“Above all, let’s get on with the normal work of being the church,” he stated on Nov. 23 in a memorandum sent to his 125 active clergy.
His letter followed the announcement by a breakaway group, the Anglican Network, announcing in Burlington, Ontario, that it was setting up a parallel Church structure in Canada, but attempting to maintain Anglican ties through a South American Province of the Anglican Communion.
Bishop Ingham said the announcement was not surprising, for there have been signs of today’s developments for years.
At least ten years ago some groups have been laying the groundwork for separation from their national Anglican Churches, stating their intention to be in communion only with those who held their view of human sexuality, the bishop said.
For the groups to attempt now to lay blame for their departure on the Diocese of New Westminster’s actions in 2002 or the US Episcopal Church’s decisions in 2003 is “a denial of history and an avoidance of responsibility.”
“The seeds of this breakaway movement were laid long before same sex blessings were authorized in [the Diocese of] New Westminster or a partnered gay bishop was elected in New Hampshire.”
“Every effort has been made, both in New Westminister [diocese] and across the Anglican Church of Canada, to provide space for genuine differences of conviction on non-essential matters of faith,” said Bishop Ingham.
“We have recognized the difficult place in which many of those of minority opinion find themselves--and there are many minorities, not just one—and have sought to foster mutual respect and mutual support,” he said.
“The vast majority of conservative and traditional Anglicans in Canada understand and accept this, and will stay with their church. This is not a ‘conservative breakaway.’ It is a decision to leave by those who feel uncomfortable with reasonable accommodation within the body of Christ.”
“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,” he insisted. He advised his clergy to emphasize in their preaching and leadership the church’s mission of outreach to the community and care of parishioners—and not church “politics.”
“Challenge the false stereotypes that foster polarization,” he said, “the “heartless conservative” or the “unbiblical liberal.’ “
“Give thanks that our church, for all its messiness, is honestly and openly facing issues some other bodies cannot,” he advised.
“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.”
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.
.
3 comments:
Bishop Jefferts-Schori's success in the American debate should prove useful to Bishop Ingham:
"if all sides in the current debate over sexuality and Scripture could 'hold their truths more lightly,' they might yet find a way forward."
Can't figure out, though, what Bishop Schori has held lightly.
Perhaps Bishop Ingham can demonstrate what that means and have greater success than his southern neighbors.
"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."
And what provision has been made to provide space for those who disagree on essential matters of faith, because they are the ones who looking to the Southern Cone.
"if all sides in the current debate over sexuality and Scripture could 'hold their truths more lightly,' they might yet find a way forward."
And which "truths" are the revisionists willing to hold more lightly, Susan? Inclusive theology? the centrality of your Baptismal covenant? The "rightness" of SSB?
The Pilgrim
Coming from a fundamentalist protestant background into Anglicanism, I find the selective fundamentalism of breakaways interesting. Having been a part of several breakaway Anglican groups about twenty years ago, I believe that the Episcopalians who are setting up their own "confederacy" will soon find that the problem with splinter groups (which is what they are and not part of some foreign jurisdiction) is that rebellion once tasted is difficult to put back in the refrigerator. Splinters, splinter. Rebellion fosters rebellion. If you consider all of the divergent points of Anglicanism that have been able to be held together under the Episcopal structure, the effective removal of the structure will simply enable their constituencies to unravel. True wisdom still resides in the words: in essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity, in all things charity.
Post a Comment