In the past week, seven Canadian parishes in five dioceses have split from the national church and have put themselves under the authority of Archbishop Gregory Venables, head of the Province of the Southern Cone, which encompasses parts of South America. This week, the Diocese of Niagara in Ontario said it will replace the clergy at its two churches that voted to separate and went on to say that breakaway parishes “are no longer considered officially Anglican.” Two ministers in British Columbia have also been suspended.
ArchbishopVenables, speaking from Buenos Aires, said he is not happy about the potential for a global division, or what is happening in Canada, but he believes the worldwide Anglican Church has been on this course for more than 100 years, and he is becoming less hopeful for a resolution.
“It ends up you have two versions of Christianity,” he said. “There are two positions that have moved apart over the last century: the Bible-based orthodox Christianity that goes back to the early years of the Church and a post-modern Christianity that believes everybody can find their own truth. And those two things cannot work together.”
But wait, there is no division! What silliness from the TEc! Do they care about credibility?
Presiding Bishop Venables, as usual, hits the proverbial nail on the head. “And those two things cannot work together.” Rowan Williams could have prevented the bifurcation with simple, unequivocal upholding of Lambeth 1.10. History will look upon him like Neville Chamberlain.
Once the fabric is torn, the rip continues until the garment is split. And no one who has the ability to sew seems to be interested in mending — only ignoring that there is a rip.
The article refers to a statement issued by the Diocese of Niagara. The statement is found here: http://www.niagara.anglican.ca/docs/2008/Media%20Release%20Diocese%20of%20Niagara%2002-18-08%20Final%20Draft.pdf
It says:
I infer from this statement that physical action taking control of these properties, with or without accompanying legal actions, will be taken and may be imminent.
I request your prayers for the members of these congregations, their wardens, and their rectors, that they might have wisdom, courage, and prudence in reacting to whatever actions the diocese takes.
So, are we going to see pushing and shoving on the front steps? What a witness that will be.
Every account of the legal situation in Canada I have heard suggests taking buildings will be virtually impossible. Is this accurate? If so, then the presumption would be that fighting over property would not be dragged out (as a live option) as long as it inevitably is in the US zone (lawyers being like cab drivers, happy when the flag is down).
“No longer considered officially Anglican?” Only in Canada and the U.S. Who are they to say who’s “officially Anglican?”
The Archbishop is exactly correct. The problems reach back 100 years, and only now are we finding orthodox leaders who will stand up to walk the walk. the only surprise is that we actually may do something this time around.
Further information from the Globe and Mail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080220.ANGLICAN20/TPStory/?query=anglican
Highlights:
And the Toronto Star gets to the real lead in this story:
http://www.thestar.com/article/305157
#9–was this not anticipated as the obvious course of action from the Diocesan? I am simply asking a strategic, not a moral question.
#10:
Yes (with much uncertainty as to details)
[blockquote] “If they don’t turn in the keys, we are planning to go and physically try to take possession of the parishes by showing up and asking them for the keys,†Reverend Dr. Richard Jones, secretary of synod for the Anglican church’s Niagara diocese, told the Star. [/blockquote] It sounds like they are planning on using Dave Barry’s [url=http://tinyurl.com/23zjnq]Department of Two Guys Named Victor[/url]. I hope there’s not an outbreak of “unfortunate shaving accidents” in Canada in the upcoming months.
#5. Seitz-ACI wrote: “(lawyers being like cab drivers, happy when the flag is down).”
I take issue with that. There have been quite a few attorneys here in the States begging TEC and the various DioVA to negotiate a settlement. Regrettably, it is the Bishops of the Episcopal Church, not the lawyers, who are happy to litigate until the bitter end.
A very sound footnote. Well stated, #13. For every rule there are exceptions, often very crucial.
#5/10 Dr Seitz-ACI, are you able to comment on how all this looks from Wycliffe College, with which quite a number of these parishes, well beyond Ontario, have historic links?
#15–I am presently in the UK, so unable to give a sense of the atmosphere at Wycliffe (we are on mid-term reading week). The parish where I am on staff, and many like it (conservative, evangelical and catholic), have not seen this (leaving) as a way forward given that much is under negotiation in the Communion. The ’33’ who responded to the St Michael’s Report are alive and well and will speak to the future of Canadian Anglicanism in good time. I suspect a native Canadian with more history can comment on how and why the Essentials-Network reality is not on any clear analogy with all the movements in the US (First Promise, ACC, AMiA, ‘Network’, Common Cause, Forward in Faith, and so on).
Just to throw a few cents in, as I’m formerly of that diocese and I know a number of people involved:
The secretary of Synod has no authority to make those statements whatsoever.
The Bishop (bishops since there is a co-adjutor) will do what the Bishop is going to do. While self evident, I’d suggest waiting and seeing what the actions are, asinine comments from Rick Jones aside.
I’d be curious to see if Wycliffe does anything, because they, as a college, have some ties to the soon-to-be retired Bishop of Niagara.
I’d also have to say that for St. George’s Lowville, if it is reportedly true, to refuse the entry of the Archdeacon last sunday is incredibly poor taste, and again if it’s true, I’d have thought their rector would have more class than that. I know their rector, I respect him immensely, but I have to shake my head at that one.
Ah.. a Hoskyns on the blog. Of course, Wycliffe College sits on a street by that name (some trivia, although not trivial).
As for the reason these churches are leaving, it is that in their dioceses measures which contravene the clear teaching of scripture as the parameters of the gospel have been introduced and passed at their diocesan synods. Soon their bishops will give consent, and either force or give priests the option to perform unlawful rites of worship. How could an orthodox priest follow such an act he or she has implicitly vowed not to perform? Further, for these, the actions of the last ACC general synod made it clear through passed resolutions that the national church in Canada no longer believes same-sex blessings (affirming what scripture calls sin, and what Christians are to repent of) is contrary to our core doctrine (creeds). So for many, like St. George’s Lowville, it is a matter of conscience and contending for the gospel. For others, like those in Vancouver, it goes beyond conscience and contending, as they are and have been under the heavy handed rule of a heretical bishop, and have reached the point where they had to leave in order to receive episcopal ministry and priests.
#17, I suspect the archdeacon was sent for the purpose of thwarting the vote called by the wardens of the church – who are the majority of the corporation. No doubt, it was not Charlie + who denied entry, as Charlie would not have introduced the resolution, called the vote or voted on this measure. I suspect that is why he has been suspended [i] with pay [/i] for the time being.
As for fighting for property, I suspect that the case is not so simple. I know that most Canadian diocese assent to the Solemn Declaration which appears in our Prayerbooks. In it the Anglican Church of Canada says this:
[i] WE declare this Church to be, and desire that it shall continue, in full communion with the Church of England throughout the world, as an integral portion of the One Body of Christ composed of Churches which, united under the One Divine Head and in the fellowship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, hold the One Faith revealed in Holy Writ, and defined in the Creeds as maintained by the undivided primitive Church in the undisputed Ecumenical Councils; receive the same Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as containing all things necessary to salvation; teach the same Word of God; partake of the same Divinely ordained Sacraments, through the ministry of[/i]
Sietz: I have both a Canadian and American law degree and work in the legal research field. My impression of the Canadian legal situation is that it is very much up in the air. As I am sure you well know, St. John’s, Shaughnessy, in Vancouver has connections with some very good lawyers, and I have heard that they are very confident that they have a good case. I know that there was one, maybe two, similar cases in Ontario which the church heirarchy won, but on the other hand, a few years back, when the Diocese of the Caribou in British Columbia went bankrupt, the individual parishes were held NOT to be diocesan property. In church property disputes there are so many variables and considerations that you can’t make any conclusions from such little case law.
As to why are they leaving, I can offer you some thoughts. I know the Diocese of New Westminster very well (having grown up there, having family and relatives attending the affected parishes, and knowing clergy who are now under Venables, and having had a wonderful evening visiting with Bp. Don Harvey last fall). First, Michael Ingham is truly a loathsome man (forgive me elves for this character assassination, but I think that occasionally personalities do affect outcomes, and Ingham really is loathed by conservatives in the diocese, and for very good reason), and I think there is just a limit as to how long they could put up with him. Second, Ingham has attacked some clergy and parishes unjustly and forced them out of the diocese even though it was not their choice to do so. Third, if you look at the history in New West, you will not that initially the conservative parishes did NOT leave the ACCanada. After a couple of years, a few then joined the AMiA. The remnant, who has just now realigned, held in as part of the diocese for 6 years. They initially were CommCons, Dr. Seitz, but have come to the conclusion that Rowan Williams will do absolutely nothing as the ACCanada marches on with its sexuality agenda.
I would ask you to consider the evidence from the New West perspective Dr. Seitz. In 2002, Michael Ingham explicitly violates Lambeth I.10. The Windsor Report comes out, which Ingham ignores. Ingham continues to ignore successive primates’ communiques. Ingham refuses to stop authorizing SSB’s in his diocese. In 2007, the Canadian church takes a significant step towards approving SSB’s, but stops short of authorizing dioceses to do so. Ingham keeps authorizing them anyway, and more dioceses indicate that they will follow. Despite all of this, Ingham retains his Lambeth invitation.
Put simply, Dr. Seitz, the folks who left for the Southern Cone have no confidence at all in Rowan Williams or the present Communion structures to effect any change at all.
#19 — I am aware of Canada dynamics, thanks.
You can see the only query I posed below. The point was, that Network USA (itself very confusing in respect of parish network and present Bishop contingent) and Network Canada grew out of differebt soils and are prducing different fruit,
I was not asking for a rationale for X or Y course of action, though thanks.
suspect a native Canadian with more history can comment on how and why the Essentials-Network reality is not on any clear analogy with all the movements in the US (First Promise, ACC, AMiA, ‘Network’, Common Cause, Forward in Faith, and so on).
19 JamesW:
“Modern people have shown a chronic inability to name and judge evil, and to respond to it effectively.” Os Guinnes in his book [b]Unspeakable[/b]
We see in many Bishops and clergy in the U.S. and Canada either brainless nits or, worse, in the service of something genuinely Evil. How un Episcopal to believe in possession. Whatever the source, you have “named and judged” evil and are “responding to it,” for which I thank you.
Evil comes not with sulphur smoke and goat’s hooves. Curly headed youthfull good looks, nice smile, are more the costume of the day, best when draped with nifty brocaded robes.
Whatever Their appearance, they mean to infect and destroy the Body of Christ, and we are not bound to allow it, but rather to contend with Them for very inch of God’s creation.
Pray for these carriers of infection, that they may be made clean and whole, and that they renounce That which they have so urgently served.
Seitz:
Well, the ACiC (Anglican Coaliton in Canada) is the Canadian version of the AMiA, and are overseen by the same bishops.
As for the Canadian Network, I think that there is just a different mindset between Canadians and Americans. Canadians tend to be more deferential to authority, while Americans tend to band together to make demands. As one who grew up in Canada, but who now lives in the USA, I can only say that the way this developed in Canada is very Canadian, while the way it developed in the US is very American. I think that the Canadian departures mean a whole lot more then any American departures simply because the Canadian departures are much more out of the Canadian character then are the American departures.
Also, from a political/credibility perspective, Canadians (even conservative Anglicans) would not really like to be identified with, or be seen as, the Canadian version of, an American conservative organization. Let me put it another way, in order for the Canadian Network to have credibility in Canada, it would HAVE to be seen as independent and not a part of the USA Network. Seitz, this is similar to the fact that the Canadian Conservative party would not want to be seen to have ANY connections at all with the U.S. Republican party. Part of the Canadian psyche is to be “not American.”
Administrators appointed for St. Hilda’s and St. George’s: http://www.niagara.anglican.ca/docs/2008/newadministratorsdofn.pdf
Diocese denied keys to St. Hilda’s, diocese freezes bank account:
http://www.lambethconference.net/?p=115
Mr James (22): I have listened intently to long first-hand accounts of the situation in Canada with people whose views I respect. Thanks for adding your as well. It seems another lifetime ago that I was meeting with a steering committee in Pawley’s Island re: FP. My modest point, which I thought clear, was not to do with cultural differences but between the way Network, e.g., emerged in the US and what it became, as against Network in Canada. Then there is also no ‘Essentials’ equivalent in the US. I guess ACI is one of the few operations that has from the ground up been trans-national (Sumner and +Burton being involved with our work from Wycliffe and Saskatchewan; +Drexel; +M Scott-Joynt and +NT Wright; and +Mtetemela). Lenten blessings.
Dr. Seitz: I don’t think you can dismiss cultural differences so easily. Canadian Essentials did not begin as a seperatist movement at all (it really wasn’t even on the radar screen), nor did they have a series of demands. I think, in contrast, that the AAC, FP, and others in the US, began with the self-identity as being organizations “called out” from within TEC. Even the US Network, from its beginnings, saw itself as being “called apart” from the TEC (even if specific departure was not on the table yet).
I have been outside of Canada since about 1998, and so I can’t comment specifically on the transformation from Canadian Essentails to Canadian Network. But it does seem to me that within the Canadian Essentials movement there arose three streams. One was the “leave now” group, and they joined the Canadian version of the AMiA. Another was a group that has now just left or is in the process of so doing (the Network). I think their mindset is closer to the original Canadian Essentials (as opposed to FP or ACC from the US) but they had just been pushed beyond their limits. Third is the ACI type, who oppose departing (the Federation).
I don’t think that the Canadian Essentials movement, nor the groups emanating from it, had the same interest in mobilizing the international Anglican Provinces in the same was that the American groups did. I think the Canadian movement grew up on its own, did not share the same mindset or cultural values as did the American groups, and had a much more local agenda. I know that, at least when Essentials began, the international aspect to this mess was not so clear.
I am not dismissing cultural differences. I am dismissing them being part of the original point I was making, which you took in a different direction.
Beyond that, the points you make are in concurrence: Essentials was different because it was a collective of various movements within Canada, and the same did not take the same form in the US. That was exactly my point. The differences were not to do with Canadian temperment but with distinctive groupings and the way they evolved. I have been closely associated with these phenomena in the US and in Canada for some time, and have been at meetings where reps from all the groups have gathered and spoken their mind.
Beyond this your final point is right and is consistent with my larger point: it is hard to compare the Canadian and US conservative responses and this chiefly for reasons of different allignments and perceived threats. Network is a very small affair in Canada compared to the parish base once established in the US. Then again, the Bishops in Network in the US have been reduced and now are probably, genuinely, no more, because other forces brought in Common Cause, etc. So Canada has a single Network Bishop with helpers, and few parishes, US has (had) a lot of parishes in Network, whilst the Diocesans that are a part of this have morphed to Common Cause (Duncan, Iker, Ackermann, Schofield) or other endeavours (Camp Allen) leaving Network vestigial in terms of Bishops.