An article in the Diocese of New Westminster’s paper laments the lack of orthodox clergy in the diocese.
It seems that most of the orthodox clergy and laity have defected to ANiC or other denominations and now the writer wants them back. Being “open” is not enough: orthodox clergy should be encouraged into the diocese by the leadership. Currently, there is even a perception that the diocese is hostile to orthodox clergy. Who knew?
The article doesn’t delve into how this could be achieved. How can a diocese that the orthodox have abandoned because they are convinced the diocese first abandoned the Gospel possibly entice them back? The only way is for the diocesan leadership to repent; if such a miracle is imminent, it is a well kept secret.
From here (page 12):
One of the geniuses of Anglicanism over the centuries has been our ability, and until recently in our part of the world, our insistence on ensuring a balance exists between Anglicans of all stripes, be they liberals, conservatives, high church, low church, etc… This focus is embodied in the tradition of alternating between liberals and conservatives in appointing archbishops of Canterbury.
Sadly, this balance no longer exists in this diocese. With the unfortunate departure of entire parishes and continual leakage of individual parishioners to the Network and other denominations, the presence of orthodox clergy and laity in this diocese is miniscule. Regardless of what side of the fence any of us may be on, or if we are in the shrinking middle, nobody should be pleased with this state of affairs.
It may not be well known, but the few conservative parishes that remain are having a difficult time attracting clergy and laity as there is a general perception out there that this diocese is hostile to those of that persuasion. I hope the leadership of this diocese will make a concerted effort to encourage orthodox clergy and laity to come to this diocese in order to bring a more balanced tone of Anglicanism to the lower mainland. Simply being “open” to this wing of the church is not sufficient.
“… our insistence on ensuring a balance exists between Anglicans of all stripes, be they liberals, conservatives, high church, low church, etc… This focus is embodied in the tradition of alternating between liberals and conservatives in appointing archbishops of Canterbury.”
All lies. ‘Liberals’ are no part of the tradition at all.
Liberal may not have been part of the tradition, but it was definitely part of the ACoC in fact in more recent times, certainly from the early ’60s. But I think the writer of the article misunderstood something. The ACoC now, from what I understand, is not “liberal” but has gone far beyond that. I have no doubt many who would consider themselves theologically liberal have left the ACoC as well.
Poor soul (the author of the piece). I wonder who he is, and what that is about? I note that it is marked “Opinion” and relegated to the back, tho, which tells us what the official view of it is. But that it appears at all? … hmmm.
Does anybody file these publications, for the use of future historians, I wonder? If so, I guarantee that this piece will be mentioned in those histories. It’s a nice marker of the point at which the diocese had officially entirely sawn off the tree-limb on which it was sitting, and started to fall.
A few years ago I was doing some genealogy research, and seem to remember something about a department of the government of Canada is responsible for preserving (at the time via microfiche) copies of all newspapers and magazines published in the country. So it is very likely that a copy of this particular newspaper will be included in our Country’s archives.
clicked is on pg 12 Anglican Topic newspaper for the Diocese of New Westminister the writer is David Keisman St David’s Delta looks like the article was written recently. He seems to emphasize on the theme of the bonds of affection maintaining dialogue within the Anglican Tradition. I think this mainly concerned the majority of Low-Anglican Evangelicals with the minority of High-Anglican Catholics; furthermore, this later on seemed to give birth to the broad church movement which helped to encourage the Low-Anglicans to become higher and the High-Anglicans to become lower.
I find it difficult calling myself Anglican because I have to distance myself from what the perception of the church is these days. I could call myself Anglo-Catholic but I’m not sure what their stand on WO is. I’m Catholic in a lot of ways, Still have a problem with Mary being the extra leg on the stool but I consider the Pope the final word, not infallible but acceptable authority.
As I understand the current state of affairs…
The Anglican Catholic Church of Canada is now an Ordinariate within the Roman Catholic Church. They are now in full corporate communion with the Sea of Rome, and thus have fully signed onto the Roman Catholic Catechism. So the straightforward answer to your question about the Anglo-Catholics and their position on woman ordination is this. There is no such thing as woman ordination.
Anglicanism has become a joke when the “orthodox” are spoken about in the abstract, as if they merely constitute a different school of thinking.
“We need more orthodox in the diocese, comrades!” is a very sad state of affairs. It’s as if they have woken up, blinking in the sunlight, to find that serious believers have vanished and find it all very surprising and astonishing.
Importing “orthodox” believers is now impossible. Liberal Anglicanism represents an entirely different religion, so the suggestion is on the same level as asking orthodox Christians to enjoin themselves to a congregation of Hindus or Zoroastrians. Ain’t going to happen.
Jason,
Spot on.
It never was a sensible idea to try to run a diocese on the basis of certain kinds of behaviour being regarded as grossly sinful in some parishes but capable of being blessed in others.
My dear father, all his working life a CoE parochial clergyman, could never have consented to such an arrangement.
I’d rather align myself with Zoroastrians than ACoC Anglicans. Thankfully, though, there are better options.
AMP
I remember about two denominations of Anglican-Catholics I’ve found on-line and some have joined the Roman Catholic Church but not all but some.
Last week a Baptist friend of my wife was concerned about the fact that not all priests believe in the inspiration of the Holy Bible. My reply to her was: the Anglican Church is a mixed community – believers and non-believers exist together. Non-believers exist in other churches too.
Not in leadership, though! At least they ought not to be in leadership.
Dr Priscilla Turner’s dad was CofE clergy as was some of mine was House of BIshops Episcopal Church of the USA in the 1920s. Definitions have changed about criminal offenses and mental illnesses as well. Around that time in Riverview Hospital Greater Vancouver was no medications but patients were put to work on the farm. There is Exodus International Ex-Gay movmement Frank Shears who died of AIDS was published in their newspapers don’t know if this proves that Exodus is wrong or not? Read Frank Shears bio online for yourselves. 90% of persons when convicted of drug use go into it again after rehab does this prove it wrong or not? Perhaps the rehab methods if undergone refining could success more? Well, the supervised injections sites were introduced by former Mayor Philip Owen seen in his documentary FIX followed by From Grief to Action about persons with drug use followed into prostitution to support habit. My point is that perhaps with persons as the late Frank Shears that the rehab methods could be looked over as to how they’re done for each person?