Read it all here:
The fourth consultation among Canadian, American and African bishops took place in Cape Town South Africa from Thursday May 2nd to Sunday May 5th 2013. We met in the context of worship, prayer, Scripture reading and the breaking of bread. Through the presentation of papers, continuing conversation, and growing relationships we engaged in dialogue both in sessions and over meals.
[….]
We recognized that we have inherited the ministry of reconciliation from our Lord Jesus Christ; that God’s mission is not a human achievement. It is something we are called to live into and to share. We observed that the engagement in the ministry of reconciliation is a costly process because it involves facing positive and negative truths about others and about ourselves with courage, honesty and humility.
What a lovely sentiment. Note the Canadian bishops in attendance:
The Rt. Rev’d Michael Bird — Diocese of Niagara, Canada
The Rt. Rev’d Jane Alexander — Diocese of Edmonton, Canada
The Rt. Rev’d John Chapman — Diocese of Ottawa Canada
The Rt. Rev’d Michael Ingham — Diocese of New Westminster, Canada
The Most Rev’d Colin Johnson — Diocese of Toronto & Metropolitan of Ontario
The Rt. Rev’d Michael Oulton — Diocese of Ontario, Canada
The Rt. Rev’d Mark MacDonald — National Indigenous Anglican Bishop, Canada
Reconciliation? Lawsuits? Really?
cue theme from Twilight Zone
Several of those folks have shown poor performance on that topic, unless they are there to offer advice on how to create the image and avoid the deed.
I think that this effort is a great initiative.
Attempting to reconcile is not easy and it does require humility and grace. One can choose to be cynical (as in the comment above) or one can choose to applaud the efforts of believers to attempt some kind of reconciliation process. The Canadian Bishops involved do appear to be from the more liberal diocese so it would make sense for them to be included in this reconciliation process.
Such reconciliation seems to be compartmentalized at best. Has there been an attempt at reconciliation between Bp Bird and the administrator of this website? I don’t know, but I just ask the question.
Or, in some cases, between the various dioceses of the ACoC and those parishes who have left to join ANiC? Will the ACoC, for instance, allow ANiC churches to buy their buildings (even as unjust as it seems to ask them to buy back what they have already in some cases paid for)?
I’m afraid I cannot put much stock in talk of reconciliation until all involved begin to reflect true Christian love in their treatment of the other.
Reconciliation must start somewhere John. I think that we should encourage and support it wherever (and however) we see it happening.
I agree, but participating in it in some cases while deliberately rejecting it in others, where it is obviously applicable and needed, (see Muriel’s comment, below) is rather hypocritical, I think.
(I hope that our two congregations can be an example of how things should be, even if it may go against some of our “first response” feelings.)
John. (To be blunt… but hopefully not too offensive)….
I would think that our churches’ situation would be exactly WHY you would support this initiative. If you look at our situation, your group continues to participate in some ways (men’s groups, youth group, mom’s groups) but deliberately rejecting it in others (you have split away after all). So based on your own definition, you are being hypocritical (and I assume that our group is equally the same).
Christ calls us to reconcile with one another. It will not be easy but we are told to do it. We cannot wait for all wrongs to be righted before trying. We need to encourage and support one another in any and all reconciliation efforts for the sake of his body. We all need to put our pride aside and extend grace, humility, forgiveness and love to one another.
EA,
My dispute is not, nor has it been, with anyone in my former parish. In fact, my wife and I pray for you and the leadership constantly. Nor do we harbour any hard feelings toward anyone there.
Rather, it is with those in the diocese who would put through a motion that is so clearly contradictory to anything in the word of God. Not only that, but to do it deliberately, knowing that it was a slap in the face to most of our congregation and its leadership, and knowing that it might very easily lead to exactly what has happened.
I cannot, in all Christian conscience, acknowledge, support or remain under such spiritual authority, even with faithful local parish leadership between us. Even for me, reconciliation for those responsible will prove difficult.
It is the policy of the ACoC to sell the buildings to anyone except those in ANiC
I have heard this rumour from some people before. Muriel – can you provide a link to this ACoC policy to verify? This is a somewhere of a side issue to the post above on reconciliation but I do find it interesting and would like confirmation of it. Thanks.
Muriel – as you look up this policy, I thought that I would send you this link where the ACOC sold a church to ANIC….
http://www.anglicanjournal.com/articles/ottawa-churches-settle-dispute-9569
Ottawa is an anomaly. This was a diocesan action. Central Command has some influence over the Bishops but ultimately the Bishops have the say. If Fred had the power (or fortitude) he would have stopped Ingham from authorizing gay blessings before he got off the plane from Lambeth.
St. Bede’s in Manitoba now a ANiC parish occupies their original building. Jim Njegovan postured a lot but eventually backed down.
With the present confrontational attitude that is prevalent within much of the ACoC reconciliation is opportunistic for PR reasons but will never materialize.
The ACoC’s past performance give no hint of encouragement and if anything it will continue to perpetuate the hypocrisy.
Thanks Steve. So just to confirm, there actually is no policy and each diocese/Bishop ultimately makes the decision?
I doubt a documented policy exists, it is more likely a bishops star chamber operation. In any of the confrontations I have witnessed the bishops are the focal point. I expect that there are informal conversations that underpin the apparent policy.
Interesting aside in California a judge seemed to suggest that ECUSA has implied trust on all properties that supersedes the bishop. This is not applicable to Canada but it does give an indication on the thought processes of some judges.
They did not sell the building to ANiC. That is simply diocesan spin. What really happened is that the Diocese of Ottawa kept St. Albans’s building, St. George’s kept their building, the Diocese of Ottawa gave St. Alban’s some money ( funnelled through St. George’s parish so that they could save face), and St. George’s paid a sum to the Diocese of Ottawa. There was no sale, it was a negotiated settlement. The two parishes together kept around 40% of our assets, and the Diocese of Ottawa got 60%.
Before certain people jump all over me, I did not sign a confidentiality agreement, so I am free to discuss the matter.
They learned from the Episcopalians to sell to Muslims first.
I think my major question would be about the statement “Because we are all in Christ, we belong together.” I certainly agree with the sentiment, but given what some of the Canadian bishops have been preaching and doing, I suspect “If we are all in Christ, we belong together” might be more accurate.
Pray + for the reconciliation of the Anglican Communion and the unity of the church across all sexual orientations.
If the cost of that unity is acceptance of abhorrent behaviour, no!