The Diocese of Niagara is closing both St. Matthias and St. David and St. Patrick in Guelph. As a counterpoint to the sound of shrivelling, accompanied by revving bulldozers, echoing throughout empty diocesan buildings ANiC is considering opening an Anglican Church in Guelph. Ecclesiastical free enterprise is a wonderful thing.
See below for details:
I met recently with the Reverend Zena Attwood, a minister of the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC). ANiC, she explains, is trying to stem this Anglican hemorrhage by establishing churches that fulfill [sic] the goals I’ve described. Their website (anglicannetwork.ca) shows that in their first five years they have 72 parishes across Canada. ANiC is a member of the conservative Anglican Church in North America, that reckons about a thousand parishes in Canada and the USA and is enthusiastically planting more. Ms Attwood says she’s creating a core group to start such a parish in Guelph. The group meets on Sunday mornings for Bible discussion and eucharist. Ms Attwood invites inquiries at 519 846 0454 or zena.attwood@gmail.com. Mr D’Arcy Luxton is an alternative contact at 519 846 0483 or darcy.luxton@gmail.com.
You call this conservative? Having a woman trespassing in the chancel is merely less liberalism than the status quo, and hence of no value to the cause of Christ.
You will forgive my here but this continual breakaway mentality serves no real purpose.
This is what Baptists have been doing for decades. Although give them there due, they seem to multiply by division. Anglicans, ever hopeful in finding ‘that perfect’ ethos drift aimlessly about like a rudderless ship. And we all know what happened to the Edmund Fitzgerald!
The ANIC is NOT a breakaway but was created due to the lack of the apostate leadership in the ACoC to reform and return to both the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. In fact, the actions of the ACoC against orthodox Christians forced the issue. As I have stated previously, the issue is NOT “liberal vs. conservative” but “apostasy vs. orthodoxy”. Clearly the ACoC falls within the apostasy group. We do pray for their conversion and repentance but from a human standpoint this is not likely to occur as the apostate bishops seem to believe their white collars and purple shirts allow them to trump both the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.
Your apostasy is my liberalism, and vise versa; by what standard do you judge, and how do you know you judge rightly?
To be a Christian two things are mandatory:-
1. Full acceptance of the authority of Scripture; and
2. Full acceptance of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.
By actions taken in the Dioceses of Niagara, Huron and New Westminster against orthodox Christians by either evicting them from buildings, or worse still legally stealing properties for which the dioceses made NO contributions, the ACoC has proven to be apostate.
One can indeed by liberal or conservative in the style of worship but to be Christian one’s beliefs must be orthodox.
Right, and Scripture restricts women from holding office; to say and do otherwise is to deny the authority of Scripture. “Liberal” is not a style of worship, but a counterfeit Christianity. If you meant that orthodoxy is not restricted to high- or low-church worship, I’m with you.
For me………..”in for a nickel……in for a dime” and all of that. I wish you folks good fortune.
I don’t share your views and I stopped looking within Anglicanism for its definition. I found I had to look ‘outside’ of the so called ethos, in an effort to get a handle on just what Anglicanism really is. And I came away lacking. In and of itself there doesn’t appear to be any real consensus as to what ‘it’ is.
Although I personally do not believe in Woman Ordination I will support and encourage Zena in her efforts to build the Church and thereby extend to all God’s loving offer of forgiveness and reconciliation.
If I were living in Guelph I would most certainly be joining her group. Presently I am seriously considering the next step in advancing my career as a Professional Accountant, including the possibility of relocating to the Guelph area. So perhaps someday soon I can look forward to joining Zena’s group.
It’s not a matter of what you “personally believe;” eg I don’t personally believe in human trafficking, but if my kids want their own slaves they should have access to reputable dealers. The one and only issue is what God’s Word teaches, and that excludes priestesses. Once things become a matter of what you personally believe, you become a de facto liberal, and the apostasy clock starts ticking.
AMPisAnglican: You are not alone in opposing female ordination. Professor J. I.Packer holds the same position also.
Would I be incorrect to suggest that there is just a hint of misogyny in all of this. The ACoC by its very construct is Protestant in nature with Catholic trimmings. The via media
mechanism allows for discussion, dialogue and even core belief changes. Hence the chaos. My Orthodox and R.C . friends cannot even think about such things because the institution does not allow for it. Just a thought.
No mysogyny whatsoever, as there has been no claim to women’s ontologic inferiority to men. The question is economic; ie in God’s economy the clerical office is reserved for men who He has called thereto, and for them only. It’s ni more mysogynisitc than God The Father being the father and Christ being the son.
I see. I will reflect and return, at least for now, to Bedlam.
Splintering has always been the way of all religions, surely? That’s how religions endure. There’s always someone who believes his or her denomination is doing it juuust wrong enough to warrant setting up shop across the street under a slightly different name.
No; rather, God’s truth endures despite man’s best efforts to screw it up.
Be that as it may, man is the poor sap who has to interpret God’s truth, and he’s been doing it from the first, leading us to the myriad schisms and resulting denominations we have today — and will have tomorrow. Maybe man is doing it wrong, but that’s what he’s doing and has been doing forever. It seems plain historical fact to me.
interpreting, or twisting? Some of both, for sure, but God’s church will stand irrespective of such machinations. I’m not clear on the ” that’s how religions endure” part; ie without such Christianity would disappear? Do clarify.
This is definitely looking at religion from a sociological point of view, and not a theological one. I’m not trying to convince you or anything, and that’s not the way I actually live my religious life from day to day. But there’s an interesting theory that religion is only incidentally about specific beliefs, and that it’s not about specific answers either. Rather than a list of answers, religion is a language to talk about the questions. When too many definite answers are given and mandated as true, _some_ members of the religion will refuse them, and you have a schism (sometimes over apparently very minute details, but it still happens). If religion is a conversation, then, like most conversations, it stops the moment everyone agrees. Rinse, lather, repeat. James Carse gives this view a good go in The Religious Case Against Belief.
Now, once again, I just find this interesting (and convincing intellectually), but I’m not advocating for it. 🙂
Are you a sociologist by vocation or avocation? I only took an intro course, but found it quite an interesting outlook. While I haven’t read Carse, I’ve found James Jordan’s /The Sociology of the Church/ helpful and informative.
There are, of course, two other reasons for schosm to consider. One is not so much over orthodoxy or -praxy, but rather a clash of titanic egos and wannabee popes. The other comes from within; ie a group with an hidden agenda plays the fifth column and makes things too hot for those who uphold the traditional teachings. It is this latter reason I believe this and other similar sites were created to address. JG Machen’s classic /Christianity and Liberalism/ addressed this problem when it came to an head in the early 20th C.
As for your idea of the “conversation,” there doesn’t seem to be any accounting with the fact of divine revelation, but rather just observations on the way humans of all persuasions believe as both individuals and in groups. I’m also curious as to your religious life: how would you identify yourself?
Avocation, certainly. 🙂
I was an atheist for decades, I had a conversion five years ago or so, I am an Anglican and these days, for family reasons, I worship mostly at a Lutheran Church.
My conversion sure felt mystical, but it was more a revelation of the More than a specifically Christian one. It was quickly channelled into Christianity, and I believe it was at first because of cultural familiarity, but five years later I’m starting to think there was a bit of God’s plan behind it. But then I _would_ say that, wouldn’t I? 😀
Your point about egos is fair enough and well observed — we always come back to the human race being composed of broken people, don’t we?
i’m with the LCMS for now; as for Anglicanism, I see it as Mother Kirk’s nose of wax; besides, the options in my locale are less than savory. I’m also averse to parochialism, finding much of value among the Fathers and the Reformed beside the Lutheran pantheon. Reformed symbols are written in beautiful precis, contra the Lutheran tsunamis of Teutonic bombast.
As for broken people, that’s why the church has historically been referred to as an hospital for sinners; ISTM it’s become a needle exchange.