|
1a) http://www3.telus.net/st_simons/crier.htm http://www.acl.asn.au/050509_st_simons.html (Anglican Church League, Australia) http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2436 http://www.anglican.tk/?page_id=100 (CaNN News) Posted by David Virtue on 2005/5/7 16:00:00 Battle Ends for Deep Cove Church May 2005 Deep Cove Crier, p. 5 By Pat Johnson, Contributing Writer On May 31st, St. Simon's Anglican Church in Deep Cove will abandon its premises after 55 years. The decision to move the congregation -made unanimously on the Easter weekend - is the conclusion to a seven-year long emotional and legal battle over a scriptural argument.
The Anglican church worldwide has been rent asunder by the fight over the "full inclusion" of gay and lesbian people in the church. The issues included the ordination of gay clergy, the sanctifying of same-sex unions and the church's teachings about sexuality.
Nowhere has the issue had more impact than here in Deep Cove, where a seven-year legal battle has raged over control of the local church. Rev. Ed Hird, the priest at St. Simon's, is a leading figure in the opposition to the policies of Vancouver's diocese regarding these issues. Bishop Michael Ingham, Vancouver's top Anglican, is a leader in the movement for full inclusion in the Anglican church, which has put him at odds not only with much of the Church worldwide, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and the conservative (Anglican) Churches of Africa and Asia, but with 11 congregations in his own diocese, among them St. Simon's.
"It's not about the homosexual issue," Hird said. "Our concern is that we want to be true to what Anglicans have always believed. Anglicans have a strong commitment to what's called the authority of scripture."
The battle over gay inclusion has been compared with previous theological battles the church has faced, such as the ordination of women priests. But Hird said the comparisons are moot.
"The Bible is ambiguous on [the ordination of women]," Hird said, adding that the fact that most female priests are liberal hasn't helped their cause, he said, but that's not the issue at hand. There are issues upon which the Bible is uncompromising, he said, such as the dictum against premarital sex.
"I realize in our modern culture that [the biblical teaching on premarital sex] seems unreasonable, but it's still our Christian belief system," he said.
Hird believes - and has believed for decades - that homosexual behaviour is a sin. While studying at the Vancouver School of Theology (25) years ago, he addressed the issue, analyzing the scriptures and determined to his satisfaction that homosexual activity is forbidden.
The issue exploded into a legal conflict seven years ago and the congregation has finally 'given up the fight'. They will evacuate the building on May 31st.
Carrying on the fight could have bankrupted the congregation and detracted from the day-to-day work of the church.
"To go any further, it could drag on for the next eight to ten years," said Hird. "The diocese has $100 million-plus dollars (including the building/property assets of 78 parishes that the diocesan corporation claims belong financially to itself). We're just a local church. We don't have deep pockets."
It wasn't easy, he said. Not only is he losing his church building, he's losing his home.
"We're being evicted from the rectory as well," he said.
St. Simon's is involved in numerous social service projects, and Hird and his congregation members were (concerned) about diluting their energies and resources in a long conflict with the (local) Anglican hierarchy.
The final decision came on the holiest weekend of the Christian calendar.
"We made the decision on Holy Saturday, the day before Easter Sunday," said Hird. "It was a tough vote, but it was a unanimous vote."
Rather than a sense of defeat, he said, there was a relief.
"There is a sense of being free, said the priest, who has been at the church for 18 years.
His group will 'move to shelter' at the Lions Gate Christian Academy. The building will revert to the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster, after which Hird can't say what will happen.
"They won't have a congregation left behind, they'll only have a building," he said, adding: "It's expensive to run a (church building) without people."
It's been grueling, Hird said, but his faith has sustained him.
"We have to be true to what we believe, even if it's hard," he said. "I've tried to not let it distract me."
In what seems a bizarre twist to outsiders, St. Simon's congregation is no longer (part of the ACC: Anglican Church of Canada), but is associated with the Rwandan Anglican Church of Africa. To further complicate matters, their bishop - "flying bishop" in the Anglican vernacular - is Bishop T.J. Johnson, an American who is ordained by the Rwandan Church.
Though Hird acknowledges that being part of church based half a world away may seem odd, it's merely a reversal of history.
"It's just as unusual as 100 years ago when Canadian missionaries went to Africa and now they're returning the favour," he said. "You just have to think missionary."
"All of us are Rwandan," he added.
The Anglican Church is facing a dramatic schism, with the European and North American churches, which are declining in membership, becoming liberal on issues of sexuality and other flashpoints, while the Asian and African branches of Anglicanism, which are stridently conservative, are growing, in some cases exponentially.
The decision to evacuate the premises brings to a close the conflict at St. Simon's, though it is unlikely to signal an end to the issue. What happens in future with the building and what happens over the future of Anglicanism is anyone's guess.
Neale Adams, a spokesperson for the diocese of New Westminster, directed the Crier to an article on the issue on the diocesan website.
"In January, the Diocesan Council approved an order that under the Anglican Canon Law (the church's bylaws) replace the two priest [Hird and another priest on the Sunshine Coast] and local parish officials with the bishop's appointees…In March, the 40-member council again approved another motion to regain possession [of the church buildings].
"The priests involved resigned from the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) to apparently join the Anglican Church of Rwanda, Africa," the article continued. "The societies led by the two priests that continued to occupy the buildings and have agreed to leave were also incorporated in 2004. Their articles of incorporation say they are affiliated with the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), a breakaway church in the U.S."
Further information is available from www.vancouver.anglican.ca
1b) http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2441 From: David Virtue <david@VIRTUEONLINE.ORG> Subject: VirtueOnline Viewpoints - May 9, 2005 (...)IN VANCOUVER on May 31st, St. Simon's Anglican Church in Deep Cove will abandon its premises after 55 years(...)
2a) http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/050505freeze Gay-blessing freeze changes nothing, says Anglican dissenter By Frank Stirk LAST WEEK'S decision by Anglican bishops "neither to encourage nor to initiate" the blessing of same-sex couples for the next two years will do nothing to heal the rift between the Anglican Church of Canada and the global Communion over the place of homosexuality in the church, says Rev. Paul Carter. Carter, who is network leader for the breakaway Anglican Communion in Canada (ACiC), suspects that despite all the "carefully crafted phrases" contained in their public statement, the bishops have no intention of abandoning their liberal agenda. "They want their cake and to eat it," he says. "They want to be in the Communion and they want to bless same-sex unions. And the international Primates are not going to stand for that. It's either-or time." The decision basically re-states the position adopted at the church's General Synod last June. While affirming the "integrity and sanctity" of committed gay and lesbian relationships, delegates resolved to postpone a final decision on whether the church should bless those unions until the Synod's next meeting in 2007. The unanimous agreement of the 40 bishops -- hammered out at their regular spring meeting in Windsor, Ontario -- was in response to a communique issued in February by the Communion's Primates or senior leadership that essentially told their North American provinces to either repent of their actions or face expulsion. As punishment, the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church in the U.S. were asked to withdraw "voluntarily" from the international Anglican Consultative Council for three years. For all its moderate language, most observers believe that both churches in fact have no choice but to comply. For the Canadian church, that decision rests with its chief governing body, the Council of General Synod, which will meet this weekend in Mississauga, Ontario. As the Anglican Journal reported, the bishops expressed no opinion on withdrawing, stating only that while "we see the value of the opportunity for reflection and response . . . we also see risks inherent in honouring the request." Carter says it is "not a slam-dunk" that they will decide to leave voluntarily: "I mean, the Anglican Church of Canada doesn't like to own up to the fact, but that communique is suspending the Canadian Anglican church from the Communion." Also remaining defiant is New Westminster Bishop Michael Ingham, whose diocese was the first in Canada to approve a marriage-like rite of blessing same-sex couples in 2002. Although he signed the agreement along with his fellow bishops, Ingham said in his own statement that he made it "explicitly clear" to them that his signature was conditional "on the understanding that I would be governed very much by the advice of my own Synod" which meets May 13-14. "No bishop was in any doubt that I did not commit myself to a moratorium on same-sex blessings," he said. Ingham is said to interpret the phrase "neither to encourage nor to initiate" to mean that "there should be no further actions beyond those already started" -- in other words, that the seven parishes now allowed to perform the blessing ceremony cannot be told to stop. According to the Anglican Journal, one proposal the New Westminster synod will be asked to consider is a moratorium on any additional parishes being allowed to perform the blessing, pending the outcome of the 2007 General Synod. Carter says while the Primates, most of whom are orthodox in their beliefs, have not said anything publicly, it is not hard to imagine their disapproval of this sort of maneuvering at the highest levels of the Canadian church. Nor does Carter believe it will satisfy "the vast majority of ordinary people in the pews," especially once they realize that the inevitable fall-out from sanctioning same-sex blessings will be their church's expulsion from the Anglican Communion. "We now have a very stark choice," he says. "Either the Anglican Church of Canada remains part of the Communion and doesn't bless same-sex unions, or -- as they are very pointedly being told -- 'You continue in this way and you will not be part of the Communion.'" Carter is the rector of two ACiC congregations -- Immanuel Westside in Vancouver and St. Timothy's in North Vancouver.
Saturday, 7th May, 2005 No: 5767 News Canada declines request to halt same-sex blessings Number: 5767 Date: May 6, 2005
The Canadian Church has defied the Primates' request for a halt to blessings of same-sex unions, but agreed to ban any further dioceses from offering the rite.
Primates from the Global South have called the decision inadequate and a further demonstration of "North American arrogance".
The Canadian House of Bishops, who met last week, apologised for the pain caused to the Communion by Bishop Michael Ingham and the diocese of New Westminster by the introduction of same-sex blessings.
They pledged, as "fully as possible", to honour the Windsor Report, recommending Canada's Anglican Consultative Council delegates "voluntarily withdraw" from the June meeting in Nottingham. The final decision rests with Canada's Council of General Synod that meets later this week.
In a unanimous statement, the bishops said: "We commit ourselves neither to encourage nor to initiate the use of [same-sex blessing] rites until General Synod has made a decision on the matter." A spokesman for the Canadian church said that the decision "does not change the status quo".
Bishop Ingham said: "Several Primates have made it clear that the phrase means there should be no further actions beyond those already started.
"No bishop was in any doubt that I did not commit myself to a moratorium on same-sex blessings. The blessing of same-sex unions continues within the Diocese of New Westminster as provided by the regulations stipulated by our Diocesan Synod."
The statement vexed Archbishop Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone. He said: "It follows all that has been done and said until now in that it doesn't respond in anyway to the obvious spirit and clear message of what the Communion has been saying but rather ignores it."(...)
3a) http://www.anglican.ca/news/news.php?newsItem=2005-05-08_statement.news CoGS message for the church Mississauga, May 8, 2005 -- The Council of General Synod, at the conclusion of a three-day meeting in Mississauga, Ont., approved the following message to members of the Anglican Church of Canada(...)
Friday evening we received the Report of the Primate's Theological Commission (The St. Michael Report) prepared in response to the request of General Synod 2004 to consider whether the blessing of committed adult same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine. While the Commission members held divergent theological views they concluded unanimously that the blessing of committed adult same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine, but not core doctrine in the sense of being credal. (This report is available on the General Synod web site.)(...)
3b) http://www.anglican.ca/primate/ptc/smr-intro.htm The Commission has concluded that the blessing of committed same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine. (...)" The Commission recognizes that there is a range of interpretations given to the term 'doctrine', and that doctrines develop and change over time. We agree that the blessing of committed same-sex unions is not a matter of what is often referred to as a 'core' doctrine, in the sense of being credal doctrine. " The Commission does not believe that this should be a communion-breaking issue(...)
3c) http://www.anglican.ca/primate/ptc/smr.htm Report of the Primate's Theological Commission of the Anglican Church of Canada on the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions
The St. Michael Report
But as for you, teach what is consistent with sound doctrine.' (Titus 2.1)(...)
1. The Commission has concluded that the blessing of same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine. (...) The doctrine of the Church, moreover, has always been defined and expressed through its liturgies. The liturgy of blessing is no exception, since in such a liturgy the Church declares the activity of God towards the object of that blessing. The authorization of a particular form of liturgy for the blessing of same-sex couples would infer that the form and content of that liturgy is an expression of Christian doctrine as received and understood by the Anglican Church of Canada. Moreover, we believe that the blessing of same-sex unions is closely analogous to marriage. For these reasons the Commission is convinced that the blessing of same-sex unions should be treated as a matter of doctrinal importance(...)
Doctrine in the Anglican Tradition 8. Doctrine is formed whenever the Church, as the Church, makes a statement about who God is and how God acts, and insofar as the blessing of a same-sex union constitutes such a statement about God and how God is active in relation to that union, it must be considered as a doctrinal matter. It must nevertheless be recognized that the term 'doctrine' is used in a number of different ways in the Anglican tradition. Doctrine is taken to refer generally to that teaching of the Church which is founded on Scripture, interpreted in the context of tradition, with the use of reason. But a finer distinction is recognized between what may be termed 'core doctrines' and what may be termed 'adiaphora' (a distinction noted by The Windsor Report, §A.36, p. 21). Core doctrines have been understood (by the Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Solemn Declaration, and the Lambeth Quadrilateral) to mean the credal and earliest conciliar explications of Scripture with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity and the person and work of Jesus Christ. Adiaphora have been defined as matters 'upon which disagreement can be tolerated without endangering unity' (WR §A.36, p. 21). It should be noted that while adiaphora are distinguished from core doctrines, they are nevertheless doctrines. [3](...) 10. We are agreed that blessing of same-sex unions is not a matter of core doctrine in the sense of being credal.[5] The determination of this question will not hinder or impair our common affirmation of the historic creeds. The Commission acknowledges that for some on all sides of the issue it has taken on an urgency that approaches the 'confessional' status, in that they believe that the Church is being called absolutely by the Spirit to take a stand. On the contrary, the Commission does not believe that this should be a Communion-breaking issue. We do believe that this issue has become a matter of such theological significance in the Church that it must be addressed as a matter of doctrine.(....)
3d) http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/acnsarchive/acns0800/acns894.html #894 - Anglican Communion News Service (ACNS) - 19 June 1996 (9 years later) USA: COURT DISMISSES CHARGES AGAINST BISHOP RIGHTER (ENS - Episcopal News Service) A controversial legal process that threw an international spotlight on the Episcopal Church's struggles over the place of homosexuals in the ordained ministry came to an apparent conclusion on 15 May as an ecclesiastical court ruled that retired Bishop Walter Righter violated no Church law or "core doctrine" when he ordained a non-celibate homosexual man as a deacon.
Because Bishop Righter signed a statement supporting the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals and ordained the Revd Barry Stopfel, now Rector of St. George's in Maplewood, New Jersey, as a deacon in 1990, 10 bishops charged him in January, 1995, with "holding and teaching . . . doctrine contrary to that held by this Church" under the so-called 'heresy' canon, and with violating his ordination vows.
A seven-to-one majority of the bishops sitting on the Court for the Trial of a Bishop ruled, however, that there is "no core doctrine prohibiting the ordination of a non-celibate, homosexual person living in a faithful and committed sexual relationship with a person of the same sex."
Likewise, the court stated that it did not find "sufficient clarity in the Church's teaching at the present time concerning the morality of same sex relationships" to support the charge that Bishop Righter violated his ordination vow to uphold the discipline of the Church.
At several points in the decision, read before an audience of nearly 200 in the sanctuary of the Cathedral Church of St. John in Wilmington, Delaware, the bishops made it clear that they were throwing the issue back to General Convention, the Episcopal Church's chief legislative body.
And the court took pains to address what they called the pastoral concerns related to their decision, calling for "mutual respect and understanding" by those holding different opinions. It urged other Christian communions--many of whom face the same difficult issue--to realize that the decision was not establishing policy for the Church.
What is core doctrine? At issue in the case was exactly what Church doctrine is protected by the Church's canons on clergy discipline, the court stated, as the bishops in the majority took turns reading sections of a summary of their 27-page decision. The majority ruled that only "core doctrine" relating to the central salvation event of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection is automatically protected by the canon on teaching false doctrine. While other Church teachings might be enforceable under the canon, that protection has to be specifically spelled out, the majority stated.
Without clear General Convention action one way or the other, the court indicated that "this issue will not be resolved and the Church unified in its faith and practice by presentments and trials, nor by unilateral acts of bishops and their dioceses, or through the adoption of proclamations by groups of bishops or others expressing positions on the issues."
The court was also clear in limiting the scope of its decision. "We are not deciding whether life-long, committed, same gender sexual relationships are or are not a wholesome example with respect to ordination vows," the court stated. "We are not rendering an opinion on whether a bishop and diocese should or should not ordain persons living in same gender sexual relationships. Rather, we are deciding the narrow issue of whether or not under Title IV a bishop is restrained from ordaining persons living in committed same gender sexual relationships."
Sent by the Communications Department at 08:57 on Wed, Jun 19, 1996 The Anglican Communion Office, London, UK Director of Communications - Canon James M Rosenthal Tel: [44] (0)171 620-1110 Fax: [44] (0)171 620-1070
3e) http://www.swflaviamedia.com/issues_consecration.htm Issues in the Controversy Surrounding the Consecration of the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson Kathleen K. Ennis, Deacon Diocese of Southwest Florida (...)The immediate question seems to be whether intimate sexual expression between two persons of the same gender in a faithful, committed relationship is morally permissible, but that is not the central issue either. The central issue is what Core Doctrine is - and who decides what Core Doctrine is. Certainly not everything in the Bible is Core Doctrine(...)In the trial of Bishop Walter Righter in the mid-nineties, the Court of Bishops differentiated between permissible variety in theological understanding and Core Doctrine. The trial court stated that all doctrine is not Core Doctrine: We are not a confessional church which has carefully articulated and identified the entire scope of its teaching and the disciplinary consequences for the violation of its teaching.1 Core Doctrine, on the other hand is understood as of the essence of Christianity and necessary for salvation, and is therefore binding on all who are baptized. Core Doctrine, therefore, is unchangeable.2 Teachings that are not Core Doctrine can change. We can tolerate different views regarding their truth and relevance to our lives and we can continue to worship together with respect for each other's opinions. We remember Elizabeth I's caveat "Let us not make windows into men's souls" and we take comfort in the knowledge that Anglicans have never been required to walk together in absolute theological lockstep. But if a teaching is Core Doctrine, the Church cannot tolerate differing opinions - Core Doctrine is, by definition, essential to the Christian faith as received by this communion. This appears to be why the current controversy seems to be resisting resolution. The Via Media groups and the majority of the American Church see this issue as traditional teaching that is not Core Doctrine and is subject to new understandings of science and human sexuality. They are repeatedly saying that we can agree to disagree on this issue and continue in our common life together. The American Anglican Council and the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, on the other hand, see this issue as Core Doctrine, calling themselves "orthodox" Christians (and all others, by implication, "heterodox"). They refuse the ministry and oversight of bishops who supported the Robinson consecration and, if internal documents are to be believed, they wish to replace the ECUSA, which they charge with "rejection of the historic Christian faith."3(...)
3f) http://wordalone.org/archives/articles_by_title/stanton.htm Provided by the court through ENS. Put into HTML format by Louie Crew, lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu. Visit Louie Crew's Anglican Pages, http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/rel.html. Summary of the Decision in the Righter Trial(...)
Summary of Dissenting Opinion
This is a summary of the opinion of Andrew Fairfield, Bishop of North Dakota, who dissented from the majority opinion.
The minority opinion differs from the majority in the basic definition of doctrine. The majority would limit the term "doctrine" to the original, core gospel preaching, or kerygma. This minority opinion sees doctrine more broadly as including the intentionally Scripture-based and Prayer Book-based teaching of the church about Christian faith and life. What the majority describes as "doctrinal teachings" outside of doctrine as that term is used in Title IV, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Book of Common Prayer, this minority opinion includes within the use of the term "doctrine."(...)
3g) http://www.episcopalian.org/cclec/ Today, there are two religions in the Episcopal Church. One remains faithful to the biblical truth and received teachings of the Church, while the other rejects them.
The Court for the Trial of Bishop Walter Righter has spoken. On May 15, 1996, the majority of the court held that the Episcopal Church has no "Core Doctrine" in the area of human sexuality; therefore neither the doctrine nor the discipline of the Church has been violated by Bishop Righter.
The presenter bishops have issued a statement that states that they "decry this Opinion as deeply flawed and erroneous. The Court's disclaimer not withstanding, its decision has swept away two millennia of Christian teaching regarding God's purposes in creation, the nature and meaning of Christian marriage and the family, the discipleship in relation to sexuality to which we are called as followers of Jesus, and the paradigm of the Church as Bride and Christ as Bridegroom. The distinction of "Core Doctrine" from other "doctrinal teaching" is without precedent or foundation in the Book of Common Prayer, the Resolutions of General Convention, or the Canons of the Church. The very term. "Core Doctrine," is a specious invention of the Court."(...)
3h) http://www.anglican.ca/primate/tpo/tpo07.html REPORT OF THE PRIMATE'S TASK FORCE FOR THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS CONCERNING ADEQUATE/ALTERNATIVE EPISCOPAL OVERSIGHT FOR DISSENTING MINORITIES Appendix F In Service of Communion: the Final Report of The General Synod Task Force on Jurisdiction to The Council of General Synod and The Canadian House of Bishops February 2002 (over 2 years later) (...) DOCTRINE AND DISCIPLINE, TRADITION ETHICS AND MORALITY When the Church speaks of "doctrine" in its most precise sense, what is meant by this is that body of agreed belief concerning the nature of God, the nature of humanity, the nature of God's redemption of humanity in Jesus Christ, and the nature of humanity's response to God's redemption. The source of doctrine thus defined is the historical reflection of the Church upon the witness of the canonical scriptures, illuminated by the witness of the Holy Spirit's activity in reason and tradition. "Doctrine" thus defined, belongs to the "Church Universal" and is not the property of any particular denomination with the "Church". Consequently, while we may affirm and from time to time interpret "Doctrine", we may not alter it or add to it.[15]This, in the terminology of the "Righter" decision is what is meant by "core doctrine" - that which the Church affirms as being encompassed and embodied in the creeds and expressed in our offering of worship(...) The Most Rev. David Crawley The Rev. Canon Dr. Kim Murray (Chair) The Most Rev. Arthur Peters (until December 31, 2001) The Hon. Ronald Stevenson Dr. Stephen Toope
4a) http://www.anglican.ca/news/news.php?newsItem=2005-05-07_r.news Canadians to attend but not participate in meeting of Anglican Consultative Council
4b) http://anglicanjournal.com//extra/news.html?newsItem=2005-05-07_xx.news Canadians will not 'participate fully' in international meeting Members will still attend (...)"I'm pleased that we're going. I thought I was hearing that we should not go at all," said Sue Moxley, suffragan bishop of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and the Canadian church's episcopal (bishop) delegate to the ACC. (...)
Bishop Moxley and Mr. Box said, however, that they hoped CoGS would determine what it means not to participate fully in the meeting. "It keeps us outside the decision-making process obviously. Frankly it sounds strange to say 'go but don't participate' so I hope there will be some clarification," said Mr. Box(...)
Bishop Ingham also expressed concern that acceding to the primates' request could open the floodgates to future demands. "It won't be the last request that will be made of us. There will be further requests to repent, to turn our backs on gays and lesbians," he said. He urged members of CoGS to assume the "prophetic role" he said God has set out for the Canadian church to play(...)
Next Ed-Mail Same-sex Blessings |