Louie Crew, Deputy from the Diocese of Newark, posted this memorandum from Bishop Michael Ingham to the clergy of the Diocese of New Westminster in British Columbia, Canada, on the House of Bishops/Deputies Listserv website. I believe that the memorandum is worthy of being posted in its entirety, as a model of pastoral guidance from a bishop to the priests who serve under him.
Shared with the permission of Bishop Michael Ingham.
Best wishes.
Louie Crew
Deputy from the Diocese of Newark
Here begins the memorandum:
Diocese of New Westminster
Anglican Church of Canada
The Right Reverend Michael Ingham, Bishop
Memorandum
To: All Diocesan Clergy
From: Bishop Michael Ingham
Date: November 23, 2007
Subject: Individuals and Groups Leaving the Anglican Church of Canada
Dear Friends in Christ:
By now you will have heard the announcement from Burlington, Ontario, by the Essentials Network of a formal separation from the Canadian Church. You may well be asked about it this on Sunday and for some time to come, so I thought I would offer you my own preliminary reflections on what should be our principal responses.
First, this development, while not unexpected (the signs have been there for several years, see below) is both unwelcome and unnecessary. Unwelcome because it violates both the ancient traditions of our church and also the consistent urgings of Scripture for unity among Christians. Unnecessary because no Canadian Anglican is being compelled to act against their conscience in matters of doctrine or ethics, and so there is no need for 'safety' from ecclesiastical oppression.
Second, Anglicans in this country do not want to see their church at war with itself. The prospect of costly and bitter litigation will rightly be regarded as a waste of the church's precious resources given for mission. Further, our efforts at evangelism and outreach will be hampered by the media's coverage of our organization in conflict. People searching for a spiritual home will be wary of involving themselves in a place of turmoil. Sadly, these consequences will be increased by the Network's announcement.
Third, it has been the cry of every breakaway group that "we haven't left them - they've left us." Apart from the tiredness of the cliché, it is an attempt to avoid responsibility for personal choices. Every effort has been made, both in New Westminster and across the Anglican Church of Canada, to provide space for genuine differences of conviction on non-essential matters of faith. We have recognized the difficult place in which those of minority opinion find themselves (and there are several minorities, not just one) and have sought to foster mutual respect and mutual support. The vast majority of conservative and traditional Anglicans in Canada understand and accept this, and will stay with their church. This is not, therefore, a conservative breakaway. It is a decision to leave by those who feel uncomfortable with reasonable accommodation within the Body of Christ.
Fourth, the Network blames the church for its own decisions. Let us remember a brief chronology. It was ten years ago in 1997 that we first heard the term 'global south.' This was from the Kuala Lumpur meeting of certain bishops prior to the Lambeth Conference the following year. They issued the "Second Trumpet From the South" stating their intention to be in communion only with those who held their view of human sexuality. At the 1998 Lambeth Conference a well financed and organized lobby succeeded in raising this position to the level of Resolution 1:10, effectively marginalizing a careful statement prepared during the Conference by a broad spectrum of bishops.
We saw the development in North America of groups called the "Anglican Mission in America" and the "American Anglican Council" and the irregular and provocative consecrations, in Singapore in 2000 and Denver in 2001, of 'missionary' bishops to serve in the United States against the wishes of the Episcopal Church. During this time, congregations in the US and Canada were being urged by these groups to withhold financial contributions from the church.
Thus the seeds of this breakaway movement were laid long before same-sex blessings were authorized in New Westminster or a partnered gay bishop was elected in New Hampshire. The attempt now to lay blame for this development on events that took place in our diocese in 2002 and in the US in 2003 is in my view both a denial of history and an avoidance of responsibility.
Lastly, I think we need to respond to the Network's announcement in several ways.
1.
Pray for the unity of Christians, for a spirit of charity towards those with whom we may disagree, and for God's forgiveness of our mutual failure to honour the prayer of Christ in St. John's Gospel "that they may be one."
2.
Give particular support to those conservative and traditional Christians who remain with their church and grieve the departure of friends.
3.
Teach our members about the genius of Anglicanism and its balance of Scripture, reason and tradition within the boundaries of common prayer.
4.
Emphasize in our preaching and leadership the centrality of mission and its priority over ecclesiastical politics.
5.
Challenge the false stereotypes that foster polarization - e.g. the 'heartless conservative' or the 'unbiblical liberal.'
6.
Give thanks that our church, for all its messiness, is honestly and openly facing issues some other bodies cannot.
7.
Press forward in ministry and evangelism at the local level.
8.
Deepen our study and immersion in Scripture. Place ourselves under the authority of the Christ it reveals. Avoid both an empty relativism and a harsh literalism.
9.
Encourage both local media and the non-churchgoing public to understand the deeper roots of this development.
10.
Take the 'long view' - i.e. remember the consistent triumph of the Gospel over the historic fragmentation of the church, and the persistence of faith through the failures of human discipleship.
Please remember our diocesan and national leaders in your prayers too. And above all, let's get on with the normal work of being the church.
Kindest regards,
The Right Reverend Michael Ingham
Bishop
Every effort has been made, both in New Westminster and across the Anglican Church of Canada, to provide space for genuine differences of conviction on non-essential matters of faith.
ReplyDeleteThe judgement as to what is or is not an essential matter of faith is, of course, precisely the problem. As C.S. Lewis commented in the introduction to Mere Christianity, one of the differences between Christians is the relative importance of their differences.
"let's get on with the normal work of being the church."
ReplyDeleteWhat a novel idea!
...one of the differences between Christians is the relative importance of their differences.
ReplyDeleteTim, that's true.
Do you think that same-sexuality is an essential matter of faith? Of course, you don't have to answer that, unless you want to.
Susan, I liked the ending, too.
ReplyDeleteWow- this is something to read. God help us all.
ReplyDeleteFran, I'm so pleased with this letter. The other Canadian bishops should copy it, change the signature, and pass it around to their clergy. ;o)
ReplyDeleteMimi, the important issue is not whether or not I think it is an essential matter of the faith; I'm not one of the ones leaving the church over it.
ReplyDeleteIn 1994 a national conference of Canadian Anglicans meeting in Montreal approved a statement called 'The Montreal Declaration of Anglican Essentials'. One of the articles of that statement affirms heterosexual marriage and speaks against gay unions. The conference was attended by 700 people, all of whom paid their own way to get there. This is the constituency which is now making up the Anglican Network in Canada.
All I'm saying is that Bishop Ingham's letter presupposes agreement on what is or is not a non-essential matter of faith - an agreement which he knows full well is not there.
Incidentally, a friend of mine is the rector of one of the dissenting parishes in Bishop Ingham's diocese. He tells me that some years ago Bishop Ingham announced that he would be coming to that parish on Easter Sunday to preside and preach. In his sermon he apparently said that it does not matter whether or not Jesus' body remained in the tomb on Easter Sunday.
I have no hesitation in affirming that I do regard the bodily resurrection of Jesus as an essential matter of faith.
P.S.: My own bishop, Victoria Matthews, issued a pastoral letter this Sunday. I've posted it on my blog here.
ReplyDeleteI have no hesitation in affirming that I do regard the bodily resurrection of Jesus as an essential matter of faith.
ReplyDeleteTim, last things first. I fully agree with your statement. I believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Does that surprise you? It should not, because my beliefs are quite orthodox.
As to what Bishop Ingham is supposed to have said at your friend's church that Easter day, I will not address that. I was not there, and neither were you. He may well have said it, but I won't pursue that line of discussion.
What right did the group that met in 1994 have to declare what was essential to the faith for the whole of the Anglican Church in Canada? Wouldn't a matter like that be addressed by the General Synod?
You say:
All I'm saying is that Bishop Ingham's letter presupposes agreement on what is or is not a non-essential matter of faith - an agreement which he knows full well is not there.
I don't see that the bishop presupposes any such thing. He is quite open in admitting that there are disagreements with the church. He does not paper over them.
If the folks in the Network believe that condemnation of same-sexuality is an essential of the faith, then I suppose that they must go. May they go with God.
You may believe that same-sexuality is right or you may believe that it is sinful, but to view an opinion on one side or the other as an essential of the faith, seems to me to be a very long stretch.
I will now go read your bishop's letter.
I agree with you - which is why I'm still here.
ReplyDeleteThe Essentials 94 conference was laying out what they believed were the essentials of Anglican Christianity. They were not pretending to legislate for the church as a whole; they were setting out a position which they were offering to the church (obviously they were unsuccessful!).
All I am saying is that, whether I happen to like it or not, there is a sizeable constituancy in the church who think that this is an essential matter of faith. I feel the same when I hear people say 'This is not a communion-dividing issue'. Well, sorry, but it obviously is a communion-dividing issue! It would be more accurate to say 'We don't think this should be a communion dividing issue' - a point of view, by the way, which I personally would agree with.
Lastly, you were right to gently wrap me over the knuckles about passing on that piece of gossip about Bishop Michael's Easter sermon. It was gossip, and I was wrong to do so. My apologies.
Oh - and by the way, no, I was not surprised to hear you affirm your belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus as an essential of the faith. I've never taken you to be anything other than a thoroughly orthodox Anglican, Grandmère Mimi!
Tim, for what it's worth, I believe that the schism has already happened. Only formal steps remain to be taken. I'm sorry about that. I'm willing to live with folks who disagree with me about the morality of same-sexuality, and you are, too.
ReplyDeleteOthers are not willing to share the table. We must wish them Godspeed, because they do believe that the issue is a communion-breaker, and they will go.
Mimi- I agree and think the letter speaks volumes.
ReplyDeleteWe have our own issues in my church and this one has yet to hit the surface, if it ever will in my lifetime. I am not saying that is good- just saying!
It is all sad to me- Jesus came to bring life and to unite, not divide.