Canadian churches offered temporary adequate episcopal oversight

[New Creation]

We've been waiting a long time for this. I am in a congregation of one of the eight. Praise the Lord.

Press Release
February 13, 2004

Canadian Churches Offered Temporary Adequate Episcopal Oversight



A group of four top leaders in the Anglican Communion has made an offer of pastoral help to Canadian parishes and clergy that cannot support the Diocese of New Westminster in its decision to bless same-sex unions in violation of Holy Scripture. This alliance of Anglican Primates has heard the plight of those who have been in a state of ‘impaired communion’ with their own diocese since the decision to bless same-sex unions was handed down in June of 2002—a divisive and unprecedented move that was vigorously denounced throughout the Anglican Communion.



Primates from Central Africa, the Congo, Rwanda and South East Asia have extended an offer of “Temporary Adequate Episcopal Oversight” to those who, because of religious conscience, have requested it. The offer effectively allows those congregations and clergy to remain connected to the global Anglican Communion.



This temporary and emergency offer of assistance by four international Anglican leaders insulates these churches and clergy in Canada from the often abusive power structures that have worked against them for the last 20 months. Bishop Michael Ingham of the Diocese of New Westminster has already closed one church and brought significant pressure against the others because of their stand for the orthodox Christian faith and their desire for oversight from an alternative bishop and renewed structures.



When the synod made its novel decision in June of 2002, representatives of eight churches walked out of the meeting, declaring that by its action the diocese had strayed from its Christian roots and was in ‘impaired communion’ with them and the rest of the Anglican Communion. The eight churches formed the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW) and began to seek alternative Episcopal oversight—an arrangement whereby a bishop from outside the diocese would provide spiritual covering and oversight with full jurisdiction for their ministries. This type of alternative oversight has been consistently opposed by Bishop Ingham and the Canadian House of Bishops. Because of the disregard by Ingham of the pleas of leadership from around the Anglican Communion, several internal attempts to find a Canadian solution have failed.



The alliance now offering such covering and oversight includes the Most Rev. Bernard Malango of Central Africa, the Most Rev. Fidele Dirokpa of Congo, the Most Rev. Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda, and the Most Rev. Datuk Yong Ping Chung of South East Asia., who will serve as Chair. These leaders have asked that the Rt. Rev. Thomas W. Johnston, an Anglican Mission in America bishop from Little Rock, Arkansas, USA function as a servant of the four Primates in the practical aspects of this oversight.



The situation in Canada and the Diocese of New Westminster, in particular, has created tension throughout the world-wide Anglican Communion. At 1998’s Lambeth Conference of all Anglican bishops gathered from around the world, it was overwhelmingly declared that homosexual practice was incompatible with Scripture, and that the church was not free to bless such unions. The move by the Diocese of New Westminster to flaunt this directive has been denounced at the highest levels of the Anglican Communion, including two successive Archbishops of Canterbury. Last fall in a global meeting of the Primates, the New Westminster crisis was once again on the agenda, and a statement issued at the conclusion of that meeting declared that the actions of the diocese were divisive and contrary to the mind of the Communion.



“We’re extremely grateful to the Primates for this gracious and long-needed offer,” declared the Rev. Paul Carter, an Anglican Minister in Vancouver. “We have been without a bishop for almost 20 months. Our people and clergy are in great need of Episcopal oversight. People of deep religious conscience are so tired and disillusioned with the system that many are leaving Anglicanism altogether. When the internal efforts failed, we were on the verge of having to leave Anglicanism completely. This will now enable us to have relief and move forward in mission while the wider Anglican Communion works out how to deal with false teaching in its midst, and the impending re-alignment.”

[MariaRegina]

May the Lord bless, protect, and guide you.

[New Creation]

Thank you Chanter, and may God bless, guide and protect you too.

We still don't know if we'll have a church though. We might be locked out by Bishop Ingham. We'll find out tomorrow!

[BarbB]

God bless you and your church, New Creation. The Episcopal church in MA that I was saved in is in the same predicament. I'll include you all in my prayers.

I went to a lovely spiritual Anglican church in Toronto last summer. They are probably part of your group.

[jbarcher]

Interesting.

[New Creation]

God bless you and your church, New Creation. The Episcopal church in MA that I was saved in is in the same predicament. I'll include you all in my prayers.

I went to a lovely spiritual Anglican church in Toronto last summer. They are probably part of your group.
Thank you New Lamb. I will pray for your church also. It is a challenging time but it's a great opportunity to step up for God.
Our group was only in B.C. in the diocese of New Westminster.

However, there are churches all over Canada right now who want to be a part of this new Episcopal oversight.

Our church was not locked this weekend. Praise the LORD!!!!

Our congregation has had to change it's name. We are now

CHRIST THE REDEEMER ANGLICAN CHURCH.:clap:

[Polycarp1]

I'm of two minds here, and I think it's wise to place the issue in its perspective:

1. Your bishop, to whom you, your priest, and your parish swore to accept as chief pastor, is teaching a doctrine you believe to be incorrect and the condoning of sin.

2. He is taking a stance that is not tolerant of your opposing views.

3. You feel strong enough about the issue to violate the principle that says that your bishop is your spiritual leader, with authority in his diocese.

4. You have called in bishops who think as you do but who have no jurisdiction in the Diocese of New Westminster, one of whom was invalidly ordained by a schismatic group in the U.S.

5. The obvious conclusion is that you are denouncing the Anglican standard of remaining under bishops in the Apostolic Succession in order to preserve your belief in proper doctrine.

6. I can only bid you Godspeed and pray that someday this division will be healed.

[ChrisB]

In am not an Anglican but it seems to me that this is an unhappy situation.

It may be that ultimately the only honest way forward would be for the congregations involved to leave the Anglican Church altogether. If this is the price of obeying your conscience and God's word it may be one worth paying.

Good luck to you all :pray:

[New Creation]

The Issue in a Nutshell—

In June 2002 the Diocese of New Westminster, in a unilateral move that went against the will of the Anglican Communion, voted to bless same-sex unions—the first in the history of the Church. A group of churches, as a matter of conscience, declared they could not accept this reckless innovation. When they did not receive an appropriate response from their bishop, Michael Ingham, they appealed to the Canadian House of Bishops, and ultimately to the larger Anglican Communion for an intervention.

That help, an offer of Temporary Adequate Episcopal Oversight, is being extended by an alliance of four Anglican Primates, to those who request it.



What is It?

An offer of Temporary Adequate Episcopal Oversight has been made in response to a fervent appeal on the part of clergy and congregations in Canada who could not support the Diocese of New Westminster’s resolution to bless same-sex unions as a matter of conscience. This offer is being made by an alliance of Anglican Primates, under the Chairmanship of Archbishop Yong of South East Asia. The Alliance includes the Most Rev. Bernard Malango, Archbishop of Central Africa; the Most Rev. Fidele Dirokpa, Archbishop of Congo; the Most Rev. Emmanuel Kolini , Archbishop of Rwanda, and the Most Rev. Datuk Yong Ping Chung, Archbishop of South East Asia.

They extend their Primatial covering to the churches who request it.



What Does it Do?

It extends, temporarily, covering for these congregations and clergy that have come under fire from their own bishop by virtue of their stand against this direction of the diocese. This offer enables them to remain connected to and in solidarity with the rest of the Anglican Communion. It is the kind of oversight that was desired in an internal solution, but was never successful.



The Anglican Mission’s Role

This is not an initiative of the Anglican Mission in America. The congregations and clergy who receive this temporary adequate Episcopal oversight are not joining the Anglican Mission. Bishop TJ Johnston will function as a servant of the Primates in helping to administrate their oversight.



Timing

The situation for these churches has become desperate. They have been dealing with this, in one form or another, since the issue first appeared at a synod vote in 1998. Some of them have had no visit from a bishop for five years. Their people are becoming disillusioned with the system, and are leaving Anglicanism altogether.

The initial appeal from the Canadian churches was made in 2002. These Primates showed restraint in waiting for an internal solution to be implemented. They supported the internal, Canadian solution, which involved an offer of alternative oversight from another Canadian bishop. However, this internal solution failed, largely because the local Diocesan refused to allow it to proceed, and a renewed appeal was made.



The Anglican Situation

The Anglican Communion is in the midst of a major re-alignment. Part of the need for this re-alignment is caused by unilateral, revisionist and divisive actions, such as occurred in the Diocese of New Westminster. Creative solutions are urgently needed for situations that did not exist in the past. This offer of Temporary Adequate Episcopal Oversight shows that the alliance of archbishops committed to bold and necessary action is expanding, and it allows relief to these congregations and clergy as details of the re-alignment are worked out in the wider Communion.

[New Creation]

I'm of two minds here, and I think it's wise to place the issue in its perspective:

1. Your bishop, to whom you, your priest, and your parish swore to accept as chief pastor, is teaching a doctrine you believe to be incorrect and the condoning of sin.

CORRECT

2. He is taking a stance that is not tolerant of your opposing views.

HE REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE NEEDS OF THE OPPOSING PARISHES AND IS TRYING TO FORCE HIS LIBERAL STANCE UPON THE 8 CHURCHES. HE HAS ALREADY LOCKED UP ONE CHURCH AND THREATENS TO DO THE SAME IN THE REST

3. You feel strong enough about the issue to violate the principle that says that your bishop is your spiritual leader, with authority in his diocese.

YES, WE DO, WE FEEL A GODLY BISHOP IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THIS PRINCIPLE.

4. You have called in bishops who think as you do but who have no jurisdiction in the Diocese of New Westminster, one of whom was invalidly ordained by a schismatic group in the U.S.

WE ASKED OUR OWN BISHOP FOR HELP FIRST, THEN WE TRIED TO HAVE A CANADIAN BISHOP ASSUME OVERSIGHT, NOW WE HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION

one of whom was invalidly ordained by a schismatic group in the U.S.
CAN YOU ADDRESS THIS STATEMENT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN.

5. The obvious conclusion is that you are denouncing the Anglican standard of remaining under bishops in the Apostolic Succession in order to preserve your belief in proper doctrine.

CORRECT. THE WORLDWIDE ANGLICAN COMMUNION IS OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOUR OF FOLLOWING SCRIPTURE. UNFORTUNATELY IN POLITICALLY CORRECT NORTH AMERICA, THAT IS NOT THE CASE

6. I can only bid you Godspeed and pray that someday this division will be healed.
WE PRAY THE SAME. GOD BLESS YOU.

I apologize for the caps; just trying to differentiate the two posts while this glitch in the site continues.

Also, I want to point out that this has been going on for a lot longer than for the time I have been around. I have only been a Christian for a year and this all started years ago. I hope I am explaining things adequately.

[countrymousenc]

Question regarding bishops and apostolic succession:

Why should anyone submit to a bishop who, according to long-standing Church tradition (including interpretation of Scripture) is sinning by blessing same-sex unions? The apostles taught the churches not to tolerate unrepentant sinners in their midst; why should these churches and people tolerate what any of these renegade leaders have done?

[ufonium2]

I have nothing but respect for you and your congregation. It must be horrible to be ignored by your own bishop because you are sticking to the beliefs your church has always held.

Your church left you; you didn't leave them. I hope your congregation doesn't suffer more than you already have because of this, and that you find in the Anglican Church what you lost in the Episcopal.

[Polycarp1]

Ufonium2, the Anglican Church of Canada is the national church there equivalent to the Episcopal Church in the U.S. And New Creation is a member who was in the Diocese of New Westminster which has been in the news lately for blessing gay unions.

New Creation, Fr. Johnston was supposedly made a bishop by the priest from South Carolina who went overseas to be consecrated bishop by the Archbishop of Singapore and the Bishop of Rwanda -- who is schismatic and who unilaterally agreed to "embishop" Fr. Johnston by a consecration outside any church authority for validly choosing a bishop. I was misinformed that he would be a part of the oversight, not merely assist in coordinating it -- hence my comment in point #4.

I dislike the idea of going "over the head" of your diocesan bishop under any circumstances, but can grasp the point and need in doing so. A brilliant and devout woman of my acquaintance felt a strong and valid call to the priesthood but was in a diocese that did not ordain women -- and went (with her rector's recommendation) to the next diocese over, which did, for her discernment process, seminary training, and ordination. What's sauce for the goose...

What I do object to is unilateral schism when opportunity for dialogue and alternative modes of providing ministry exist -- which is what AMiA is guilty of.

[countrymousenc]

Creation, I iwll be praying for you and your church; may God hold you all in His arms through this trying time.

Polycarp1, As for unilateral schism, the two overseas archbishops involved in establishing the AMiA missionary effort here in the US are Anglican archbishops in full standing, are they not? It looks as though American Episcopalians who want to leave the ECUSA have a plenty legitimate reason to do so. Bishop Curry, here in North Carolina, who voted for Gene Robinson's appointment, has let it be known that he will confiscate the property of any church that opposes him. He and others like him refuse to be held accountable by the laity. Is it really schism to leave a church or to offer alternative oversight when the church's leaders are opposed to Biblical morals and are already breaking the church's tradition? It would be different if the issues were petty, but they're not.

My family and I visited an Episcopal parish that we could have liked if we hadn't seen such obvious pressure to be politically correct. We've been told that there's an AMiA church in the area; we're planning to visit this Sunday.

[JVAC]

In the ELCA the bishop is entrusted to 'judge doctrine', however, there is the synod council (lay representivtives and clergy) that has the ability to renounce it if it is contrary to scripture. Is this the same in the Anglican Communion, or does the Bishop have the only say?

[Polycarp1]

Creation, I iwll be praying for you and your church; may God hold you all in His arms through this trying time.

Polycarp1, As for unilateral schism, the two overseas archbishops involved in establishing the AMiA missionary effort here in the US are Anglican archbishops in full standing, are they not? It looks as though American Episcopalians who want to leave the ECUSA have a plenty legitimate reason to do so. Bishop Curry, here in North Carolina, who voted for Gene Robinson's appointment, has let it be known that he will confiscate the property of any church that opposes him. He and others like him refuse to be held accountable by the laity. Is it really schism to leave a church or to offer alternative oversight when the church's leaders are opposed to Biblical morals and are already breaking the church's tradition? It would be different if the issues were petty, but they're not.

My family and I visited an Episcopal parish that we could have liked if we hadn't seen such obvious pressure to be politically correct. We've been told that there's an AMiA church in the area; we're planning to visit this Sunday.
Bishop Curry is my bishop. And you misrepresent his stance somewhat here, though quite understandably, given the slant placed on it by his opponents, which no doubt you've heard. I absolutely do not want to get into an argument with you on the issue, but if you want to, PM me on it.

[countrymousenc]

It seems that I did misrepresent Bishop Curry's stance to a degree. His motives are not necessarily political. He seems to sincerely believe that he has done and is doing the right thing. I believe that he is sincerely wrong, and I still believe that Episcopal Christians are justified in objecting, even to the point of breaking fellowship, in a case this serious.