From here:
Vancouver Island’s top Anglican priest, Bishop James Cowan, has announced his retirement.
Cowan, 61, who has served as bishop of British Columbia for nine years, said he will retire Aug. 31. He made the announcement to the diocesan council, indicating he had already informed the church hierarchy.
Cowan, who is married with two grown sons, said he has no firm plans for his retirement. But he joked to church staff his immediate plans are to rest, perhaps even “sleep for four months.”
In an interview, he said that during his church career, he has always known when it was time to step aside and now seemed like the right time.
“I think it’s time to go,” he said. “There is a need for new leadership, different leadership.”
Due to a decline in attendance, Bishop Cowan has instigated a diocesan “restructuring”, including the closing of eight parishes. He has also approved a liturgy for blessing same sex couples.
Just as he sees no connection between the blessings and the decline, he maintains the stoutly blinkered perspective that, apart from occasional tut-tutting from the few remaining recalcitrant conservatives, the fuss is all but over:
“Now, it’s almost a non-issue in the life of the church,” he said. “Yes, there are people who don’t like it but, by and large, it’s a non-issue.”
Tell that to Justin Welby whose enthronement could be boycotted by bishops representing up to 80% of the communion:
Sources in Africa tell VOL that archbishops from provinces like Nigeria, Uganda and Kenya say that they will continue their policy of not appearing at future primatial meetings if Jefferts Schori is invited and that the Communion will devolve into two distinct Anglican bodies with leaders from the Global South drawing together orthodox Anglicans from across the globe.
James and his predecessor were instrumental in the demise of the diocese of BC and the withdrawal of the majority of orthodox clergy and laity therein. They both meant well and were sincere, in their own ways, but nonetheless their leadership and theological poverty resulted in no extension of the Gospel and Kingdom of Christ. So tragic. I do wish James well but feel so sad for him with respect to the legacy he has left.
Below is a list (not exhaustive) of former diocese of BC orthodox clergy- Evangelicals, Charismatics and Anglo-Catholics, who are no longer in the ACoC. The majority have joined the ANiC, or crossed the Tiber. All have left in the last 14 years. What began as a trickle became a flood. Most of the best, the brightest, the most faithful quit the diocese of BC and for a farewell they said “Satan has left the church.” Only a few orthodox remain- bless their dear hearts. What is left is a dessicated husk whose life has been drained out and withered because of the toxicity of apostasy.
Dean Henderson
David Hollebone
Sharon Hayton
Rodney May
Ron Corcoran
Michael Pountney
Glenn Sim
David Fuller
Glyn Easson
Andrew Hewlett
John Paetkau
Mark Davison
John Paetkau
Rick Root
Michael Averyt
Tom Semper
Peter Sandercock
Alistair Petrie
Joy Vernon
Don Malins
Peter Switzer
Over the years, I referred to the one bishop as the ‘absentee landlord’, and the previous one as the ‘pseudo-bishop’; both caricatures arising out of the way they functioned in their office. I am aware that my view wasn’t necessarily shared by large numbers out there, but . . .
The list of clergy who has moved on is interesting; some very high Church, some lower than the proverbial snake’s belly; some brilliant, some not so much; some with incredible personal integrity, some with shaky moral standards. I had the privilege of counting a number of them as esteemed colleagues, while one who worked for me was an intellectual plug who seemed to be lacking a moral compass.
In any event, the fact that such a broad spectrum has moved on speaks volumes about how the Church has positioned itself over the last two decades and change.
As a member of what could be called an Evangelical Anglican parish and diocese for that matter( Sydney NSW, Australia) I’m a bit concerned about the above reference to Low Church .
Perhaps different terms used in different places. The High Church/Low Church designators have enjoyed honorable and long usage in the Canadian Church. Once upon a time, people not uncommonly defined themselves in those terms, acknowledged their differences, and loved each other nonetheless. Most certainly, in the Canadian context the term ‘Low Church’ never implied ‘of inferior quality or status’. Interesting also that you would find ‘Low Church’ a bit concerning, but fail to indicate a similar feeling for ‘High Church’ usage. The current wave of liberalism has certainly changed that flavor dramatically: witness John Spong’s example in his book “Born of a Woman” where he opines that those who don’t get the thesis he is presenting fail to get it because they lack the necessary mental alacrity to understand his point.
Not so much the Low Church label, but the snake’s belly reference.
as for the “Spongites” and other “liberals”, are they even Christian?
You worry about what is an accepted, and acceptable, colloquialism in my part of the world, and yet you are willing to both apply a derogatory label (Spongites) to a whole bunch of people, and judge the state and worth of the spiritual state of others?
I came to learn during my years of ministry that doctrine and dogma are fine, but at the end of the day, I have to meet people in whatever space they are occupying at any given point in time. When first having graduated theology and being ordained, I had the answer to every question; I even had answers to questions people didn’t ask. By the time I retired, I realized that I wasn’t so sure any more, except for the basic, immutable truths found in Scripture.
Godspeed to them all, and to others like them.
Bishop Cowan sounds like another Diotrophes. None of us can walk on water but there comes a time when one has to admit one’s mistakes and this our bishops refuse to do. Is there really much of a difference in Diotrophes contradicting the last of the living Apostles who actually was personally trained by our savior himself and a bishop insisting that two people of the same sex can have a baby? Unfortunately, same sex reproduction is merely the tip of the iceberg.
Good for Bishop Cowan! Some clergy don’t know when to quit. It is time to go when it is time to go.
Lovely esoteric reference Sandy! Most of the clergy mentioned above are considered to be “defrocked” by James. Thankfully others considered most of them to be Priests in good standing. Unfortunately it is very easy and quick for a bishop in the acoc to anathematize clergy. So insulting and demeaning to faithful clergy.
Michael- all I can say to you is that the people listed above are blessed to finally be out from the type of hostility that you have yourself just articulated.
If someone becomes a deacon, priest or bishop by “the power of the Holy Spirit” , according to the Book of Common Prayer, then, surely, only the Almighty has the power to take away their offic, and not some other mortal human being?
If anyone is prepared to accept their “Ministry of the Word and Sacraments”, then surely their Holy Orders are still valid.
Perhaps the ‘bishop’ merely wanted to retire while there was still a church body able to pay his pension?
Church pension is not very much. Some clergy still have to work part-time after the age of 70. My cousin is still working part-time at the age of 74.
Interesting point that you and Pietro make. There will come a time when a man can no longer do a man’s work but should a “promoter of the faith and a better life in the next world” retire in this world while still healthy so he can enjoy the fruits of his labor which he is not supposed to enjoy until the next life??? Comments welcome.
When the priest dies in office, his female homemaker spouse will lose her husband, his income, his “free housing” overnight, etc. God does provide for His servants; not too many priests die in office. Most priests cannot afford to own any RRSPs because of their limited financial resources. When they have to retire at the age of 70, most of them can only afford renting an apartment because they have no money to buy a small house. Those priests who are married to a working spouse, e.g. doctors, nurses, teachers, etc. will probably retire comfortably. Their financial resources do not come from their small church pension alone. Thank God for working spouses! We must not forget that people do not enter the priesthood for money. It is up to the people of God to make sure that their priests do receive a decent wage, like a teacher or a nurse, etc. Of course, we expect our priests to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Of course, we expect our priests to uphold the 39 articles of religion of the Book of Common Prayer.
Michael does raise the point of “free” housing. When one considers the fact that ACoC Priests have housing provided for them it becomes appearant that they have sufficient financial means to adequately plan for retirement. That some (perhaps many) do not adequately make such plans is their own fault and no-one elses.
Tell it to the priests who have no money to buy any RRSPs. Some poor Dioceses don’t even provide adequate travel allowance; the priests have to subsidize the Parish for his or her travels on church business. I would like the people of God to consider to pay their clergy something similar to what a teacher gets and forget about the “free housing”.
Some of my friends who are priests still cannot afford to buy any RRSP. Today, many of them earn less than $35,000 a year, living in a rent-free Rectory. I agree everybody needs to plan for his or her retirement. I started when I received my first paycheque in 1969. In 2004, when both my wife and I were working, our combined incomes were $105,000. We had money to buy RRSPs, GIC, Mutual Funds, etc. We paid for eleven years of our children’s university education; they had no loans. Most priests have at least six years of university education. Can our priests receive something similar to a school teacher’s paycheque?
A sadness I noticed in the mainstream Anglican Church was that some priests limped along on a series of temporary and part time positions while in the same diocese husband and wife teams were rolling in the loot. Double dipping seems to be working against the man with the stay at home wife raising the next generation. Sadly our present lot of bishops don’t seem to care about future generations of Anglicans
The ACC priests I know certainly do not get free housing.
I have to wonder what Parish you are associated with. For every Parish that I have ever been a member of has owned the house (and paid for all of the property taxes, insurance, and maintenance of said house) that their Priest lived in.
It is part of the pay package that a Parish pays to it’s Priests, as dictated by the Diocese
Our priests own their own houses but still receive a housing allowance. IThey also receive a travel allowance and a pension, which is as it should be.
In major centres like Vancouver, Toronto, or Montreal, some clergy do own their own houses. They do receive a housing allowance for that purpose. One of my brothers is a priest who owns his condo. He does not have to worry about housing when he retires. Also he does not have to worry about other inconveniences. Let me explain. The majority of the priests in Canada live in a Rectory, which includes a church office as well. Many Rectories are places of choir practices, ACW meetings, Deanery clergy meetings, etc. Don’t forget about those who drop by for money or food on a regular basis. Rectory is not really the priest’s home. Don’t forget to ask permission to paint the house every eight or ten years! Is that in the Parish budget?