From here:
“What’s not widely understood is that the great majority of conservative Anglicans remained part of the diocese of New Westminster,” said Ingham. In fact, moderate conservatives and moderate progressives in the diocese worked to create provisions that no one should be compelled against their conscience to bless same-sex unions and to offer a visiting bishop to oversee parishes that were opposed to the decision. “I’m proud of the fact that a lot of people of goodwill on all sides came together and helped to make it work,” he said.
I doubt that the 800 people in St. John’s Shaughnessy who left the Diocese of New Westminster would agree that “the great majority of conservative Anglicans remained”. Those who did remain were tame conservatives who were duly paraded before synods as a demonstration of diocesan tolerance; no-one in the diocese actually listens to them, of course.
But the reaction was not confined to the diocese or even Canada. Same-sex blessings remain controversial in various parts of the worldwide Anglican Communion, but Ingham says New Westminster’s process of dialogue serves as an example for the Communion. Indaba conversations-an African model of respectful listening and dialogue-are now being used to help heal divisions in the Communion.
“If I have a word of advice, and I did actually say this to Rowan Willliams when he was the Archbishop of Canterbury,” said Ingham, “it is that these things do pass and you do someday find yourself on the other side of these passionate differences. And the way we deal with each other in the midst of them determines the quality of life of the community afterwards.”
To stoutly assert that the storm will soon be over as the church sallies forth into a bright new future of eco-harmony and prophetic social justice making, is a fondly-held liberal self-deception born of the blind optimism of arrogance.
I remember the Diocese of Niagara’s Bishop Ralph Spence in the 1990s peering mistily above the heads of his audience, presumably into a vision of the future that was impenetrable to the rest of us, intoning with an affected piety: “don’t worry about same-sex blessings; in ten years we will be performing them and the fuss will all be forgotten.”
Ingham has also worked to promote interfaith dialogues, including writing the book Mansions of the Spirit. “I’ve seen the whole church move from the attitude, ‘We don’t need to talk to people in other religions; we need to convert them,’ all the way to what I see as a predominant sentiment throughout the churches that we need to understand our neighbours of other faiths much better, because religion needs to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.” That has been increasingly relevant as awareness grows of how religion in its extremist and fundamentalist forms is a destabilizing and violent factor in so many parts of the world, he added.
One important challenge for the church moving into the future is Canada’s increasingly secular society, Ingham said. “Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and Hindus are not our competition. All of us, of all faiths, are seriously challenged by secularism, and we need to find a language that can address people whose understanding of the world is highly secularized, where there is no sense of God or the message of Jesus in their cosmology.”
This, in a way is good news. If Ingham and his successors see no need for converting people, the diocese will gradually wither away as congregations “understand our neighbours of other faiths much better”, realise that they actually believe something and convert to their beliefs. By the time the current generation joins the choir invisible, the diocese will be nothing but a disagreeable memory.
Well, the article is in the Anglican Church of Canada website. Some questions:
I would be interested in seeing any reliable statistics to back up his claim that the majority of conservative Anglicans remained part of the diocese. Does anyone know where those stats can be found?
What is his definition of conservative?
Do those who remain on the rolls still show up at church much? Are they still listed as members or attendees but going to some other church now?
How many Anglican churches are now facing being closed and sold because of the numbers who either left altogether or simply stopped attending?
I agree Judaism and Buddhism are not “competition”. Probably not Hinduism either, at least here. But Islam? Really?
He says, “…awareness grows of how religion in its extremist and fundamentalist forms is a destabilizing and violent factor in so many parts of the world”. Does he also include those of the Christian faith who read the Bible and actually try to follow Jesus’ teachings?
And what is wrong about knowing the fundamentals of the Christian faith? Does that make one a “fundamentalist”? What is a fundamentalist?
How does servant leadership fit in all this?
I am sure he could not mean to include sincere, faithful, conservative Christians in his category of extremist and fundamentalist forms of religion. I guess I’ll have to read one of his books.
While I can’t give you the statistics, I am one of the conservatives who have remained in the Diocese of New Westminster, largely because I have no practical alternative.
My response to Michael Ingham’s theology has long been anathema sit and I have completely disengaged from the diocese. I will no longer exchange the peace with him or receive communion from him. If he chooses to interpret this as consent or support, he’s a bigger fool than he seems to be.
Many conservative parishes don’t even bother to send delegates to Synod because they think it is a waste of time and effort. It will be interesting to see if this trend is reversed this year, as only members of Synod are involved in electing a bishop.
What about (the “conservative” parishes)sending God’s money (their assessment)to the Diosese?
Some may be contributing unwittingly to the apportionment; my contributions are carefully targetted so that they do not.
Gordon, Please visit the ANiC western assembly next week in Vancouver.
With my current workload, that’s unlikely to be feasible.
Mr Ingham states: “…the way we deal with each other in the midst of them determines the quality of life of the community afterwards”.
Indeed it does. But … didn’t this man “dealt” with those who disagreed with his policy by lawsuits, seizures of property, and so forth?
The depressing thing about “liberal” clergy (really clergy who are centred on the world rather than on Christ) is that, even if you take the trouble to listen seriously to the words they utter, you can only conclude that they don’t believe them themselves.
Mr Ingham’s view might better be expressed thus: “I have always done what those who controlled the media agenda in Canada wanted me to do. They are the supreme arbiter of what we should believe and do, and I have been their servant all my days. Indeed I believe that this is the only possible thing to do, and that anyone who pretends to disagree is merely being difficult. There is no such thing as ‘Christianity’, other than a form of conservative politics expressing itself in the same pious phrases we all use, and, since the establishment hates conservatives, I swear to faithfully and obediently harass them until they confess that CBC is Lord (or whatever else my masters may require). I intend to follow this faith as long as I live, for what else is there, and I believe that it will be profitable and amusing to do so, until I die.”
Such is the blinkered belief of every liberal I have ever encountered, whatever they say, when you look instead at what they do.
Poor souls. For who can be more certainly damned? We need to pray for them, for they do no harm to the church, and they destroy their own souls.
I, like Gordon, consider myself to be a conservative Anglican, and I continue to attend an ACoC Parish. Also, like Gordon, I attend this Parish because there are no other Anglican options in the area. But as soon as there is…
Not familiar with the geography, what about an ANIC parish? (exsiting or plant?)
I have known some liberal Christians who were indeed Christians and not just church-goers. Others, not so much. I have also known some conservative Christians who exhibited less-than-Christian attributes. I am not sure the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are adequate to distinguish among Christians.
‘We don’t need to talk to people in other religions; we need to convert them,’
The Bishop has here unwittingly hit upon the whole source of the schism-inducing problem.
Liberals think you talk to people without converting them. Conservatives think you convert people without talking to them.
Christians actually do both. And Conservatives who don’t check their own inclinations toward sanctimony and self-absorption are as misguided as Liberals.
The Gospel needs to be preached (sometimes using words)
Yes. I know only too well how Liberalism is misguided. What is not clear to me is how Ingham ever came in the first place to be Bishop of the Diocese in which St John’s Shaughnessy is located … and well, Matthew 7:5.
I am a Conservative and Evangelical Anglican at an ACoC church in Edmonton. Like New Westminster, our diocese also just voted to allow the blessing of same sex marriages. It has caused a lot of problems in my church and there is a portion of our church (mostly the 50-65 year olds) who are planning to start an ANIC church next week. However, the majority of us have decided to stay in the church. Many (most) of us are conservative and evangelical and are not staying because we are “liberal” in theology. There are many reasons why we have chosen to stay. Some feel that we are called to remain within the ACoC to call them back to renewal. We also recognize that God is working mightly in our church and it would be wrong to simply abandon everything that he is doing here. Yes – we acknowledge that we have challenges moving into the future but every denomination, not just the ACoC, is at risk of being influenced by culture too much. I enjoy this website but it bothers me that some posters (and bloggers) here make the assumption that anyone who remains in the ACoC is a liberal or not a “true” believer. I see it being much more fruitful in encouraging our brothers and sisters in their walk with Christ rather than constantly pointing out each other’s flaws. Let’s face it – we all fall short of God and are in need of his saving grace.
EdmontonAnglican,
According to this article, there are 80 people starting the ANiC church; how many people are in your congregation? That a seems like a pretty significant “portion.”
It is unfortunate that these 80 people are thinking about forming a breakaway congregation. In the late 1970s, a breakaway congregation in southern Ontario was formed due to liberal thinking in the Anglican church. Today, the membership is down to about ten families.
Hi David
At our Anglican church yesterday, we had a blessing service for both groups (ANIC and ACoC). Both groups blessed each other and encouraged one another in their future ministries. I wish that this would happen more often as we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.
As for numbers, I was told that a total of 55 are leaving our church and some are coming from other churches in the area so 80 is probably about right. Prior to this split, our church had an average Sunday attendance of 223. So yes, it is a significant portion of the church but certainly not the majority.
OK, thanks for the clarification.
It is good to know that both groups blessed each other and encouraged one another in their future ministries. We must believe in the power of God’s Word and Spirit to reform and renew the Church. Max Warren wrote that “the history of the Church is the story of the patience of God”. John Stott believed that Warren was right. Stott wrote: “I do not think we have any liberty to be less patient than God has been”. Renewing the Church is an ongoing process until the Second Coming.
EdmontonAnglican,
Although I don’t know who you are, you may know me by my name and initial. I was also, of course, at the service on Sunday and I must say my eyes filled with tears on several occasions (especially when we sang, “Faithful One.” It is a painful and heartbreaking time. St Paul’s has been a very big part of my life and spiritual journey for 20 years. I have known no better Christian community, but I must say that, regrettably, but before God and in all conscience, I must be one of those leaving.
Michael Li,
I have heard that back in their day John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones disagreed with one another on whether or not to leave the Church of England, but in his later years, Stott came to agree with Lloyd-Jones’ position that it would have been better to have done so.
John, while Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Stottie did famously and publicly disagree, the former was NEVER any kind of Anglican!
If I am interpreting the comments in this thread correctly, I attended this Anglican church from 1999 to 2005. It was a wonderfully Spirit-filled church and I was happy to attend and serve there. I also remember that the potential for leaving the Anglican Church of Canada existed during that time as a result of concerns over same-sex blessings and related trends in the national church. I am glad to see that both groups blessed each other and their future ministries.
Hi Ken
St Paul’s continues to be a great church (minus some really great people). The split is sad but goth groups did bless each other which, according to this thread, appears to be quite rare.
John K – I don’t know if I ever personally met you but I do know your wife (a very nice and loving lady).
Moving forward, both groups are committed to the Gospel but in different ways. After reading some of the people who post on this blog, I pray that we can continue to bless, encourage and recognize that God is present in each of our churches. Both groups have their challenges moving forward and I personally don’t see much benefit in constantly criticizing “the other” as some on this blog appear to constantly do.
Edmonton Anglican, Gordon Arthur, and others: how do you do evangelism from within an ACoC parish? Although you, as a faithful soul, may be safe from the mischief of pseudo-Christian teaching, would you bring a new Christian into that milieu? And would you raise children in such a community?
Those raising children and doing evangelism have mostly abandoned the liberal parishes, and many are in ANIC. Those parishes need your support to continue that good work.
My thoughts on Ingham: can’t believe he is being praised, after all his mischief. In the Navy, if there is a mutiny on a ship, the mutineers are punished, but the Captain of the ship never works again. Ingham presided over a mutiny; he should never work again.
Thanks for the comment Michael. Our church is full of children and youth (including my own). While I trust what is being taught on Sundays to them, I think that the “home” is also key to raising kids.
FYI – Many of the members are not Anglicans from birth which may make it unique (I’m not sure). There are many former Baptists, Alliance and Reformed church families who attend. Surprisingly to some of you here, I even find my current Anglican church more missions-focused than my previous C&MA church. Heck, they even fund some Alliance programs both in the city and abroad.
As far as evangelism, it’s pretty much the same type of “strategies” that I’ve seen in other churches. Here is what they have done in the past year – Alpha courses, youth events (there is a very strong youth group), soup kitchens, door-to-door ministry, community service events, summer daycamps, missions trips (and supporting missionaries in OMF, YWAM, and others) and “Invite your neighbour” Sundays.
Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater – a lot of great things continue to happen in many ACoC churches.
Maybe – but you need to look at who is being ordained, and what the likelihood is of getting a conservative pastor when your current pastor moves on. In Ottawa, conservative postulants started getting an automatic no some years ago, and I know of someone who was refused admittance to the Anglican studies program at St. Paul’s because she doesn’t believe in same sex marriage. The rot is deep and it is only a matter of time before it hits everyone.
Katie – you may have a point but I don’t understand why people on this forum think that this only applies to ACoC. All denominations have both liberal and conservatives. If you can back up your claim about Ottawa, I would agree that this is troubling but I have not heard about this in any credible news sources (only blog comments). I’m not familiar with St Paul’s so I cannot comment on it. But, I am aware of other conservative seminaries who are also dealing with this issue. Check out the following newsarticle on conservative evangelical seminaries in the US…
http://m.indianapolisrecorder.com/mobile/religion/article_8771308a-9d5c-11e2-827f-001a4bcf887a.html
You probably won’t find such information in the mainstream media – I presume that is what you mean by “credible news sources” – mainly because it isn’t of much interest to secular readers.
It isn’t just Ottawa. In the Diocese of Niagara, I personally know priests who, when interviewed for a job in the diocese, were asked if they agree with same-sex blessings; it was abundantly clear that if they didn’t, there would be no job.
I could introduce you to the people involved, but that would require rather a long drive…
Believers and non-believers exist in the same church. It is up to the believers to stay and bear witness to them.
Then you don’t subscribe to the view of a former Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple who said:
The problem is, a church that is multiplying non-believers because its leaders are non-believers is not a “church” in any reasonable sense of the word: it’s an anti-church.
Archbishop William Temple (1881-1944) was the one who believed that God revealed Himself not in words but through events. He wrote: “There is no such thing as revealed truth. There are truths of revelation, that is to say, propositions which express the result of correct thinking concerning revelation; but they are not themselves directly revealed” (Nature, Man and God, 1934, p.317). Temple also wrote: “No single sentence can be quoted as having the authority of a distinct utterance of the All-Holy God” (Ibid., p.350). Our current Anglican liberal thinking may be traced back to Frederick D. Maurice (1805-1872) through to William Temple.
In the parable of the weeds (Matthew 13:24-30; 36-43), Jesus helps us to understand the mixed nature of the church. Non-believers and believers coexist in the same church. Perfect purity of the membership in the church on earth is an ideal that cannot be realized within this life. St. Augustine called the church on earth “a mixed body”. The church is not perfect. All churches, including the Anglican Church of Canada, need to be reformed.
John K: As far as I know, evangelical leaders like Stuart. B. Babbage, Geoffrey. W. Bromiley, Michael Green, R. K. Harrison, Philip E. Hughes, David B. Knox, Leon Morris, J. A. Motyer, John Stott, Peter Toon and N. T. Wright did not leave the Anglican Church. I don’t think I can find a perfect church to join. I don’t think that we can solve all our biblical and theological problems in this life. I don’t think that we can fully understand God. From the beginning of Christianity, the church has arrived at no mutual agreement over many doctrines. Today, Anglicans still don’t agree on everything. We always have different opinions on many issues including biblical authority, biblical interpetations, tradition, infant baptism, easy believism, theories of atonement, theistic evolution, abortion, female priests, Prayer Book revisions, common law relationships, remarriages after divorce, gambling, etc. Can we leave the final judgement to God?
Michael,
Your quoting a list of people who have not left the Anglican Church – presumably as an example for the rest of us – is nonsense for three reasons:
1. Seven of the eleven are dead so they have already left the Anglican Church.
2. None of the rest belong to the Anglican Church of Canada, the denomination under discussion, so they aren’t relevant. I could produce an equally long list of relevant evangelical leaders, starting with J.I. Packer, who have left the Anglican Church of Canada because they believe it is sub-Christian.
3. Those who joined ANiC have not left the Anglican Church. They have left the Anglican Church of Canada; they are still Anglican and are still in communion with the majority of other Anglicans.
Your reasons for not leaving the ACoC don’t make much sense either. You appear to be saying that because differences on matters such as the interpretation of Scripture, etc. will always exist, there can be no reason to depart a denomination: you want to “leave the final judgement to God.“ No matter how crass the heresies peddled by a denomination, once you are there, you are stuck with it; pretty absurd.
If you truly believe what you say, you should leave Anglicanism and return to the Roman Catholic church.
Hi David: The liberal party of the Anglican Church has existed since mid-1800s. All churches, including all the 41,000 denominations, need to be reformed until the Second Coming.
Michael,
I believe you are evading my argument but, no matter.
While I don’t disagree that the church needs to be continually reformed, I think there comes a point where a church has repudiated enough of its basic tenets that it ceases to be a Christian church; you appear not to think this.
Is there anything that the ACoC could do that would convince you that it no longer deserves your allegiance or are you determined to stay no matter what false gods are set upon its altar?
David: I will stay in the Anglican Church as long as there are people who need salvation. Fr. Terry Fullam, a former Rector of St. Paul’s, Darien, Connecticut, taught us the principle of unity – everybody in the vestry has a veto power. If our Synod were to make decisions based on this unity principle, same-sex blessings would never be passed as long as there was one negative vote.
Michael,
I met Terry Fulham and attended some of his workshops about 25 years ago so I am familiar with the principle.
Since the ACoC does not operate by that principle and almost certainly never will, it occurs to me that you have enumerated yet another reason for leaving.
When you say:
I presume you mean people still in the ACoC who need salvation. This is a common reason given by orthodox Christians who choose to stay. I remain unconvinced because, by your staying:
1. you lend credibility to the ACoC leaders who are spreading a false gospel;
2. you are contributing financially to those spreading a false gospel;
3. you set a bad example for those whom you wish to convert: namely that to make accommodations with those who spread a false gospel does not compromise one’s integrity.
Much better to leave and take those whom you wish to save with you.
Incidentally, I haven’t left the Anglican Church either; I have left the Anglican Church of Canada.
On a further note, I know that it is common for ACoC leaders to threaten the pensions of priests who consider joining ANiC. It is largely an empty threat, but it can and does influence some priests’ decisions. It does illustrate one important thing: the ACoC has reached a pathetic state of corruption if it thinks that the only way to hold on to its orthodox priests is to intimidate them.
Hi Michael,
I can’t tell from the tone of your post, but I did not mean for this to become a debate. Hearts are heavy in this, including mine. All I’m saying is that I felt I had to follow my conscience as I believe God has led me, as have others on both sides. It is not a time for argument or anger. That time has passed. It is now just a matter of which path to follow, and each must make his choice.
Hi John: Everyone hurts when there is a honest disagreement among believers. To stay or not to stay is no easy decision. Sometimes we have to be patient. I grew up in a liberal Anglican parish. In the early 1960s, if you were a born-again believer, you were not allowed to teach at our Sunday School. But, today, fifty years later, born-again believers are their Sunday School teachers.
Having a long view isn’t an altogether bad thing.
But teaching children false doctrine for 50 years is altogether a bad thing – particularly for the children.
Hi EdmontonAnglican: I appreciate all your comments. I have a cousin who attends the Alliance Church in Edmonton. I should visit your church when I visit my cousin.
I would like to add a few comments to this thread. I live in the Diocese of N.W., came back here in 2003. I am an ex-priest, but I have had a license to take relief Sunday duties here. But, my general experience is, you have to be careful expressing your opinions in this Diocese. So, I feel like an exile, I feel I have to go underground, as it were. I have to watch the politics very carefully. I am still with the ACoc, not by conviction, living unhappily, and thinking of leaving or moving to another denomination.
If the same-sex blessings were practiced in a few parishes, I could live with it. I would understand it this way, a few parishes are Anglo-Catholic, many parishes are moderate Liberal (use BAS, new blue hymn book), there are a few evangelcial parishes, and lastly, there are a few radical Liberal parishes. These last ones have clergy preaching liberation theology, and want to go all the way on social issues.So, let these parishes have same sex blessings. But, maintain the norm, that families and heterosexual marriage is the main focus of Anglican Church ministry.Hold traditional beliefs and values, and allow same-sex blessing as a social experiment.However, in this Diocese, the Cathedral is one of the radical Liberal parishes. The Dean, Peter Elloit, is a gay man. So, along with Ingham, the dominant theology in the Diocese is social activism, and radical Liberalism. what this means, is at Diocesan events, like workshops, there can be gay persons present. Oh, and Ingham believes in Equality, which means he treats gay clergy the same as heterosexual clergy. I believe there are five gay clergy, with partners, functioning in the Diocese. Besides these, there are two or more other single gay clergy. When the Anglican church allows gay clergy to function, that says alot about the current theology. And, it means, at diocesan events, the language and the concepts are all slanted, to favour “tolerance”, ‘respect for different opinions”, but things get dumbed down. The main concepts are social justice ones, the focus is continually on mission, but other matters get left out. Workshops on prayer, and healing ministry, haven’t happened here, as far as I know, in the last ten years.
Now, when Bishop Ingham says he appreciates “moderate conservatives”, he is sincere in this. He does appreciate conservative clergy who are staying in the Diocese. But, I don’t think he understands what kind of stress some of us have been under. Ingham really believes, you can have some clergy in a Diocese, believing in same-sex blessings, and you can have some clergy not believing in this. His understanding of diversity is very wide.
Concerning the Diocese of Edmonton, what I would watch for, is what happens in the next five years, with regard to gay priests. Will one or two appear, and will they be accepted? Or will a small group of five or so form? Will they be allowed to have partners, or will they be required to remain celibate? This is where the Bishop and the diocesan leadership come in.
I think, a Bishop, along with a few key clergy, (and a few lay leaders) are capable of setting the tone in a diocese.I once spoke with a Catholic monk about our Anglican situation. I told him I disagreed theologically with my Bishop. He made a comment, he thought the Bishop’s theology, the priest’s theology, and the ministry practices in a parish, ought to be in consensus. There ought to be an overlap, and general agreement about the gospel and the purposes of faith on these three levels , a general unity of belief between Bishop, priest, and parish practices. Well, I will wind this down. I wanted to comment on this idea of staying in the ACoc, and trying to change or do reform within. I think there are two levels, the parish level, and the overall, upper escheolon level of the National Church. On the parish level, it is important one belongs to a parish one feels comfortable with, where there is good Christian community, and one finds the preaching is good, healthy, challenging. You can survive, and live as a faithful Christian. And, you can have a take it or leave it attitude towards the big issues, the National Church issues. I think, on this second level, one has to be careful, focused, and have one’s own base well established. Right now, the forces of Radical Liberal Christianity are dominant in the upper level of the Church. One has to be very smart, and careful in one’s dealings, to be able to survive. I also turned to the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matt. 13.24-30, 36-43) which is partly helpful. Jesus tells us to accept and live with ambiguity. There are true disciples, and there are false ones. But, extend that to the clergy and bishops. There are true priests, and false priests, true bishops and false bishops. I think this parable helps us to focus on our situation, and to make sure we are practicing faith here, in our own lives. Also, in Jesus time, the Jewish leadership was very divided, between compromising with Rome, the Roman overlords, or being good and faithful to Judiasm. The question, how to be faithful Jews, was a live, real question in those days. So Jesus and his disciples, lived in dangerous, confusing times, where divided loyalties existed. We are living in dangerous times, and we each have to live by faith. Jesus’ words “Follow me” are suggestive, scary words. The risks and the sacrifices of being a disciple are real. My conclusion is, the ACoC is a church going into exile. God is letting us go into exile, a wilderness. Then the question becomes, what kind of leadership do we need, as people wandering in the wilderness? Do Anglican Bishops realize this, or are they still believing in a stable institution, immune to the trials of history? Will God provide us leaders to help us through a new exodus? Or do we each wander alone? God let the Jews go into exile in 587 B.C. Why? In part, because their faith had become compromised with culture, they had forgotten the essentials of faith. But, the Jews had the prophet Jeremiah. His preaching was later helpful to the exiles, helping them figure out what had happened, and how to return to faith, how to regain faith, how to repent. So, is there a Jeremiah around for us? Some one who comprehends the total situation, who can explain and describe the spiritual struggle going on? Well, I am getting lost in these big issues. Returning to the basics, to the essentials of faith, does seem to be one truth I can understand.
Interesting post and from the heart.
I think that initially, we wander alone. A quest of the Spirit [where not surprisingly the Holy Ghost awaits to help us]. I am sorry to say that Welby, Hiltz et al are selling a “bill of goods” as was Ratzinger…
So Dave listen to the Spirit, and do not wait for a Jeremiah because he will probably be disguised as Peter Elliott. [Matthew 7:16]
Thank you Dave in Vancouver for your comments.
I come very late to this thread, which I have only just found.
I have been a member of the Diocese of New Westminster since 1971, and in two different parishes, plus a brief sojourn in a conservative UCC church in the West End of Vancouver.
I do not wish to comment on the question of staying or leaving the ACoC, but to post details of two recent books which all of you may find useful and helpful. These are:–
http://www.amazon.ca/Love-How-Deep-Diana-Maryon/dp/1449721206/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1331946835&sr=8-2 cheapest Canadian source Chapters-Indigo
and http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Homosex-Priscilla-D-M-Turner/dp/1482347865/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1366258469&sr=1-1&keywords=holy+homosex
Both are heartily endorsed by J.I. Packer.
There was a conservative UCC in the West End of Vancouver? Which one? There was St. John’s United (now gone) and there is St. Andrew’s Wesley. Neither could be classified as conservative. What UCC are you talking about? Are you referring to a brief sojourn before 1971?
I mean St. John’s United where in the 1980s I was an adherent, and worked by invitation as church librarian i.e. as an educator, for several years. Both the people and the two ministers with whom I served, Don Crowhurst (now gone to glory) and Phil Mayfield, were conservative, but of course swimming against the tide in that presbytery. I was brought in by Don because of the job I had done at St John’s Shaughnessy. I am not speaking of the more recent evil days on which this church fell after we all left.
That makes sense. I don’t know much about Don Crowhurst, but I believe what you say about him. Phil Mayfield was conservative, and later was a Reform party MP for three terms, retiring in 2004.
Interestingly, Don Faris was minister of North Lonsdale United and, although a former NDP cabinet minister in the Saskatchewan provincial government, was just about as conservative with his congregation as Rev. Mayfield was. Rev. Faris retired in 2001. Just shows the issue of “liberal” vs. “conservative” crosses political party lines in this context.
I think North Lonsdale United Church is one of the handful of UCC congregations in the country that tries to adhere to more conservative theology and practices. Must be difficult to do.
St. John’s United then had Brad Newcombe as its minister. Brad was a good speaker and a nice guy, and hosted a television show as well. St. John’s United became very liberal and inclusive. I don’t know what happened, but the building and land were sold for development. Shame. It was a lovely church. I would have thought it could have been sustainable in the West End.
Yes, what you say is accurate. I met Don Faris and promoted his excellent book. I knew much of this whole UCC inside story. At some late stage it was reputed that an openly lesbian minister was put in at St. John’s; the church died for lack of attendance. I hope that the library etc. which I made there may have strengthened the faith of some, bruised and battered as these faithful souls must have been. They were when we knew them essentially gentle bourgeois native-born Canadians who believed the Faith. They rebuilt sacrificially both church and hall after arson attacks, and the loss of that building is indeed a shame. Of course the site was worth lots of money to the presbytery.
The N. Lonsdale place was too large and wealthy to be easily browbeaten, and the same applied to its highly literate minister, with his impeccable NDP credentials.
It’s enough to make you weep. The United Church of Canada had it all. Large membership rolls and huge weekly attendance, strong choirs, active men’s and women’s groups, youth groups such as Scouts, Guides and CGIT, moderate policies, family-oriented programs, solid Christian theology, good management, social and political influence, valued community service and outreach, widespread respect, strong financial resources, camps, colleges, beautiful buildings, good meeting rooms, halls and gyms, a presence in just about every community (sometimes an extensive presence with healthy churches within blocks of each other), and missions overseas. It even had a lot of very good, caring and well-educated ministers and lay workers, and talented, classically-trained organists and choirmasters.
As regards St. John’s United, the West End became one of the most heavily concentrated residential population areas in Canada, and that particular church died for lack of attendance? That is almost impossible to believe, but it appears many United Church congregations are shutting their doors all across the country.
However, even if you helped one person in his or her faith, that counts.
And don’t anyone think there is no way for a church to survive in the West End. Take a look at the non-denominational Coastal Church on West Georgia. It is hugely popular and it has only been operating since it took over the building in 2001. I think it started with just street ministry in the 1990s. Now they have four services a weekend, including one on Saturday night. I don’t go there, but maybe one weekend in the fall I will attend there and then go to St. Andrew’s-Wesley for comparison. Of course, if I need to, I can walk out of St. Andrew’s-Wesley and just go across the street to the big First Baptist church, another pretty successful congregation that has held Easter Sunday services for years at the Orpheum and filled that theatre. No lack of attendance at Coastal or First Baptist.
“As regards St. John’s United, the West End became one of the most heavily concentrated residential population areas in Canada, and that particular church died for lack of attendance?” I probably oughtn’t to have said “died”: in fact it was killed. We have belonged to Holy Trinity Anglican since 1986; for a time after we had sold our old building we camped out in St. James United, then we bought and redeveloped Chalmers. Both these once-flourishing places had been emptied out by the teaching of same-sex immorality. It’s not hard to tell who was made happy by such tragedies! One of the saddest aspects is that there are always those who become unchurched in their old age, i.e. at the worst possible stage of life, because they can’t worship where they used to, and won’t worship elsewhere. You and I know that that’s not a mature reaction, to belong nowhere, but it’s understandable.
Regardless of correct or incorrect beliefs, most congregations have experienced a high turn over during recent decades. Some congregations cease to exist after 40 years; others have become unrecognizable to old-timers. Those who may survive tend to attract a following of like-minded believers or non-believers.
Michael, all congregations should become increasingly unrecognizable to old-timers. If that is not happening there is something wrong. Many churches are dying as their “old-timer” congregations are dying, but many are thriving, and increasing in attendance with older congregants mixed with the youth and middle-aged. As far as I can determine, those are mostly not of the UCC, ACoC and similar mainline churches.
The crowds at evangelical churches I know of, and the energy, faith and hunger for Biblical teaching I find there, are just astonishing sometimes. What they are teaching is much the same Christianity that was taught at so-called mainline churches fifty or sixty years ago. That teaching, done with passion and intelligence, largely is what is bringing people in and keeping them there.
Indeed, some non-denominational congregations are enjoying huge Sunday attendance today. What will happen to them forty years from now?
Its not just attendance on Sunday, but involvement in a lot of other programs and activities as well. Many, probably most, of the congregations are part of some denomination or another. I don’t know what will happen to them in forty years. If they go the way of post-Modernism or something then I suppose there will be other churches to take their place. Or, that may not be an issue then.
I’m coming several months late to the game, but I have some useful info. In the Diocese of New Westminster, I worked in communications for the “rebel” parishes shortly after the blessing measure passed Synod. The Diocese had published attendance statistics for each parish. At the time, there were just over 10,000 Anglicans attending church in the Diocese. The “rebel” parishes were actually very large: seven of them comprised about 2,300 weekly congregants. So the rebel parishes were about one quarter of the attending population of the Diocese.
There were several conservative-but-loyal churches — perhaps seven or so of them. But mostly of them got 50-200 each week. Not enough to form a majority over the rebel parishes. There is no chance that the “great majority” of conservatives were loyal to the diocese. (In fact, the “visiting Bishop” Ingham says these conservatives “worked to create” was actually only used by one parish.)
I have noted the multiple references to “liberal” and “conservative”. However that is not the issue. The issue is “apostasy” versus “orthodoxy”. I am amazed to note the comments of one priest when he/she states having one or two parishes within his diocese performing same-sex blessings would be acceptable. To be a Christian one must fully accept both the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ which would automatically mean NO same-sex blessings would be considered. This problem arose from apostates such as Michael Ingham who clearly denies both the authority of Scripture and uniqueness of Jesus Christ. He also does not believe in the virgin birth or the body resurrection of Jesus Christ.
A church can indeed be liberal or conservative in worship style but to be a Christian demands the two issues mentioned above. If you do not accept the uniqueness of Jesus Christ then the Eucharist can only be described as a farce.