More Anglican Trouble

The situation in the Anglican communion appears to have become completely polarized. I noted here how it looked like conservative Anglicans are attempting to force their will on the liberals. It appears that the liberals are attempting the same with the conservatives. What's at stake here is whether dissenters will be able to have alternative oversight. In Anglican-speak this is to have a kind of denomination within a denomination. This was provided for by the primates here. Here's the situation as described by the Abbortsford Times:

Dissident Anglican priests charged by church

By Lisa Jorgensen - LJorgensen@abbotsfordtimes.com

The pastor of St. Matthew's Anglican Church is facing a handful of charges from the Diocese of the Yukon.

Rev. Trevor Walters, along with six other priests, who all belong to the Anglican Communion in New Westminster and oppose the blessing of same-sex unions, are now facing "ecclesiastical charges" for that opposition.

"Whenever anyone is charged with something it's traumatic," ACiNW spokes-man Peter Turner said Monday. "It's unprecedented. There's never been anything like this in the history of the Anglican Church in Canada at least."

The charges which are similar for all the priests, include disobedience to the bishop, contemptuous or disrespectful conduct toward the bishop, schism, conduct causing scandal and "otherwise offences against the lawful authority of the bishop," an ACiNW news release reported.

Turner added that each priest has received about five charges. The exception is Walters, who has received about 10, most of which are described as "trivial."

"Bishop [Michael] Ingham doesn't believe in free speech at all. Most charges refer to private conversations. Basically it's an attack against people who don't believe [in the same thing]. Bishop Ingham seems to be lashing out at anyone he can," Turner said of the charges being pressed on the ACiNW, which represents about one quarter of the Diocese of New Westminster.

"What it really means for the Anglican Church is rather than try to resolve issues, he is proceeding to destroy his church."

The procedures after the charges have been laid are similar to civil court, however in this case they are within the church, Turner added.

"A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty although in this case it is not happening," he said, adding that the charges are trivial as they relate to the priests' beliefs.

"It's traumatic, but it's been this way ever since they put themselves at risk a year and a half ago. It's been a tremendous strain for themselves and family . . . and congregations."

At issue is Ingham's decision to bless same-sex unions. Since the synod in June 2002, members of the ACiNW, including the Church of the Holy Cross in Abbotsford, have voted in favour of alternative oversight from Bishop Terry Buckle, of the Diocese of Yukon.

An easy resolution to the ongoing crisis in the Anglican community, Turner said, would be for Ingham to allow Buckle's offer of alternative leadership, something that there is precedent for and something that the archbishop has recommended.

"Basically Bishop Ingham is thumbing his nose at him," Turner said.

Things are progressing rapidly between the two sides and the pending meeting of the Canadian House of Bishops this week will probably "have a lot of fireworks happening," Turner added.

Diocese of New Westminster spokesman Neale Adams explained that although the charges have been called in the diocese, "it's really preliminary in the sense the commission of inquiry has to look at them and see if they are valid. If it doesn't go to trial there's no reason to publicize them."

The charges, according to the ACiNW, were filed on Aug. 28, but were announced on Oct. 15, less than 24 hours before the Anglican communion's senior archbishops issued a statement saying decisions on human sexuality by the Diocese of New Westminster threaten to "tear the fabric of our communion at its deepest level." The statement also recommended "adequate episcopal oversight" for so-called dissenting minorities.

Also charged are Rev. Stephen Leung, of the Church of the Good Shepherd, Rev. David Short, St. John's Shaughnessy, Rev. Barclay Mayo, St. Andrew's Pender Harbour, Rev. Simon Chin, St. Matthias and St. Luke, Rev. Silas Ng, Church of Emmanuel in Richmond, and Rev. Ed Hird, St. Simon's in North Vancouver.

Church of the Holy Cross's Rev. James Wagner was recently fired.

More information is found here:

B.C. Anglicans: 'Anger, distrust and sadness'

By Frank Stirk

THE LONG-STANDING and increasingly bitter dispute within the Anglican diocese of New Westminster over a rite of blessing for committed same-sex couples has fostered "deep currents of anger, distrust and sadness" within many of its parishes, says Fredericton, New Brunswick, bishop William Hockin.

Last spring, New Westminster bishop Michael Ingham had asked Hockin to serve temporarily as an 'episcopal visitor' -- essentially a spiritual counselor -- to parishes uncomfortable with the same-sex blessing.

Although Hockin himself is a conservative, the eight breakaway parishes of the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW) rejected his offer of assistance when he visited in June, since his mandate fell far short of their key demand of "alternative episcopal oversight."

Writing in the New Brunswick Anglican, Hockin said that limited his ministry to the "several" parishes -- out of the 72 that at the time still recognized Ingham as their bishop -- who opposed the blessing but had chosen not to join the ACiNW.

What he discovered were "congregations torn apart by suspicion, anger and loss of trust." Many reported declines in membership and financial giving. "A priest reported to me that on a Sunday in June his lay reader was reading Psalm 133. As she read 'How good and pleasant it is when people live together in unity' she broke down in tears, as did others throughout the congregation. The reason -- clearly there is no unity, nothing 'good and pleasant,'" said Hockin.

For his part, Ingham paints a very different picture of those parishes which -- at least on the surface -- have remained loyal to him.

"The great majority of conservative people in our diocese are reconciled to the decision of the diocese in that they understand that this [same-sex blessing] is where the majority of people want to go, and they're not leaving the diocese, " he recently told a BBC interviewer.

Ingham, who was in England in late October to address a conference hosted by the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, said the real problem facing New Westminster is homophobia.

"In response to change and an attempt to reach out compassionately to gay and lesbian people, some traditionalists have responded with anarchy," he said.

And far from being "hard-line" in his handling of the crisis, Ingham said that in fact "most people in my diocese think I've been far too patient." It is an evaluation that -- based on their own experiences -- clergy and parishes which have parted company with Ingham would probably challenge.

Church awaits its fate

Any day now, the Church of the Holy Cross, an Anglican mission church -- and the ACiNW's newest member -- could hear from Ingham that it no longer exists. As things stand, it is already on life-support.

The church's troubles began in September when the congregation voted 97 per cent in favour of breaking with Ingham and aligning with Yukon Bishop Terry Buckle. The diocese responded swiftly by cutting off all funding to the three-year-old church. It also recommended to Ingham that Holy Cross be shut down. In a letter to clergy, executive archdeacon Ronald Harrison said that Ingham needs "time to reflect on that." But Ingham did place the church's priest, Rev. James Wagner, "on leave with permission to officiate."

"I'm not sure what that entitles me to do or not to do," Wagner told the National Post.

Diocesan communication officer Neale Adams says that, as a mission church -- as opposed to a parish church -- Holy Cross received the bulk of its funding from the diocese. And if it wants to continue, it will have to look elsewhere for support. "I suppose the people themselves could raise the money," he says. "But the level of support was something like $140,000 over the first couple of years, so it was a significant amount of money that was being put in."

But while Wagner's future remains uncertain, assistant warden Bill Glasgow is confident that Holy Cross will survive.

"People outside of Abbotsford have contacted us and want to help us financially," he told the Abbotsford Times. "Other parishes not part of the ACiNW want to demonstrate they don't agree with Bishop Michael and [have] asked how they can give to us."

Holy Cross meets at the Matsqui Recreation Centre on Clearbrook Road.

Blacklisted priest

For Rev. Paul Carter, the mid-September launch of Immanuel Westside Church in Vancouver marked the close of a difficult chapter in his life.

In 2001, Ingham removed him from serving at St. Philips Dunbar Heights -- or anywhere else in the diocese -- allegedly because of his traditionalist views. "Bishop Michael systematically marginalized me," he says. "I was denied the opportunity to work, deemed by him to be a troublemaker."

Instead, Carter worked briefly first at St. John's Shaughnessy, and then at St. Matthew's Abbotsford. In June 2002, he became executive director of the fledgling ACiNW, before moving back to the same community which he had left two years earlier to plant Immanuel Westside.

Carter's vision for his church, which currently worships at Dunbar Heights Baptist Church, is to move within a year to UBC, where it can better evangelize a growing resident student population. But Carter admits that he has to "tread very carefully."

"I am a priest licensed by Bishop Terry [Buckle] to function in the Diocese of the Yukon," he says, "but I am not in any way licensed by him to break territorial integrity and plant a church here in Vancouver."

And so, while Immanuel Westside is affiliated with the ACiNW -- and is its first church plant -- Carter insists that it remains officially "Anglican style," but independent of both Ingham and Buckle.

Above the fray

"Wherever possible, we don't even talk about the crisis in the services," says David Short, the rector of St. John's Shaughnessy Anglican Church in Vancouver.

One of the largest and wealthiest Anglican parishes in Canada, St. John's tries hard to rise above the controversy swirling around it.

Short says that, although he still devotes two days a week to the issues that drove his church to reject Ingham's pastoral oversight, ministry remains their top priority.

"We really are trying to move forward," he says. "We have people coming to faith in Christ, we have a new evangelism group, and we have over 100 people meeting in two new Bible study groups."

But that does not mean that St. John's has not suffered. Last year, parishioners voted 98 per cent in favour of no longer sending their assessment or regular financial contribution to the diocese. And that, says Lesley Bentley, did prompt a few to leave.

"Maybe ten out of a congregation of 1,200 left. But they're still an important part of our community, and so it was very difficult and very sad," says Bentley, who is also a media spokesperson for the ACiNW.

But she adds that their departure has been more than offset by an influx of Anglicans from other parishes "who have been frustrated that their parishes haven't taken a [similar] stand."

'Martial law'

When delegates to the New Westminster synod voted in June 2002 to endorse the same-sex blessing, those who walked out in protest reconvened at St. Martin's in North Vancouver for prayer and worship.

The parish has been on the frontlines ever since, and has suffered for it. Last September, Ingham invoked canon law and replaced its elected leaders with people loyal to him. He said he had to act, because the parish -- now without a rector -- was in turmoil following its decision to align with Bishop Terry Buckle.

To parishioner Ron Edwards, Ingham's actions were nothing short of "martial law."

"We were denied our right to meet and discuss amongst ourselves the issues that affect the parish, denied the publishing [of] our parish newsletter. The list goes on," he says.

Perhaps most damaging, says Edwards, was the firing by Ingham's "bishop's wardens" of youth pastor James Moffett.

"The youth learned so much from James, and had grown so much spiritually -- and now just feel devastated," he says.

After Ingham's actions, parishioners met to vote unanimously that St. Martin's was not in crisis, as the bishop had claimed. They also reaffirmed their support for the leaders he had fired, and for Buckle.

But Ingham says that, since a virtual state of emergency remains in effect, the meeting was illegal -- and "any motions passed . . . have no validity whatsoever."

I have had some personal experience with this type of case. I was appointed prosecutor against a pastor who violated a presbytery order. My experience from this prompted the following letter to the editor:

Lawful and Unlawful Orders

Mr. Rich Blinne, a ruling elder at Cornerstone Presbyterian in Ft. Collins, CO, graciously submitted this response to our editorial entitled, "Conscience Bound." He expressed total agreement with the editorial, "A Complaint By Any Other Name . . . ."

The following is my personal opinion and may or may not represent the position of the Rocky Mountain Presbytery. I am a Jus Divinum Presbyterian. As such, I believe that the courts of the church may at times make lawful orders of their members. I come to that conclusion from the following section of the Confession (Chapter 20-4):

And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church.

Concerning this clause, A.A. Hodge said the following:

It is of the highest importance, on the other hand, clearly to understand that Christian liberty is not an absolute liberty to do as we choose, but a regulated liberty to obey God without hindrance from man. It is a freedom from usurped authority, in order that we may be the more perfectly subject to the only legitimate authority. It is hence absurd, as well as wicked, for a man to make his Christian liberty to obey only God a plea to disobey God, as he does whenever he violates any of the principles of natural right or of revealed truth which express at once the unchangeable nature and the all-perfect will of God. There can be no liberty which sets a man independent of that will; and this is always the will of God concerning us, even our sanctification. (1 Thess. 4:3.)

The Rocky Mountain Presbytery ordered TE Bruce Nickoley to exhort his congregation to obey the Ninth Commandment and 1 Corinthians 6. They did that not because the Evergreen congregation was picketing per se, but rather the implied message of the signs was that Dear Creek Church held secret meetings, said message being slanderous. Given TE Nickoley's responsibilities described in BCO 8-3 that "no corruption of doctrine or of morals [of the congregation] enter therein", Rocky Mountain Presbytery believed that the order was a lawful one.

Having said all this, great weight must be given to the claim of binding the conscience. The clause of the Confession I quoted was used to unlawfully excommunicate J. Gresham Machen. The slippery slope into prelacy is there. So, if there was ever a case where all the protections of process are needed, it was this one. This is where the Rocky Mountain Presbytery erred and violated TE Nickoley's rights. Presbytery does have the right to give lawful orders but it must prove them to be so and with the highest standards of proof.

While I disagree with TE Smith as to the extent of church power, I do agree with him with respect to the Central Georgia case. Even granting my more expansive power for church authority, the claimed powers fails on two counts. 1. Any evangelist ordained by Central Georgia is subject to its authority, not another Presbytery and certainly not MNA. It was on this basis that the Rocky Mountain Presbytery found TE Nickoley not guilty of other, but related charges. TE Nickoley was ordained by another body. Therefore, Rocky Mountain Presbytery had no jurisdiction and could not lawfully compel obedience. 2. An order to disobey the Confession is facially unlawful.

It is my hope that the PCA will learn from Rocky Mountain Presbytery's errors. While the church does have real powers, they are ministerial and declarative. They should be used for the building up and not the tearing down. I pray that the General Assembly of the PCA will do just that and rule justly on this matter. [emphasis mine]

During trial we discovered that TE Nickoley was ordained by his local body (which at the time was no longer in our denomination) and thus removed him from our jurisdiction. Thus we could not lawfully order him. The court found (and I personally voted for) him to be not guilty.

I believe this case is applicable to the case at hand. If you don't allow for proper and orderly transfer of jurisdiction (and the commensurate letting go of power), you will simply blow up the church. In the second story there was a woman who broke down crying while trying to read Psalm 133. I echo those tears.

Comments

[*** Dave]

The exercise of power within any church must always be done with extraordinary care. Bishop Ingham's actions, as presented, seem heavy-handed and uncharitable. While providing for alternative episcopal oversight is very tricky, treating it like treason or a power challenge is not going to be helpful or healing.

On the other hand, congregations and priests who choose to dissociate themselves from a diocese should not necesarily expect that diocese to continue to provide them with support, be it money or facilities. People need to be free to pull away, partly or in full, but they also need to know that there are consequences in doing so.

Within ECUSA, the issue of women being ordained as finessed by not requiring any particular bishop to perform such ordinations. While this has resulted in some painful situations (women seeking ordination having to move elsewhere to a diocese where they can be supported in that effort, some folks declining to treat ordained women as actual bishops or priests or deacons), the alternative would have been far more destructive. I'm not sure if a similar course can be charted regarding the current homosexuality issue, but something like it must be, if we want to avoid the sort of contention being described here.

[Rich]

I agree. You will note in my letter to the editor that I tried to balance the need to protect the conscience of the people with the legitimate exercise of church power. In the five years since I wrote it, I have come down more on the side of the people. As for the expectations of the dissidents if you want to be on your own, then you should be, well, on your own.

[JACK DOLHANTY]

HELLO THERE,SATAN!!xxx~YOU ARE ACCOMPLISHING WHAT YOU FAILED TO DO,BACK IN TIMES OF SODOM & GOMORAH,EH~?WHEN YOU CONVINCED POOR WIFE OF LOT TO TURN BACK & ENGAGE HERSELF WITH SUB~ANIMALISTIC BEHAVIOR,LIKE SAME SEX INTERCOURSE,ENGAGEMENT,ETC.....NOW,WE ARE INDULGED WITH SAME INVOLVEMENT,FOSTERED BY LEADERS,INDEED!!!NOW,GOD BE WITH REV.JAMES WAGNER,ABBOTSFORD,B.C. FOR UPSTANDING AGAINST MANKIND'S ENDEAVOR TO REPLACE THE HAND OF GOD,WITH THEIR OWN LITTLE,SADISTIC, OFF~KILTER COMMANDMENTS!ON GUARD,YOU,SATAN,WITH THE HAND OF GOD,you SHALL BE CAST AGAIN,EH!~INTO THE DARK HALLS OF HELL,WHERE YOU BELONG!!

[Midrash-Creed]

Dear Sir,

You will find that under the title 'The Agony Of Anglicanism' the Literature List on my newly established web site contains the following items of literature: -
1) ‘How to handle the crisis in Anglicanism’ (A practical guide to explaining how Christians can best respond to the growing divisions within Anglicanism)
2) ‘Mumbling In The Dark’ (A critical review of the poems of Rowan Williams and their wider implications; within the Anglican Church and elsewhere)
3) ‘Why Rowan?’ (Possible reasons as to why God raised Doctor Rowan Williams to be head of the Anglican Communion of seventy million people)
4) Various meditative and controversial material.
5) Bibliographical and chronological information

You will find the web site at www.geocities.com/midrashcreed

Should you wish to bypass the home page try clicking http://www.geocities.com/midrashcreed/contents.htm#ag

The above-cited material assumes that the current crisis in the Anglican Communion is too big to be ignored – largely because it has a potentially lethal interfaith dimension, which could engender large-scale loss of life in this country. It also represents a form of ‘loyalty test’ for those Anglicans who do actually believe in Jesus. I have tried to approach each given topic from a relatively original standpoint – NOT beholden to any party or faction within the Anglican Communion.

You are very welcome to replicate, pass on and quote from any of this literature as long as: -
1) I am informed that such an activity is taking place
2) The original source of ‘Yes-Now’ Publications (Y.N.Ps) is acknowledged.
3) It’s understood that the Copyright remains with the author (who is also the Director of Y.N.Ps.)
4) It’s accepted that the Director is in no sense responsible for: -
· Costs, damages or injuries sustained through the above
· Your own conduct or affairs as an individual person or organisation
(For further details please refer to the Disclaimer, but don't be put off by its rather dry, legastic language.)

Should you wish to respond to this correspondence please contact me over the next three weeks at midrashcreed@yahoo.co.uk.

The ‘Doctor Gareth Bennett affair’ of December 1987 amply explains why, for now, I prefer to withhold personal details. I myself have had bitter first hand experience of the ruthlessness prevailing within the Anglican Church once the authority of its corrupt hierarchy has been called into question.

Yours in Christ,

M.C

Midrash-Creed