of those suggestions. There are a few in my parish who may be of like mind to try our this route, not as an alternative to girding ourselves for the eventual possibility of having to leave, but rather exhausting this avenue before we do so.
#67 Remnent “they are often also about our corporate relationships to each other as members of the Body of Christ”
Exactly dear Brother and when you review them perhaps you might get a very different (distance lends perspective) view of what our corporate relationship should be.
“I honestly find this fascinating that something happened along the course of the last generation that few of those participating in this blog place any importance on canon law.”
I speak only for myself; the history of the body of Christ is of a continuous and disturbing decline away from the Christ centered and apostolic leadership of its inception, by the hands of men.
I no longer trust man’s ability to see, hear and understand, save by Faith. Therefore I fear that attempting to save the church using man’s tools while ignoring God’s tools is simply falling into previously set traps.
I hope you review this my imput here is late