Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts

Tuesday, 8 July 2008

Pay now, or pay later: why Traditionalists must not wait to act

According to the BBC website, which topically likens the current situation in the Church of England to a game of tennis, “The traditionalists will continue to rally, but the score at the moment is ‘advantage liberals’.”

As I warned six weeks ago, that is indeed the case and it has consequences for the future. Then I wrote that the passage of the ‘Single Clause’ option would mean,

... a counter-Scriptural, egalitarian feminist agenda will have gained the centre-ground. Those Evangelical supporters (and, perhaps, opponents) of women’s ordination who endorse or accept the new arrangements will find themselves faced with a triumphant Liberalism whose next aim will undoubtedly be the inclusion of same-sex relationships and the modification of our concept of God.

The Liberal wing of the Church of England has achieved a massive gain. But their position is not without hazard. Both Archbishops advised against the step that has been taken. Other senior bishops also disapproved. Substantial numbers in the Synod voted against the final motion. Hundreds of clergy have indicated they would have to rethink their position in the Church.

For weeks, the talk in the media has been of split and schism, not only abroad over the issues addressed by GAFCON, but here in England over women bishops.

But swift action is the key. When Hitler occupied the Rhineland in 1936, his armies had order to retreat if attacked. The world waited to see what Britain and France would do, but they did nothing and so Hitler won.

The comparison here, though, is not with Hitler, but with the Allies. Every hour that they did nothing made doing something less likely. And by doing nothing they not only lost in the short-term, but made it inevitable they would have to fight harder in the long term.

This, then, is the situation confronting Traditionalists in the Church of England. The General Synod has effectively voted that they be marginalised. Archbishop John Sentamu denied strongly that they were being thrown out, and technically that is true. But they are being bypassed and rendered irrelevant. As Adrian Worsfold (who has a nose for these things) writes,

[This decision] represents the effective finishing of the traditionalist Anglo-Catholic so that now just the Affirming (or, roughly speaking, liberal) Anglo-Catholic has a future in the Church of England. Soon a situation could well arise where Conservative Evangelicals are leaving and evangelicals are weakened.

And he finishes on what ought to be a sombre note for Evangelicals who think they can stay and prosper:

By 2014 the Church of England should look rather more like The Episcopal Church in the United States, the Anglican Church of Canada, the New Zealand Church, and the others in these islands.

The Church of England now is a genuine ‘mixed economy’ containing Anglo-Catholics and Charismatics, Open and Conservative Evangelicals, Affirming Catholics and Radical Liberals, as well as plenty who are just ‘middle of the road’. As such, it embodies spiritual hope as well as error. And most importantly, at least in theory, people from any of these can become a bishop.

Of course it will be objected, and it is true, that no woman can yet become a bishop. But that is, of course, due to change. Thanks to the General Synod, however, there is another, quite unnecessary, change coming with it, for whilst the Church of England will indeed have women bishops, they will not be, except for a few limited purposes, be drawn from the ranks of conservatives.

Indeed, by 2014 the conservatives will be a diminishing presence, represented only by those for whom optimism triumphs constantly over experience. A compromise could have been reached. Instead, as the Manchester Report warned, the Church of England of the future will be “possibly be more cohesive [but] less theologically diverse.”

That is unless action is taken and taken now, for it is an undeniable fact that it is radical principled action which changes the Anglican church, not debate and dialogue. The Oxford Movement demonstrated this in the nineteenth century, the churches of North America have shown it in the last and in this, first by illegally ordaining women, then by ignoring the pleas of the Communion not to consecrate Gene Robinson.

Moreover, the shape that action should take is clear. The Synod was asked, as a result of a long process of consultation, to provide structural solutions for Traditionalists — structures which would best be expressed through new dioceses. And what is a diocese, other than a gathering of churches and parishes for mutual mission and support who, with their clergy, are under the oversight of a bishop?

The bishops necessary to this are in place. The churches, parishes and clergy know who they are. In fact everything was ready to go until Synod said no. At the moment, Liberalism has had the Church of England handed to it on a plate. In six months, or even six weeks, it will be too late to change that. Momentum will have been lost, gains will have been consolidated. We will have persuaded ourselves that perhaps the next meeting, or the next consultation, or the next vote may provide us with a way out.

Or we could act now. We could simply say to the Synod, “Thank you, but we consider you have made a mistake, and it is our duty as members of this Church not to put into effect what you desire. We will make our own arrangements, and you may think again.”

John Richardson
8 July 2008

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

Tuesday, 1 July 2008

Post-GAFCON at All Souls, 4: Interview with Revd Dr Jim Packer

Summary notes by John Richardson

[Missed the first few minutes, but a very frail looking, but strong sounding, Jim Packer has been speaking about how Michael Ingham pushed through the agenda on gay blessings in New Westminster, leading to a walk-out of a number of clergy from his diocese.]

JP: After 6 years, news came through that the Archbishop of the Southern Cone was prepared to offer provision for them. Revd David Short called the whole of JP’s church together, and 97% was for leaving New Westminster and accepting jurisdictional hospitality from Greg Venables.

Michael Ingham declared that ministries of leaving clergy had been terminated and their property — built by public subscription and maintained by the congregation — belonged to the Diocese (who had never til then put a penny into it).

Interviewer: Why couldn’t this be a ‘live and let live’ situation?

JP: The gospel calls us to turn away from certain sins. In 1 Corinthians 6 there is a specific description of male homosexual practice in a ‘vice list’. New Westminster is negating the truth about repentance.

The diocese have not allowed any discussion of from any standpoint but the one they approved. ‘Discussion’ was not really open and the hope of calling the diocese to repentance was frustrated.

Interviewer: People who moved out of the diocese were described as schismatic — what about that?

JP: Schism means division, but there are proper and improper divisions. If the gospel is at stake there must be division. Separation took place at the Reformation — was that ‘schism’? I would deny this. Unnecessary separation may properly be called ‘schism’, but in the case of a division like New Westminster this is a necessary split and only the person who caused the split can be described as schismatic, ie the bishop who brought in the blessing of gay unions. I don’t like saying this, but I have to.

Interviewer: What about other churches and clergy who call themselves orthodox and yet remain in the ACC?

JP: I respect my brothers, when they seek honestly before the Lord to find what the Holy Spirit would have them do. We were put in a situation comparable to the Puritan clergy in 1662, being required to renounce the principle of ever rebelling against the king, therefore retrospectively condemning Parliament in the Civil War and also requiring episcopal ordination for those who hadn’t been so ordained in the previous 17 years. Those who came after were not put on the spot in the same way.

The issue has not come to a head for other dioceses in Canada in the same way as it did in New Westminster, so people can make different choices. It is important we respect people who don’t immediately see eye to eye with us.

Interviewer: How can we now understand the Anglican Communion?

JP: The AC has grown out of the Church of England and its missionary endeavours, and in the constitution of most Anglican churches there is some reference to the Church of England and its standards. You define the Anglican communion in terms of agreement with the constitution and with deferment to the Archbishop of Canterbury. This has been called into question because the Archbishop has been ambiguous in relation to the presenting issue: whether gay behaviour is a mode of holiness or, as the Bible regards it, as sin.

There is an upheaval when you have a diocese or province with an heretical leader. The Bishop of New Westminster is an heretical leader. When you have that the case is entirely altered from what the Anglican constitution and history envisages. At the time of the Reformation it was taken for granted that Anglican bishops would be efficient administrators and also spiritual leaders in the full and basic sense — pioneers in evangelism and pastoral ministry, in maintaining Christian standards, and in enabling congregations to stand on their own two feet.

An heretical bishop presents a different situation. Where there is heretical leadership you cannot, as a matter of principle, rule out para-dioceses with parallel jurisdictions.

But how can it be stopped? In the churches of the old west, the method of appointing bishops means you’re going to have Liberal bishops elected. There will be heresy, so what are you to do? Parallel jurisdiction is the only alternative. Otherwise the diocese is powerless under a Liberal bishop. You cannot really reform from within in such a situation.

Interviewer: Isn’t Greg Venables fragmenting the Communion?

JP: No. Those who say he is treat something in Anglicanism — geographical territorial jurisdiction — as inviolable. GV has breached that position. There is practical heresy going on. This is spreading in the West, and the question will be brought back and back and back to Synods. This is a strategy. So we are not disrupting the Anglican Communion, we are keeping it together, by ensuring that people in it are kept in fellowship with a biblically based version of biblical Christianity. You make it possible for the faithful to stay together.

Without it, those in heretical dioceses would be cut off from full communion with the orthodox part of the Anglican Communion. Parallel jurisdiction and realignment is the only way to keep the Anglican Communion together.

Interviewer: You were criticised when here for staying in a pluralist denomination. What is different now?

JP: The difference is that in those days the discussions by heretics were purely notional. You could disclaim the errors of the errorists and seek to persuade people to turn their back on them. The 39 Articles remained as the standard of Anglican orthodoxy and one could appeal to the constitution of the Church with a clear conscience. Guilt by association didn’t apply. But this is different from what prevailed in New Westminster and what has happened in TEC. Both have passed motions saying there is holiness in gay partnerships — this was not happening in England.

Interviewer: The you were asked what you would say if you had 10 minutes with the ABC. What would you say in 2 minutes to us?

JP: Keep the faith, resist Liberalism, do not act the ostrich, hiding your head in the sand.

Interviewer: What would be your wisdom about carrying on the GAFCON process in England?

JP: At the heart of the Statement is the Jerusalem Declaration. I would like to see PCCs and, where possible, Diocesan Synod, or even central bodies, committing themselves to this as their own guiding star. I would like to see the Primates who were leaders at GAFCON meeting in a public way in January 2009, casting the Jerusalem Statement into the form of a covenantal commitment, publicly subscribing to it on the part of their provinces, and also seeing diocesans subscribe to it. I would like to see it presented to new bishops appointed in the Church of England to subscribe to it, and I would like to see it established as a basis for orthodoxy and missionary action.

The goal of the Covenant Process begun in the Windsor Report would thus be achieved in essence. Anglican provinces who didn’t come along with this would be in the outer circle of limited communion for not identifying with Anglican orthodoxy.

This would be a first step in getting Anglicanism back into proper shape.

Interviewer: Thank you for letting us look into your ‘crystal ball’.

(A standing ovation was given to Dr Packer, who also stood to acknowledge it.)

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.