Saturday, 1 December 2007

more from Greg Venables on Canada

Gregory Venables has written his opinions (scroll down the page) on specific points raised by the November 29th Pastoral Statement of the Primate and Metropolitans of the Anglican Church of Canada.

For Immediate Release: November 30, 2007

1. Regarding extending a place in the Anglican Communion for those who in all conscience cannot remain in their Province, Archbishop Venables quoted scripture:

“Jesus said, ‘Which of you if your son or ox fall into the well won’t immediately pull him out on the Sabbath?’

Are we keeping the law or the spirit of the law?”

2. Regarding the provision for pastoral care and episcopal support being adequate and appropriate:

“Surely this would require agreement from the recipients as well as those in power.”

3. Regarding the contravening of agreements by interventions:

“In the Dar es Salaam communiqué we said, “Furthermore, those Primates who have undertaken interventions do not feel that it is right to end those interventions until it becomes clear that sufficient provision has been made for the life of those persons.”

On the other hand the bishop of New Westminster within the ACOC a few hours after the appearance of the Primates’ letter from Brazil in 2003 went ahead with the very action the letter had pleaded should not be taken. It also went against the Bible and the consensus of 2000 years of Christianity.

The implication of this violation and the resulting crisis was ignored.

Since then there have been egregious examples in clear rejection of Lambeth 1 10, Windsor and the requests of the Communion leadership. Once again nothing has been said even though this has meant the tearing apart of the Anglican Communion and an exodus from the church.

Now suddenly those who seek to take care of those who side with historic, biblical Christianity and the Anglican Communion are accused of the very lapse that has produced the crisis.

Is it possible in the real world to use the very agreements that one is contravening to protect oneself”.

4. Regarding Bishop Donald Harvey’s response to the Pastoral Statement (Nov. 30, 2007):

Bishop Don Harvey’s response is an accurate assessment of the cause of the current crisis and interpretation of the Primates’ statements. I am grateful to my brothers and sisters in Christ who wrote letters in support of for these actions and in support of ANiC and the ministry of biblically faithful Communion committed Canadian Anglicans. Thanks be to God.

The Anglican Journal has an interview: South American archbishop sees ‘denial’ and ‘hypocrisy’ in Canadian leaders’ statement

and there is a sidebar, Quick facts: The Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America.

The Anglican Network in Canada itself had this to say about the Pastoral Letter.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Saturday, 1 December 2007 at 2:56pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Canada
Comments

Twisted, weak, defensive and almost sad...not quite to be pitied because PB Venables is a dangerous "bit player" to fellow Christians/others wherever he goes and in much of what he views/accepts as "fair" Province crossing Anglican Communion "poaching." It was Venables who traveled to Canada directly from the Primates "Dromatine" Meeting to initiate "fear/hate-mongering" without pause at The Body of Christ.

Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Saturday, 1 December 2007 at 4:02pm GMT

Surely, us gays are due the care of sons (/ daughters?) ---or at least of oxen Greg Venables ?

Posted by: L Roberts on Saturday, 1 December 2007 at 6:09pm GMT

“In the Dar es Salaam communiqué we said, “Furthermore, those Primates who have undertaken interventions do not feel that it is right to end those interventions until it becomes clear that sufficient provision has been made for the life of those persons.”

That's like a minority report, an opinion of some bad boys carrying on being bad boys. The interventions were still supposed to be stopped.

It is clear that the national Churches are autonomous and for some that means exporting elsewhere. If the Anglican Communion can stay as a diverse body then autonomy and intervention will seem to be the future. Of course this seems hardly likely, so there will be one Communion that approves of these interventions, and these will leave, and one that approves of the original and national Church memberships that remain.

Posted by: Pluralist on Sunday, 2 December 2007 at 2:07am GMT

Don Harvey's hubris never ceases to amaze me.

Together with Bishop Venables, he quotes Dar as authorizing new border-crossings. At the very most, the quoted passage allows continuance of the status quo, not new interventions.

As to members of ACiC "cooperat[ing] with all Communion processes", I seem to recall the Panel of Reference taking a different view, in endorsing the Canadian scheme for alternative episcopal oversight. The dissidents have ignored this route.

But reconciliation is not their goal. Their motto is "My way or the highway". May God's grace go with them as they choose to walk apart.

Posted by: Jim Pratt on Sunday, 2 December 2007 at 5:21pm GMT

"But reconciliation is not their goal."

Exactly. I think +Harvey is after primate of the Southern Cone. Given who else is in the running, I think can can whistle for that! I doubt "Exarch of the Faithful Canadian Remnant" will be enough. He'll just have to settle for going down in the history books as the one who held the line against gay people.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 3 December 2007 at 1:51pm GMT

As regards the various comments, I thought this was the "Thinking" Anglicans blog.

Posted by: cpo on Monday, 3 December 2007 at 2:50pm GMT

"As regards the various comments, I thought this was the "Thinking" Anglicans blog."

Do enlighten us, then. Tell me, what are +Harvey's motivations? +Venables? How do you justify them referring to people who do not agree with them as "faithless"? Trust me, that comment from +Harvey has caused much consternation in this his old diocese. Show me how "faithful" Anglicans are suffering in Canada under the heel of the "faithless" oppressor. Given that the Canadian HoB recently refused to authorize SSBs, explain how any parish in Canada has fallen into a well and needs to be rescued. I keep asking how anyone in Canada has been forced to accept in any concrete way gay people in their parishes getting married. Never an answer. So, enlighten us, how is anyone in Canada being forced to accept anything they do not believe in.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 3 December 2007 at 7:20pm GMT

It is, cpo. If you prefer the conservatives , you have plenty of other options.

Posted by: Merseymike on Monday, 3 December 2007 at 11:56pm GMT

cpo, you certainly are not doing anything to raise the tone.

Posted by: JPM on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 at 1:15am GMT

"As regards the various comments, I thought this was the "Thinking" Anglicans blog."

And what comment should a thinking person have made?

Posted by: Erika Baker on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 at 10:20am GMT

Regarding Ricardo: "Twisted, weak, defensive and almost sad...not quite to be pitied because PB Venables is a dangerous 'bit player'" - to the contrary +Venables is a prominent leader among the Primates of the Global South and therefore cannot so casually be dismissed. That he "traveled to Canada directly from the Primates "Dromatine" Meeting to initiate "fear/hate-mongering" without pause at The Body of Christ" is an amazing statement of ignorance from one who obviously was not present at that meeting.

Regarding Roberts: "Surely, us gays are due the care of sons..." Without question, as Christians we are under the law of love. The conservative opposition has generally failed in providing anything near the kind of care needed by the homosexual community.

Regarding Pluarlist (and Pratt): "The interventions were still supposed to be stopped." No, same-sex blessings were supposed to be stopped. Interventions would continue until adequate provision was made for conservatives. +Venables' intervention is not new - it was he who took the Diocese of Recife under wing in 2005. As for its being a "minority report" let us not forget that Schori was a signatory to it.

Regarding Pratt: "...alternative episcopal oversight. The dissidents have ignored this route." Because what was requested needed to be adequate and what was offered left all controlling power still in the hands of the bishop with whom "dissidents" had difficulty. What was offered was little more than a surrogate. As for "reconciliation is not their goal" where in all this mess has there been any evidence that the agenda of TEC has been even slightly modified? TEC has rather continued in its "prophetic" stance.

Regarding Elms: Not worth commenting on.

Regarding Merseymike: You are right, and many of them are equally as unthinking.

Regarding JPM: Now I am raising the tone.

Regarding Baker: A thinking person would not react but research, reflect and attempt to move discussion forward.

Posted by: cpo on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 at 3:44pm GMT

"Regarding Elms: Not worth commenting on."

Ford's question about how any parish in Canada is forced to accept something they don't believe in is pertinent and deserves an answer.

There is this growing myth that liberals are forcing conservatives out of their churches, yet as far as I can make out all they are doing is asking to co-exist side by side.

Maybe you could engage constructively with Ford's question in order to move the discussion forward?

Posted by: Erika Baker on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 at 5:16pm GMT

Regarding Elms [second post]: "what are +Harvey's motivations? +Venables? How do you justify them referring to people who do not agree with them as 'faithless'?" It is not for me to judge either +Harvey's of +Venables motivations other than by way of saying they are both deeply concerned about what seems to be the abandonment of Holy Scripture as the foundation of faith's articulation. If not abandonement then surely marginalilization with more attention being granted to cultural fluctuation and argument. Perhaps it is in this light that the "faithless" comment should be understood.

It is interesting, isn't it, that the Canadian HoB refused to authorize same-sex blessings but nevertheless Ottawa, Montreal and Niagara have each passed motions in this regard, their respective bishops holding the line at present but indicating every intention to proceed and the Primate simply stating they had clearly followed due process. How is it possible to follow due process when that which is to be considered has at a General Synod been disallowed?

Clearly, at the present time, no conservative parish has been forced to "accept in any concrete way gay people in their parishes getting married" (I thought the issue was same-sex blessing). However, by having to pay assessments etc. they are being "forced" to underwrite the programs and policy of their Diocese and this, against conscience. Not to pay said assessments will indeed be costly.

Conservative parishes are at present linked through association with parishes that seem to have little regard for those boundaries establised by the Communion [cf. Dromantine, WR, Dar es Salaam]. "How is anyone in Canada being forced to accept anything they do not believe in?" By facing the very real possibility of losing all properties because they feel unable to go along with the present course, properties which in the vast majority of cases, wer bought and paid for by parishioners themselves without much if any support from the Diocese - parishioners of yesteryear who would be deeply offended by these recent innovations to the "faith".

Posted by: cpo on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 at 5:37pm GMT

"Regarding Ricardo: "Twisted, weak, defensive and almost sad...not quite to be pitied because PB Venables is a dangerous 'bit player'" - to the contrary +Venables is a prominent leader among the Primates of the Global South and therefore cannot so casually be dismissed. That he "traveled to Canada directly from the Primates "Dromatine" Meeting to initiate "fear/hate-mongering" without pause at The Body of Christ" is an amazing statement of ignorance from one who obviously was not present at that meeting." cpr

Get a grip Mr/Ms. know-it-all, even +Venables later mused it wasn't one of his better/timely or well thought out intrustions!

Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 at 1:09am GMT

cpo: "It is interesting, isn't it, that the Canadian HoB refused to authorize same-sex blessings but nevertheless Ottawa, Montreal and Niagara have each passed motions in this regard, their respective bishops holding the line at present but indicating every intention to proceed and the Primate simply stating they had clearly followed due process. How is it possible to follow due process when that which is to be considered has at a General Synod been disallowed?"

Malcolm+ opines: Isn't it interesting that those horrible clerics and lay people in Ottawa, Niagara and Montreal actually believe that, as members of synod, they have a role in the governance of the church.

There is some disagreement of the net effect of the decision of General Synod in defeating the "local option" resolution. Most, I believe, interpret the matter that this, effectively, disallowed diocesan synods proceeding on their own. That is my interpretation of it, and I stand with the now departed +Victoria of Edmonton and with +Jim Columbia.

However, there is a reasonable interpretation that there is a difference between declining to grant permission on the one hand and actually forbidding on the other. While I don't agree with proceeding this way, it is a coherent position.

The main point to remember, though, is that the actions of General Synod do not, nor were they intended to, end the discussion of this issue within the authorized bodies of the Canadian Church.

Strikes me as a trifle arrogant to tell the faithful clergy and lay people in Ottawa, Niagara and Montreal to sit down and shut up simply becuase General Synod declined to pass a particular resolution.

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 at 2:21am GMT

CPO wrote: “Regarding Elms [second post]: "what are +Harvey's motivations? +Venables? How do you justify them referring to people who do not agree with them as 'faithless'?"

Dear CPO, Ford Elms knows +Bishop Harvey personally.

+Venables has indeed broken his trust, his fealty, his oath, his loyalty (to use the biblical word) with his little game of province hopping.

CPO wrote: “It is not for me to judge either +Harvey's of +Venables motivations…“

Not unless you are their personal Psychiatrist.

CPO wrote: “… other than by way of saying they are both deeply concerned about what seems to be the abandonment of Holy Scripture as the foundation of faith's articulation.”

Sorry CPO, but I understand this phrase to be a less than honourable cover the breach of Trust and Fealty above. Won’t fly.

CPO wrote: “How is it possible to follow due process when that which is to be considered has at a General Synod been disallowed?”

Now you are 1) mixing things, 2) over-interpreting. It is not in within your powers to forbid people to believe somethings are right and Gospel.

CPO wrote: “However, by having to pay assessments etc. they are being "forced" to underwrite the programs and policy of their Diocese and this, against conscience. Not to pay said assessments will indeed be costly.”

Paying their fees is “against conscience”? Now, the misers ;=)

CPO wrote: “Conservative parishes are at present linked through association with parishes that seem to have little regard for those boundaries established by the Communion [cf. Dromantine, WR, Dar es Salaam].”

CPO wrote: "How is anyone in Canada being forced to accept anything they do not believe in?" By facing the very real possibility of losing all properties because they feel unable to go along with the present course, properties which in the vast majority of cases, were bought and paid for by parishioners themselves without much if any support from the Diocese…”

It seems to me that you own this problem entirely. If there is one.

CPO wrote: “… parishioners of yesteryear who would be deeply offended by these recent innovations to the "faith".”

You don’t know this. A catchy phrase. Agitators.

Spin, spin and Propaganda. Talking points.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 at 9:40am GMT

You know I hadn't thought of the obvious secular analogy on this until now:

"CPO wrote: “However, by having to pay assessments etc. they are being "forced" to underwrite the programs and policy of their Diocese and this, against conscience. Not to pay said assessments will indeed be costly.”

By having to pay my income taxes, I am being "forced" to underwrite a war in Iraq (not to mention many other Bush administration programs I disagree with), against my conscience. Does CPO suggest I should stop paying taxes, or declare myself a citizen of some other nation (without actually moving, of course--which is what the conservative separationists are doing)?

I voted, therefore I accept the results of the election (no matter how much they stick in my craw). If the clergy and laity of these parishes were represented at their diocesan conventions, they should accept the decisions of those conventions. If they were NOT represented (because they refused to have anything to do with a process they thought they couldn't win), then the fault is theirs.

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 at 12:15pm GMT

"+Venables' intervention is not new - it was he who took the Diocese of Recife under wing in 2005."

It was he who took the former bishop of Recife under his wing in 2005, cpo.

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 at 12:30pm GMT

Can see how the general character of the discussion has improved?

Posted by: cpo on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 at 2:41pm GMT

>>>Regarding JPM: Now I am raising the tone.

Repeating tired talking points that we have all heard a thousand times is not raising the tone.

Posted by: JPM on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 at 2:49pm GMT

CPO wrote: By facing the very real possibility of losing all properties because they feel unable to go along with the present course, properties which in the vast majority of cases, wer bought and paid for by parishioners themselves without much if any support from the Diocese

In the casea of Ottawa, Niagara and Montreal -- the dioceses that passed the motions in question -- that's simple nonsense. In the case of Ottawa, which I know because it's my diocese, only one parish has even expressed an opinion. It's a parish that is 140 years old, whose building was largely renovated some years ago on the contributions of people most of whom have been driven out by the current rector and which has pointedly refused to pay its fair share to the diocese for several years. Nonetheless, I gather it is running a current deficit roughly the size of my parish's entire budget. The present lot certainly have not bought and paid for anything at all. A number of other parishes have clergy who have identified as being upset -- but they have never received any expression of support from their parishioners. In at least one case, the priest involved retired early because she could not persuiade her parish to agree with her, and said so quite openly in a (rather bitter and uncharitable) letter to them. In any case -- and I am familiar with all but one or two of the parishes in question (including having been a warden in the single largest parish in question, though many years ago) -- the present parishioners can at best lay claim to having maintained what they received from the diocese and the past.

In any case, in both Ottawa and Niagara, it is perfectly clear that under civil law, the land and the buildings belong to the diocese, not to the parish. I would be surprised if it were different in Montreal.

Posted by: John Holding on Thursday, 6 December 2007 at 1:04am GMT

Malcom+ wrote:
"There is some disagreement of the net effect of the decision of General Synod in defeating the "local option" resolution. Most, I believe, interpret the matter that this, effectively, disallowed diocesan synods proceeding on their own. That is my interpretation of it, and I stand with the now departed +Victoria of Edmonton and with +Jim Columbia.

However, there is a reasonable interpretation that there is a difference between declining to grant permission on the one hand and actually forbidding on the other. While I don't agree with proceeding this way, it is a coherent position."

There is one very significant problem with your analysis, Malcolm, and that is the actual content of the so-called "local-option" motion. The motion did not request General Synod to grant permission to dioceses to proceed with same-sex blessings. Rather, it asked General Synod to affirm that dioceses have, and have had all along, the authority to do so. In declining to adopt the motion, then, General Synod has not "declined to grant permission" but rather has declined to state who, if anyone, has the authority to authorize same-sex blessings. That does not disallow diocesan synods from going ahead. If General Synod hsa wanted to disallow diocesan synods, then it had ample opportunity to do so. It did not.

Posted by: Nom de Plume on Saturday, 8 December 2007 at 5:29pm GMT

Tomayto, tomahto.

At the end of the day, some of us (from both sides) believe that it was General Synod's intention to say "don't." Others see it differently.

I note that the "other side" did not feel they had the necessary support to pass an unequivocal "no."

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Saturday, 8 December 2007 at 11:31pm GMT

Tomatoes?

As in Killer Tomatoes attack from outer space?

(immortal 1950ies film, saying everything that need be said about the current American political mind set)

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Sunday, 9 December 2007 at 6:56pm GMT

NO, no! My vote is for "It Came From Outer Space".

Monsters so ugly that they hid to do their dirty work (repair their craft to get out) and would assume a human form to interact with humans when necessary.

Complete with the Theremin providing background music.

Posted by: choirboyfromhell on Monday, 10 December 2007 at 9:25pm GMT

What Bishop Venables is " orthodox Biblical Anglicanism" ?

Is it Anglo-Catholic, with seven sacraments, the real presence, the sacrifice of the Mass, worshipping the consecrated Host as God, Praying for the dead and to the Saints....a la San Joaquin and Fort Worth

Or is it Jim Packer ( Canadian Branch) affirming real absence, two sacraments, no prayers for the dead No sacrifice but calvary,
No confessional but the throne of grace.

Or is " Biblical Orthodox Anglicanism" code word for " a blibd eye to everything other than the gays"

Bishop Venables who has the real true Gospel and authentic Anglicanism: Jim Packer or Bishop Schofield.

Posted by: Robert Ian Williams on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 at 5:50pm GMT

Robt Ian Williams: you make a very good point. The North American schismatics will quickly set to bickering and division on the basis of what you outline (and particularly their attitudes to women's ordination), one has no doubt.

Posted by: Fr Mark on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 at 7:00pm GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.