Never let it be said that Anglican synods are dry, humourless affairs.
This from the Diocese of Toronto.
I might add an incredulous: “There are clergy with convictions in the diocese?”
Or, “Because we are driving all who disagree out!”
Or, “Tell that to Jake Worley“.
Received via email:
Bishop Charlie Masters has just welcomed Bishop Wm. Anderson and his wife Margaret into the Anglican Network in Canada.
They continue to reside in Terrace, in Northern British Columbia. Bishop Bill has recently retired as Bishop of Caledonia. He has relinquished the exercise of ministry in the Anglican Church of Canada as of November 16, 2017.
As a retired bishop in ANiC, he will be given a General Permission from Bishop Charlie to exercise all the priestly functions such as preaching, teaching, and celebrating communion.
Bishop Charlie stated, “We are delighted to welcome such a godly orthodox bishop into our midst. His partnership in the Gospel, his supportive friendship, and his many years of experience in Christian service, will be a blessing to the future of the Anglican Network.”
This is excellent news for both ANiC and bishop Anderson.
I interviewed the bishop in 2010 and in that interview, he was still a little optimistic for the ACoC’s future:
At the same time, God has raised up some Godly new bishops in the church – and I don’t use that phrase lightly. They are really trying to be faithful and to do the right thing. What will happen? I don’t know.
I don’t know whether the shabby treatment that Rev. Jake Worley received at the hands of Anglican adherents of dogmatic liberal tolerance has evaporated that optimism but, considering this letter from bishop Anderson to archbishop Privett, the person who fired Worley, it seems likely. Another fine example of the all-inclusive Anglican Church of Canada hard at work driving out the last few real Christians from its midst:
Dear John;
I am writing to you further to the matter of the PHOB’s consideration of whether to confirm the Rev. Jake Worley as Bishop of Caledonia and the subsequent decision to withhold consent of his election.
As I reviewed the letter to Jake and the subsequent press release that you issued, I could not help but be so deeply disappointed in both the process and the way this matter came to a close.
Following a process in which Jake was subjected to a series of questions crafted by two chancellors of the church working behind the scenes, and in which the bishops made little direct contribution to the conversation, it became clear that both the questions and Jake’s responses were being analysed by the chancellors, and the national chancellor in particular. At no point was it suggested that Jake might avail himself of legal counsel.
The fact that the PHOB met and voted on May 12th, and waited until Monday the 15th to advise Jake by mail and a press release is shameful beyond words. It speaks to a process that was clearly politicized and crafted to place both he and the diocese at a disadvantage.
The reasoning outlined in the press release was dishonest, and deceitful for it alleged a position of which Jake was not directly and specifically asked. It also mischaracterized his affirmation of the oaths of our Church which he not only took, but clearly articulated his intention to honour.
As I noted in my previous letter to you, I am astounded at the line of reasoning that Chancellors McAdams and Jones set forth citing Resolution 72 of Lambeth 1988 as outlining the general teaching of the Church, in support of withholding consent of Jake as Bishop. By that standard most of the current bishops of the PHOB should not have been confirmed because of their public positions contrary to Lambeth 1:10. And as you know, notwithstanding that I personally registered my non-consent in those cases, not once were my objections given any due consideration, let alone the type of court on enquiry that Jake has been made to endure.
John, when I met with you a year ago to discuss my plans for retirement, I was given to understand that you would honour the canons of the Church and would ensure that the diocese would be able to elect their next bishop without political interference. My trust continued in spite of when the attempt to elect a coadjutor bishop went astray, in spite of my having cleared the process and the wording of the canon with you and the provincial chancellor. I expected that, given the care that was taken in convening the electoral synod, by having nominees provide detailed CV’s a month in advance, and in following the common practice in our province of having those details shared with the bishops, that the mind of the synod would be honoured and respected.
I cannot tell you how many times I have heard bishops say, particularly when they faced motions from within their synods to act contrary to Lambeth 1:10, that they had to concur because of the sanctity in which we hold a synod’s decisions.
And yet in this instance, no effort has been made to do anything other than to ignore the electoral synod, and to mischaracterize events around Jake’s ministry. I appreciate that the House must exercise due diligence. But as I said last week, it deeply troubles me that such straining at gnats with Jake whilst ignoring the broader damage and the blatant disregard of the canons and discipline of our Church by many of our episcopal colleagues is, to say the least, something I doubt Our Lord would look on with approval.
I am saddened beyond words, and my trust in the honour and spiritual integrity of the PHOB is irrevocably broken.
+William
The Rt. Rev. Wm. Anderson
(Retired)
Michael Bird, having resigned as Bishop of the Diocese of Niagara, has just completed his final bishop’s charge.
In the charge, he laments the anxieties thrust upon him by dissenting Anglicans immediately following his consecration – during which he processed to the strains of the Beatles’ “All You Need is Love”, an inverse harbinger of things to come – and congratulates himself and the diocese on “having stood our ground”, including ejecting the dissenters from their buildings, seizing, and in some cases selling the buildings and successfully prosecuting a string of lawsuits. And no one in the diocese had to pay any legal fees!
Where did the money come from? Selling St. Hilda’s property and rectory for $2,650,000 probably helped.
From here:
In the days preceding this celebration, local and national newspapers and media spoke of the conflict and division in the life of the Anglican Church. The Toronto Star had a running commentary on the status of three breakaway parishes in our diocese. On February 20, the headlines read as follows: “Breakaway Anglicans asked to hand over keys.” On February 28, it was announced that “Talks with dissident Anglican parishes end,” and then on March 3, the day after my installation, a picture appeared in newspapers across the country with the caption reading: “A House of worship divided.”
The Toronto Star article went on to say that: “For Niagara Bishop Michael Bird, the court case opened on his first official day in office – he spent the day in court and talking to reporters outside – [this issue] threatens to dominate his entire time in office.”
If this were not enough, 2008 was the year that the economy crashed or at the very least took a dramatic down turn. With this loss of investment money, mounting court and legal fees and a multi-million-dollar debt we had some major and painful financial decisions to make. One of the things that I am most grateful for, as we gather here today, is that we find ourselves in a sound financial position and that having stood our ground and brought our legal proceedings to a successful conclusion, not one cent of those court costs was paid for out of the collection plates of our parishes.
In a extraordinarily hypocritical statement – even for an ACoC archbishop – John Privett still refuses to reveal why Rev Jacob Worley was fired, hinting that to do so would be to reveal something “personal” – a hint that is dripping with the innuendo of a dark and shameful secret – about Worley. I suspect it would actually reveal something personal about the bishops who made the decision, namely that there are none whose intolerance is as venomous as that of those who claim to be standard bearers of tolerance.
He goes on to note that the decision was not “precipitous”, nor was it made by Privett alone. To cap this sanctimonious tripe, he declares that those making the decision were acting as “compassionately as possible”. There is no compassion as heartwarming as Anglican compassion, a compassion that deprives a person and his family of his livelihood, home and country of residence and refuses to state why.
In a telephone interview with the Anglican Journal, Privett stated that he made the decision, as he has episcopal authority during a vacancy, but that he “did not act alone,” rather in consultation with the diocesan leadership. Privett declined to speak further about the reasons behind the termination, saying, “I don’t think it’s appropriate to speak about personal matters. Those are confidential.
“What I can say, though, is that it was not precipitous. I thought about it carefully, I discussed it with others, and I do believe the decision was in the best interests of both the diocese and the Worley family.”
Privett says the diocese is “looking into” the details of Worley’s immigration status, as they were unaware of the details of his residency before making their decision.“I can say, we don’t want to create hardship for the Worley family, so we’re trying to act as compassionately as possible.”
When I was in Israel a few year ago, I visited the garden tomb, a place that may have temporarily housed Jesus’ body after the crucifixion.
The garden was managed by Messianic Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah. As a result, Jesus’ tomb had this plaque inside:
Here is one of the guides who made the most of his time talking to us by telling us that Jesus is his risen Lord:
Now, in a rather odd move, the Anglican Church of Canada has before it a motion to remove from the prayer book a prayer for the salvation of the Jews. To me it seems a thoroughly unloving – in a way almost anti-Semitic – thing to do. If Jesus is the only way to the Father, the only means of our redemption, the only way ridding ourselves of sin and avoiding judgement and hell, then to refuse to pray for the eyes of a people to be opened to this seems, at the very least, callous, if not downright sinister.
Needless to say, the motion is being proposed after “substantial years-long theological reflection and dialogue” and in the interests of “interfaith relationships’, neither of which ever lead to anything useful.
I’m almost tempted to conclude that the Anglican Church of Canada no longer believes that Jesus is the only way to the Father; come to think of it, the ACoC no longer believes there even is a “Father”, only an impersonal “Creator”.
Here is the prayer that is to be expunged:
O God, who didst choose Israel to be thine inheritance: Look, we beseech thee, upon thine ancient people; open their hearts that they may see and confess the Lord Jesus to be thy Son and their true Messiah, and, believing, they may have life through his Name. Take away all pride and prejudice in us that may hinder their understanding of the Gospel, and hasten the time when all Israel shall be saved; through the merits of the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Of particular interest to me is the section beginning at 7:32. I wonder who the blogger could be?
The west has developed a degree of immunity to the truth of the Christian message. As St. Paul said 2000 years ago, ”the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing”, a diagnosis that is even more apposite today.
For those few secularists who are not deterred by the apparent foolishness of the cross, the Church of England, under the guidance of Justin Welby, has laboured tirelessly to come up with something contemporary to deter them, an idea that sets a new standard for objective stupidity, one so intrinsically daft that it will be centuries before the church manages to concoct anything more ridiculous. Boys in tiaras and high heels.
From here:
Boys should be free to choose to wear a tutu, tiara or heels, and girls to wear toolbelts and superhero capes, the Church of England has said in new guidance issued to its schools.
The advice also calls on teachers to avoid using labels that might alienate children’s behaviour “just because it does not conform to gender stereotypes”.
The updated guidance for its 4,700 schools, titled Valuing All God’s Children [pdf], follows advice issued three years ago that covered homophobic bullying. It has now been expanded to include transphobic and biphobic bullying.
The church advises that nursery and primary school should be a time of “creative exploration”, and that pupils should feel free to “try out the many cloaks of identity” and “explore the possibilities of who they might be without judgment or derision”.
In the guidance, the archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, warns that homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying causes “profound damage leading to higher levels of mental health disorders, self-harm, depression and suicide”.
The advice adds: “Pupils need to be able to play with the many cloaks of identity (sometimes quite literally with the dressing-up box). Children should be at liberty to explore the possibilities of who they might be without judgement or derision.
“For example, a child may choose the tutu, princess’s tiara and heels and/or the fireman’s helmet, toolbelt and superhero cloak without expectation or comment.”
They are running out of money.
The end is nigh. It must be, because no organisation, let alone church, can possibly survive if it finds itself groping for answers to questions like: “Why do we exist?” and “What is our purpose?”
All the shiny things adorning the beloved primate are coming soon to a pawn shop near you.
From here:
The likelihood that the church’s revenue will stagnate in coming years means it might want to think carefully about its priorities, Fraser Lawton, bishop of the diocese of Athabasca and a member of the financial management committee, said in a presentation to Council of General Synod (CoGS) Saturday, November 11.
“The trends as we go forward, looking ahead over a number of years, suggest that we need to be mindful of what appears to be a probability of declining income,” Lawton said. “It might be wise for us to think about what are the critical things…Why do we exist as General Synod? What is our purpose, what is the priority in terms of funding?”
More than 90% of General Synod’s net income comes from the dioceses, Lawton said, but almost all of them are “having some conversations” about their own financial future. Given this, he said, “if everything continues as is, the day is going to come when we’re going to have to make some very hard decisions.”
There aren’t many ways that lead to a priest being fired from the Anglican Church of Canada; in fact, providing one isn’t too enthusiastic about one’s faith, it is rather difficult. Criminal activity such as embezzlement and paederasty tend – if found out – to be frowned upon, as is trying to murder a parishioner. On the other hand, disbelief in Biblical principles and spreading that disbelief is the bedrock upon which Canadian Anglicanism rests: the less a priest believes, the more secure his job.
Flouting the wishes of the Anglican Synod, far from being a cause for censure or termination is hailed joyously as prophetic. Providing it is liberal flouting – just look at the antics of Bird, Chapman et al. following the last Anglican synod..
Nevertheless, Rev Jacob Worley has been fired. No reason was given but it’s difficult not to suspect it is because he is that most rare clerical specimen, now almost extinct in the Anglican Church of Canada, a genuine Christian.
The writing was on the wall for Worley since it wasn’t too long ago that his election as bishop was overturned on a technicality.
Archbishop Privett did the firing without explanation, not that one is needed since it seems fairly clear that he bent to the will of the ecclesiastical zeitgeist, and behaved in the disgusting manner we have come to expect of Anglican Archbishops in Canada. The diocese and archbishop have lived down to my modest expectations in every way.
Coincidentally, Worley opposes same-sex marriage. That could have nothing to do with it, surely.
Read it all at the Anglican Planet:
THE REV. JACOB WORLEY was told by Archbishop John Privett in a phone call and a letter received Friday, Nov. 10 that Worley’s employment as a priest in the Diocese of Caledonia is being terminated. Worley says that when he asked what the reason was, Privett (who is Metropolitan of the Province of BC & Yukon) declined to give him one. In accordance with Immigration rules, Worley has to leave Canada for the United States within ten days of his last day of employment, which is on Sunday, Nov. 19. “I’m going to trust the Lord – who else am I going to trust? I could say like Job, ‘Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.’ I’m going to rejoice,” said Worley when reached by phone.
In May of 2017, Worley made headlines in Church news when the House of Bishops of the Province of BC and Yukon refused to approve him as Bishop of Caledonia, a diocese that stretches across the northern half of British Columbia. The majority decision cited Provincial Canon 4(b)vi, which states that an objection to the election of a bishop may be brought on the grounds that “he or she teaches or holds or within five years previously taught or held anything contrary to the Doctrine or Discipline of the Anglican Church of Canada.” In a statement released by the Anglican Church of Canada on May 15, Privett was quoted as saying that “within the past five years the Rev. Worley has held – and continues to hold – views contrary to the Discipline of the Anglican Church of Canada.” These “views” relate to jurisdictional issues, as Worley had served for a time within AMiA (Anglican Mission in America) in the United States.
[……]
Reflecting on the news that he will be forced to leave his parish, Worley said, “This is how it started in The Episcopal Church, how the exodus began. People got shoved out. In those cases, they were given no reason…but everybody knew the reason.” But he added “I know that God will work all things together for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purposes. He will use this for His glory and the good of His church.
The Diocese of Caledonia and the office of Archbishop Privett have also been contacted for comment but at the time of publication have not responded.
Worley and his wife, Kelly, have five children, aged 12 to 25.
Wondering what St. Paul would think of a church considering marrying people of the same sex is akin to pondering whether Karl Marx would approve of Walmart. Any Christian whose thought processes are still anchored in the reality our familiar old four-dimensional space-time continuum knows the answer. It is the one thing Paul and Marx would have in common: the strength of their respective loathing for same-sex activity and Walmart.
Yet, here we have Fred Hiltz seriously – at least, I assume this article is not an elaborate exercise in exploring the outer limits of poor taste in Anglican jokes, it’s sometimes difficult to tell – asking exactly that:
Hiltz made the comment in an address that began and ended by wondering what St. Paul might think of the church, what advice he might give it and how he might pray for it.
On the church’s deliberation over changing its marriage canon to allow same-sex marriage, for example, Paul might remind it of his counsel to the Ephesians to be “humble and gentle and patient with one another, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:2-3),” he said.
In an interview with the Anglican Journal, Hiltz said it was partly the idea of the importance of good leadership in the church at this point in its history that had prompted him to imagine what the apostle might think if he were to look at it “with a penetrating eye.”
[…..]
Hiltz concluded his address by speculating that St. Paul might pray for the Canadian church as he prayed for the Ephesians, “that we understand the incredible greatness of God’s power—that we might have power to comprehend how wide, and how long, and how high and how deep is God’s love for us in Christ; that we be filled with that knowledge and in and through it live our lives and do the work to which God calls us.”
