Background
to the Canadian decision
Posted
Sunday, 16 June 2002
Letter from Ed Hird, Rector of St. Simons’ North Vancouver
15 June 2002Dear friends in Christ,
This historic day of Saturday June 15th brought both bad news and good news.
The bad news was that the Synod of New Westminster tragically chose to cut itself off from the Anglican Communion by schismatically approving the blessing of same-sex unions. The good news is that the orthodox/conservative Anglicans stood faithfully for the gospel both throughout the debate and as they quietly withdrew from the synod to go to St. Martin's Church, North Vancouver for communion, lunch, and strategizing. As people from around 25% of the parishes exited the Synod gymnasium, another 20% of the synod stood silently in support for those exiting. The nine parishes withdrawing who have already taken a vote at parish council or vestry level represent 23% of the parishioners in our diocese.
We anticipate more than one wave of withdrawals from the Synod by parishes and individuals as the weeks unfold.Our clear aim as the Anglican Communion in New Westminster in withdrawing from Synod was in order to appeal to the Canadian Anglican House of Bishops, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the 38 International Primates to intervene with Alternative Episcopal Oversight in line with Lambeth Motion 3.6b. In contrast to the schismatic action of our synod, we choose to remain as part of the diocese of New Westminster, the Anglican Church of Canada and the worldwide Anglican Communion. Initial responses overseas are most encouraging with five Anglican Primates going on record (plus two retired Primates) that they see the Synod approval of same-sex blessings as breaking communion.
Please help spread the word of the need for prompt prayer and action, so that the Anglican Church worldwide may wake up from its tragic slumber
Yours in Christ's victory,
Ed Hird+http://www3.telus.net/st_simons/
Background and Commentary on the Appeal to the Archbishops
The Diocese of New Westminster, within the Anglican Church of Canada, is in a crisis because of actions by the Bishop, Michael Ingham in giving his consent to blessing of same-sex unions within the Diocese of New Westminster. This decision will not just affect the Diocese, but will present major consequences for the world-wide Anglican Communion. The following is a brief statement of the nature and development of the crisis and an urgent appeal for international assistance according to the responsibilities given to the Primates' Committee by Resolution III 6 b, for Episcopal 'intervention in cases of exceptional emergency which are incapable of internal resolution within Provinces.' (Lambeth 98 Resolution III. 6. b)
The Diocese of New Westminster, after several years of controversy, dialogue, and lobbying regarding the blessing of homosexual unions finds itself in irresoluble division on the issue. Conservatives have attempted to recall the Diocese to the Scriptural teachings and traditions of the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as reaffirmed clearly in the Lambeth 1998 meeting of Bishops. Revisionists, with the full support of the Bishop and Diocesan resources, have obtained bare majorities for their cause in the past two Synods, the largest margin being 56.5%. The Bishop withheld his consent to wait for a larger consensus, which he specified as 60%, while also counseling the conservatives to adjust to their minority status and to count on his provision of fair treatment.
As Synod approached, and with controversial Motions in place regarding homosexual blessings and Alternative Episcopal Oversight (Appendix I), conservative clergy sought the counsel of Canadian Bishops, who advised discussing the provision of Alternative Episcopal Oversight with our Metropolitan, Archbishop David Crawley. A Petition was prepared setting out our case. On the same day Bishop Michael presented 'A Proposal To Address Pastoral Needs Within the Diocese of New Westminster' to a meeting with conservative clergy which conveyed the Bishop's decision to give consent to a rite for the blessing of homosexual unions, to operate at the local option of parishes and their incumbents. He also offered a conscience clause to protect laity and clergy who opposed this innovation, and a temporary Episcopal Visitor under his appointment and authority with functions limited to the provision of pastoral care to those parishes and clergy who desired and voted for it. The Bishop suggested that his proposal would end the need for Synod to address the controversial motions, both for homosexual blessings and Alternative Episcopal Oversight. Clergy who could not comply with the new regime were warned in the Bishop's proposal that they could lose their licenses. The conservative clergy were required by the Bishop to respond by 6 June.
Conservative clergy and laity concluded that this innovation was so offensive to Scripture and Anglican tradition as to be beyond the remedy of a conscience clause. Also, they found the minimalist nature of the Bishop's proposed Episcopal Visitor to hold no attraction. Accordingly they responded to the Bishop in a meeting on 6 June where their opposition was explained again, together with their resolve to remain loyally within the Anglican Communion according to the vows they had undertaken. They also advised the Bishop that they found his threat to remove licenses unacceptable and that if he gave his consent to the implementation of rites for homosexual unions they would find themselves in a state of impaired communion, being forced to appeal to Anglican Primates for external Episcopal intervention under Lambeth 98 Resolution III. 6. b.
The Bishop gave no accommodation in the meeting but rather treated the conservative clergy as mutinous, threatened they would all lose their licenses if they persisted, and advised that he would implement the homosexual rite even failing the previously specified 60% Synod majority. Indeed, even before awaiting the response from the clergy he had required by 6 June, the Bishop had on 4 June written to all Synod delegates outlining his proposal of 23 May, suggesting this was an acceptable means of surmounting the Diocesan impasse and dispensing with the controversial resolutions, while warning against other unofficial proposals calling for the partition of the diocese along theological lines. Refusing to countenance what he termed 'the balkanization of the diocese,' or 'the weakening of the episcopate in Canada,' the Bishop claimed to have discussed his proposal 'with both the Primate [Michael Peers] and the Metropolitan, [David Crawley] and have their support in bringing it forward.'
In light of the impasse in this Diocese, and the desire of its many conservative laity, priests, and parishes to remain as loyal members of the Anglican Communion, subscribing fully to the tenets of our Scriptural teaching and Episcopal tradition, we have now petitioned faithful and Godly Primates to assist us in our hour of need according to the pattern set out in Lambeth 98 Resolution III. 6. b. Failing such remedy, we are likely to see our Chinese Parishes and others join a new Anglican Mission in Canada.
Yours in Christ
Professor James I Packer
Dr George Egerton
See also the statement issued by ACL President Zac Veron on Monday, 17 June 2002.
Click here for our Home page www.acl.asn.au