The schism in Canadian Anglicanism turned ugly at week’s end with threatened fights over ownership of church buildings, hints of swift punishment for rebellious priests and the uncrating of an alternative church structure for clergy and laity who reject openness toward homosexuals.
As conservative denomination members attending a two-day conference in Burlington, Ont., heard plans for the orthodox Anglican Church in South America to establish a parallel jurisdiction in Canada, the primate of the Canadian church announced he would issue a letter next week to be read in all Anglican parishes.
Archbishop Fred Hiltz’s letter is expected to be temperate, but to explain that the head of what is known as the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone of America, Archbishop Gregory Venables, has committed an outrageous wrong by trying to extend his authority into another church jurisdiction.
Archbishop Hiltz is also expected to make clear that congregations that vote to leave the Canadian church wouldn’t be taking their buildings with them, a subject much discussed at the Burlington conference.
Please pray for both Rev. Charlie Masters and Rev. George Sinclair. Both have been summoned by their bishops for urgent meetings.
Our parish is keeping vigil today and overnight. Please pray for us as well.
Interested readers will find more nuanced and balanced reports of these happenings in the National Post newspaper (I’d post a link, but not sure of the drill).
#2 -just copy the web address by highlighting it and hitting Control-C, then paste the address into the blog (Control-V). It is as simple as that…
I wonder for whom Abp. Hiltz is so eager to retain these buildings. Does he have a reservoir of eager wannabe Anglicans to fill them?
There are a few former and current parishioners who have long histories with our building that will likely stay on. Whether that would be sufficient critical mass, given that there are 2 other Anglican parishes nearby, is unknown. I won’t really lose any sleep if they can’t make a go of it.
In re:
“Well-sourced reports said that Canadian priests who have been flirting – [b]if not climbing into bed [/b]- with the South Americans and a parallel church could find themselves disciplined in the next few days by their bishops.”
I guess the Globe and Mail was showing its sectarian bias and dispensing with any journalistic pretensions.
But it’s okay for the Archbishop to climb into bed with the USA-American church, wot? Bet the Canadians thought no schism would attend their activities for the homosexualist agenda within the ACC, too. Since their last Archbishop told Kate he was “behind” her all the way.
Such shock and outrage and indignation that their National Church has led them into schism from the Anglican Communion! And their national meeting just past with no hint of problems! Tsk! Tsk!
From +Michael Ingham
First, this development, while not unexpected (the signs have been there for several years, see below) is both unwelcome and unnecessary. Unwelcome because it violates both the ancient traditions of our church and also the consistent urgings of Scripture for unity among Christians. Unnecessary because no Canadian Anglican is being compelled to act against their conscience in matters of doctrine or ethics, and so there is no need for ‘safety’ from ecclesiastical oppression.
…
Third, it has been the cry of every breakaway group that “we haven’t left them – they’ve left us.†Apart from the tiredness of the cliché, it is an attempt to avoid responsibility for personal choices. Every effort has been made, both in New Westminster and across the Anglican Church of Canada, to provide space for genuine differences of conviction on non-essential matters of faith. We have recognized the difficult place in which those of minority opinion find themselves (and there are several minorities, not just one) and have sought to foster mutual respect and mutual support. The vast majority of conservative and traditional Anglicans in Canada understand and accept this, and will stay with their church. This is not, therefore, a conservative breakaway. It is a decision to leave by those who feel uncomfortable with reasonable accommodation within the Body of Christ.
From Ingham, quoted in # 8 above: “Unwelcome because it violates both the ancient traditions of our church and also the consistent urgings of Scripture for unity among Christians”
The problem, you see, is that it is Ingham who has violated the ancient traditions of our Church and the core doctrines of Christianity as outlined in Scripture and Tradition. Ideological pluralism is contrary to the ancient traditions of our church (and the consistent urgings of Scripture), as is sacramentalizing homosexual relations.
Moreover, Ingham has maintained a religious pogrom against the orthodox in his diocese (at least those churches small enough to pose no significant challenge to him).
And lastly, more to the point, Scripture urges for unity among [i]Christians[/i]– those who devote themselves to the teaching of the Apostles (Acts 2:42) rather than those who devote themselves to the undermining of those teachings.
The National Post article mentioned by pilgrim kate (#2) is here:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=e38fb8f9-dfe3-4af8-8724-9d98bc8b9348&k=0
#8 Brian – that would of course be the same Bishop Ingham who did [url=http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/septemberweb-only/9-8-21.0.html] this to his orthodox congregations a few years [/url] ago?
Observing
I see nothing wrong with what +Ingham did there. The only problem I see is calling David Virtue a journalist.
Paul invokes shame for the Corinthians that bring other Christians to court (1 Corinthians 6:5). This strategy is not workable for those who know no shame, as evidenced by Brian excusing the reprehensible by Mr. Ingham (as well as the litigious, [i]trinitarian universalist[/i] heretical Schori). The reasserting side needs to stop appealing to their Christian nature of the revisionistas.
Here we go again. Same hymnal, different country. Let the lawsuits begin.
#12 Brian
Ok, if you don’t think that what Bishop Ingham did to the orthodox in his diocese constitutes ecclesiastical oppression, then I guess we just have different values. Fortunately enough bishops in other Anglican jurisdictions saw this for what is was. When you look back in history I would say it was this action on the part of Ingham that united the Global South into action. The more actions like it, the stronger that alliance grows, and the greater the number of people leaving becomes. If it hadn’t been for Ingham here, I doubt there would be a Network today. And the TEC lawsuits are strengthening that Network each day, as more people see their future. The Soviet Union taught us that you can’t build a big enough wall to keep the people in. In the same way, you can’t sue and threaten a volunteer organization to stay. They have to want to stay.
Why serve on a vestry? To be sued?
Why contribute to a new church building? To have it taken away?
Why be ordained? To be told you are too orthodox to serve in that diocese?
Why attend church? To fight?
Ingham’s words are expressions of desperation, that’s all. He has watched the erosion of TEC in the US and he now sees this “disease” spreading to Canada. It is obviously contagious. Though he sees this, he has no idea of how to stanch the bleeding from this plague. What else can he do? What are his choices? To smile nicely and let the churches leave? He surely feels that this will encourage further contagion. Make threats and charges? This is all that’s left to him.
He HAS no other choices.Will such a posture increase t he number of patients? Probably, but threats are always the last refuge of the desperate. LM
Observing
Funny you should mention the Global South. +I(ngham says this:
Fourth, the Network blames the church for its own decisions. Let us remember a brief chronology. It was ten years ago in 1997 that we first heard the term ‘global south.’ This was from the Kuala Lumpur meeting of certain bishops prior to the Lambeth Conference the following year. They issued the “Second Trumpet From the South†stating their intention to be in communion only with those who held their view of human sexuality. At the 1998 Lambeth Conference a well financed and organized lobby succeeded
in raising this position to the level of Resolution 1:10, effectively
marginalizing a careful statement prepared during the Conference by a broad spectrum of bishops.
We saw the development in North America of groups called the ‘Anglican Mission in America†and the “American Anglican Council†and the irregular and provocative consecrations, in Singapore in 2000 and Denver in 2001, of ‘missionary’ bishops to serve in the United States against the wishes of the Episcopal Church. During this time, congregations in the US and Canada were being urged by these groups to withhold financial contributions from the church.
Thus the seeds of this breakaway movement were laid long before same-sex blessings were authorized in New Westminster or a partnered gay bishop was elected in New Hampshire. The attempt now to lay blame for this development on events that took place in our diocese in 2002 and in the US in 2003 is in my view both a denial of history and an avoidance of responsibility.
[blockquote]The attempt now to lay blame for this development on events that took place in our diocese in 2002 and in the US in 2003 is in my view both a denial of history and an avoidance of responsibility.[/blockquote]
Ingham is, of course, correct. The seeds of apostasy were planted in ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada long before 2002 and 2003. As one of the original Johnny Appleseeds, Ingham can take full credit.
From the link at #10: [blockquote] Since the 1960s, the number of Anglicans in Canada has fallen by half to 640,000, while in the United States membership declined 32% to 2.2 million over a similar period. [/blockquote] It seems that the seeds of apostasy have been wreaking havoc in Canada even more than, and prior to, the havoc in the United States. The attempt now to lay blame for this development (of ACiC bishops fleeing to the Global South) on events that took place in Singapore in 2000 and in the Denver in 2001 is both a denial of history and an avoidance of responsibility
Observing [#11], Brian from T19 should have reproduced the money quote from the article you cited:
So a rectorless parish refused to pay its diocesan assessment and voted for secession. Clearly it was the bishop’s duty to the remaining parishioners, and to the church at large, to take prompt, firm action.
——————–
Robroy [#13], the duly-constituted governing bodies in both TEC and the AC of Canada have decided, through their duly-constituted governance processes, that uniformity of belief in the preemptive authority of Scripture is less important than charity towards one’s neighbors, supporting people trying to live what they believe to be good lives, etc.
If you folks are so convinced that your particular view of scriptural authority must trump those duly-taken decisions, no one is forcing you to stick around — leave if you must, but the rest of us are more than a little weary of your incessant baying about ‘apostasy.’
As to property, it ought to go where it can best be used to bring people to God; but if you’re going to try to take it unilaterally, hurling anathemas as you do, you shouldn’t assume the rest of the church will passively let you walk off with it.
It just occurred to me: I see no material difference between y’all, on the one hand, and the gay-rights protesters of past years who on occasion would noisily disrupt church services with their complaints.
And if a gay-rights majority had grown up in a TEC parish (say, in Provincetown), and then tried to secede, I doubt you’d agree that they had a right to the parish’s property, even though they happened to be in the majority at the time.
The most LOL statement is here: “At the 1998 Lambeth Conference a well financed and organized lobby succeeded in raising this position to the level of Resolution 1:10, effectively marginalizing a careful statement prepared during the Conference by a broad spectrum of bishops.”
Hey baby — what’s one more “well financed and organized lobby” amongst Anglicans. ; > )
Ingham — like a whole bunch of other progressive activists — was just mad that his well financed and organized lobby didn’t beat out the other one.
And isn’t it interesting that the “broad spectrum of bishops” who so carefully prepared the statement “during the Conference” [makes me want to giggle] got so horribly outvoted.
Fact it — one of the few times that the progressives got outmaneuvered. And boy did they come back [i]steamed[/i] and ready for action — which they got in August of 2003. ; > )
Indeed, the thing that has caused all of this conflict and division isn’t really the “progressive lobby” — it’s the fact that now the progressive lobby is actually countered by the reasserting lobby.
If only the Bad Old Reasserting Lobby would go away, we could go back to those thrilling peaceful “unified” days of yore. ; > )
# 20: “And if a gay-rights majority had grown up in a TEC parish (say, in Provincetown), and then tried to secede, I doubt you’d agree that they had a right to the parish’s property, even though they happened to be in the majority at the time.”
You are entirely wrong here. All along the reasserters’ view has been: If there has to be a divorce, we want a fair division of the property (as you would expect in any divorce). And the reappraisers’ response has been: Get out! We will use lawyers to lay claim to all the property we can.
A profoundly un-Christian attitude, as even you must recognize, DC.
Ingham—like a whole bunch of other progressive activists—was just mad that his well financed and organized lobby didn’t beat out the other one.
I have to agree with you there. I think that +Ingham should have argued that Lambeth 1.10 is not binding, rather than try to make it about some sort of ‘bullying.’ Lambeth 1.10 is clearly the ‘mind of the communion,’ bu falls far short of doctrine-IMHO.