The report also asks calls for a moratorium on further blessings and asks bishops who have authorized the blessings – including Vancouver Bishop Michael Ingham -- to apologize or consider withdrawing from “representative participation” in the Anglican Communion.

The report recommends individual Anglican jurisdictions to promise not to make decisions that threaten to impair the unity of the church worldwide.

In June 2002, the governing body of the Diocese of New Westminster voted to become the first in the world to develop a marriage-like ceremony for same-sex couples. A group of Vancouver-area Anglican parishes subsequently formed a coalition, known as the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW), and sought a mainstream bishop to lead them. But the churches and their clergy have since faced a spate of ecclesiastical charges, church closures, locked church buildings and fired lay leaders.

The New Westminster decision, along with an August 2003 decision in the United States to affirm the election of an openly gay man as bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire, has led to unprecedented division throughout the 77-miillion member Communion.

But ACiNW spokesperson Lesley Bentley says she hopes this report ultimately will lead to “genuine, long-term protection for churches that want to remain within the mainstream of global Anglicanism.”

The Windsor Report, authored by a 17-member international commission, has been the subject of intense speculation over its 12-month development.

In March 2004, a commission of four Canadian bishops recommended an alternative bishop for dissenting parishes within the Diocese of New Westminster for up to six years, but the Canadian House of Bishops failed to act on the recommendations at its spring meeting. Bishop Michael Ingham has strongly resisted the concept of an alternative bishop, saying it violates ancient church traditions.

END

Linda Seale (604) 556-8066
For more information and backgrounders,
please point your browser to http://www.acinw.org/media.html
====================================================================

Our Submission to the Lambeth Commission

A Case For Alternative Episcopal Oversight: An Overview of the Crisis in the Diocese of New Westminster and its impact on the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Submitted by the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW) August 2004

Introduction

What is the Anglican Communion in New Westminster?

The Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW) is an informal coalition of orthodox parishes located in the Vancouver-based Diocese of New Westminster. The coalition formed in June 2002 after the Synod of the Diocese voted with the Bishop’s consent to ask the Bishop to develop a rite of blessing for same-sex unions. Eight parishes joined the coalition by majority vestry vote within months of the June decision. Two parishes have since joined by vestry vote . According to the Diocese’s 2001 published statistics, the coalition churches jointly make up 22.9 percent of the weekly attending population of the Diocese. The coalition churches have requested that they be provided alternative episcopal oversight with full jurisdiction. At least two additional parishes within the Diocese have written to the Canadian House of Bishops seeking intervention.

For ACiNW parishes, what is the nature of the crisis in the Diocese of New Westminster?

The ACiNW parishes believe the crisis in the Diocese has been precipitated by a unilateral decision of the Diocesan Synod, with only a slim majority, to issue a public rite for the blessing of same-sex unions, in contravention of a) the clear and unambiguous teaching of Scripture in reference to marriage and human sexuality as interpreted by the Christian church throughout its history; b) the mind of the Anglican Communion as stated in Resolution 1.10, Lambeth Conference 1998; c) the express will of the Primates of the Anglican Communion as stated in their pastoral letter of May 2003; and d) statements by successive Archbishops of Canterbury throughout 2002 and 2003, and e) the Anglican Church of Canada’s founding principles, which declare the church to be “in full communion with the Church of England throughout the world.”

What do ACiNW parishes want that alternative episcopal oversight with full jurisdiction can provide?

The ACiNW parishes are not extraordinary parishes. The beliefs they hold and teach regarding human sexuality and the authority of Scripture are consistent with the mainstream of the Anglican Communion and indeed the majority of Christians throughout the world. But, within the Diocese of New Westminster, ACiNW parishes are a minority, and are required to accept the consequences of actions and decisions not of their choosing, and in most cases, affecting the sustainability of the churches and their identity as Anglicans in full communion with the worldwide church. When ACiNW parishes have resisted this scheme, they have been met with threatening letters, church closures, fired wardens, and ecclesiastical charges against their rectors.

The goal of the ACiNW is not separation, schism, or independence, as repeatedly alleged by the Diocese of New Westminster, but unity with the worldwide Anglican Communion under the authority of Scripture, faithful Bishops, and the teaching of the church. ACiNW parishes have sought alternative episcopal oversight from an orthodox Canadian Bishop, in order to fulfill the expectations every Anglican parish, clergy, and parishioner ought to have: a) to be in full communion with Anglicans throughout the world; b) to receive the pastoral support, care, and direction of a Bishop committed to upholding the teaching of the church and the unity of the Communion; c) to obtain genuine long-term protection from punitive legal action regarding church properties, church closures, and clergy licenses; d) to acquire long-term assurance that the orthodox voice will be protected and sustained through clergy appointments in orthodox parishes.

These expectations are entirely reasonable, indeed expected, under most conditions within the Anglican Communion, and are in fact crucial to the survival of parishes committed to the mission and gospel of Christ. But these expectations are nonetheless impossible to achieve under present conditions for ACiNW parishes within the Diocese of New Westminster.

The following stories Illustrating the Pastoral Crisis in the Diocese of New Westminster

The story of St. Martin’s Anglican Church in North Vancouver. In 2001, St. Martin’s Anglican Church was a vibrant and growing, largely conservative Anglo-Catholic parish in the Diocese of New Westminster, with an active youth group, a full-time youth pastor, and weekly attendance well above the average in the Diocese.

In September 2002, four months after the Synod of the Diocese of New Westminster passed a motion asking its Bishop to create a rite of blessing for same-sex unions, St. Martin’s vestry met to consider its position on the matter and determine a way forward. It passed three motions: one in favour of the parish seeking alternative episcopal oversight (76 percent), one in favour of withholding monthly assessments (79 percent), and one in favour of contributing resources to the ACiNW (83 percent).

In October of 2002, the ACiNW submitted a report to the Canadian House of Bishops for consideration at its fall meeting, the first subsequent to the passage of the New Westminster motion. The report included a formal request for alternative episcopal oversight from the eight parishes belonging to the ACiNW, as well as letters from two additional parishes. The House of Bishops instead asked the parishes to engage in a mediated dialogue with the Diocese with the hope of resolving the impasse. Believing the House of Bishops had effectively closed the door on the possibility of alternative episcopal oversight, the rector of St. Martin’s, the Rev’d Dr. Timothy Cooke, submitted his resignation, effective in January 2003.

Bishop Ingham subsequently appointed an interim priest, the Rev’d Don Willis, who initially stated he would support the decisions of the parish. When the Bishop of Yukon, the Rt. Rev’d Terrance Buckle, made an offer of alternative episcopal oversight to the parishes of the ACiNW in March 2003, seven of the ACiNW parish vestries voted by a 97 percent majority to accept the offer. St. Martin’s declined to vote immediately, but held multiple information sessions for parishioners to determine its response to Bishop Buckle’s offer.

As the parish prepared to make its decision on Bishop Buckle’s offer, some parish leaders discovered that the ballot included wording saying that voting against alternative episcopal oversight did not change the parish’s opposition to same-sex blessings, but that in order to accept alternative episcopal oversight meant voters “may have to leave the parish of St. Martin’s.” Some parishioners also became aware of a telephone campaign in which it was suggested to many parishioners that the parish building would be lost if a vote accepting Bishop Buckle’s offer succeeded. With worries of the loss of parish property looming, support for alternative episcopal oversight dropped. Bishop Buckle’s offer was accepted by a 59.79 percent majority. Still, the parish’s church committee later ratified the vote, and sent a letter to Bishop Buckle accepting his offer.

The decision of St. Martin’s to accept Bishop Buckle’s offer of alternative episcopal oversight placed the parish at an impasse with Bishop Ingham and the Diocese of New Westminster, who refused to allow Bishop Buckle to conduct any ministry within the Diocese, including the appointment of a permanent parish priest for St. Martin’s. The parish leadership held two meetings with Bishop Ingham during the summer of 2003 to attempt to resolve the issue.

On Saturday September 6, 2003, a locksmith arrived at St. Martin’s church without warning and attempted to change the locks on the church building. The parish’s youth minister was inside the building and alerted a parish trustee, who arrived to rebuff the locksmith. The following day, the Executive Archdeacon of the Diocese of New Westminster attended the parish’s services to announce that Bishop Ingham had invoked Canon 15, a rarely used church law that permits the Bishop to reorganize the governing structure of the parish. Bishop Ingham had removed all the parish wardens and trustees and appointed Wardens loyal to himself. All parish leaders who supported the parish’s decision to pursue and accept alternative episcopal oversight were permanently removed. The church committee was disbanded and all vestry meetings were suspended indefinitely.

The following week, the parish’s youth minister, a supporter of alternative episcopal oversight and the person who discovered the locksmith, was fired by the Bishop’s appointed wardens. The parish’s website and newsletter, both administered by those supportive of alternative episcopal oversight, were suspended. Volunteers supportive of alternative episcopal oversight were asked to resign from their positions.

Parishioners alarmed and frustrated by the turn of events at the parish called a Special Vestry meeting for September 27, 2003, to take place following the morning service. At the time of the meeting, the Bishop-appointed wardens attempted to scuttle the meeting, then announced the meeting would have no validity under Canon 15. The vestry nonetheless voted by overwhelming majority to reaffirm previous vestry decisions, including the election of wardens, and parish decisions supporting alternative episcopal oversight. The Bishop’s wardens ignored the resolutions passed by the vestry.

On January 15, 2004, the Bishop-appointed wardens announced that St. Martin’s had reconciled with the Diocese of New Westminster and would conduct its business under the authority of the Bishop of New Westminster. Parishioners were not consulted nor informed in advance regarding the announcement. In a newspaper interview, one of the Bishop-appointed wardens expressed frustration that the ACiNW continued to list St. Martin’s as a member of its coalition. The ACiNW subsequently announced that membership in the ACiNW coalition is by vestry vote, not by decision of wardens appointed by the Bishop.

On February 14, 2004, two trustees that had been removed by the Bishop of New Westminster in September filed suit with British Columbia’s Supreme Court alleging that their removal from St. Martin’s, an incorporated parish, had been improper under the province’s incorporation act and the inherent right of any duly incorporated body to govern itself. In June, the two trustees, believing the situation at St. Martin’s was no longer salvageable, dropped the suit and joined with other orthodox members of St. Martin’s to plant a new church. The parishioners felt that the church plant was a better use of their resources than engaging in litigation with the Diocese.

The story of Church of the Holy Cross in Abbotsford. In 2001, the Diocese of New Westminster created a new mission church in the Vancouver-area community of Abbotsford. In 2003, the church was growing and vibrant, conducted congregational meetings in good faith and order, and appointed acting wardens. Its “mission” status meant that it was not separately incorporated, and hence had closer legal ties to the Diocese than a typical church. Like other small churches in the Diocese, it relied on funding from the Diocese for its survival. The Diocese appointed a priest-in-charge, the Rev’d James Wagner.

Like other conservative churches in the Diocese, Church of the Holy Cross struggled to come to terms with the June 2002 decision of the Diocese of New Westminster in respect to the blessing of same-sex unions. Although the ACiNW coalition formed immediately after that Synod, Holy Cross did not become a member until September of 2003. At that time, the church held a congregational meeting where they voted overwhelmingly to accept the offer of alternative episcopal oversight by Bishop Buckle, and join the ACiNW coalition.

The church leadership and congregation were aware of the implications their decision could have on the church’s funding. Accordingly, reaction from the Diocese was swift. On October 6, 2003, Bishop Ingham wrote to Rev’d Wagner, saying he had been informed of the church’s decision. The letter also indicated funding to the church was immediately terminated and that Diocesan Council would consider closure of the church at its meeting on October 9. Finally, Bishop Ingham warned Rev. Wagner that if he did not affirm his obedience to him in writing, he would immediately be placed on leave without permission to officiate.

Rev. Wagner responded: “The letters received during the last week seem to be aimed at excluding both lay and ordained people from the church immediately, solely because we have failed to agree with you as to the scope and exercise of your powers and failed to support you in the underlying debate…I wish to continue to hold and sincerely exercise my office as a minister at Church of the Holy Cross, and within the Anglican Church of Canada. Your actions in terminating the mission and its funding may make this impossible. I sincerely pray that you will recognize the wisdom of preserving the communion and unity of the church and desist from allowing any further blessings of same-sex unions until the General Synod can consider in an open, fair, and inclusive debate the wise and correct course for the church in response to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”

On October 14, Diocesan Council subsequently did vote to recommend that Church of the Holy Cross be terminated. Bishop Ingham did not immediately act on the recommendation. A Diocesan official did, however, write to Rev. Wagner to indicate his position and pay had been eliminated, with two week’s severance pay. This letter was written one day after the Primates’ Emergency Meeting in London concluded.

At its semi-annual meeting in late October, the Canadian House of Bishops passed a motion striking a task force to explore Adequate/Alternative Episcopal oversight for conservative parishes of New Westminster, with the proviso that Bishop Buckle was to withdraw his offer. Bishop Buckle agreed to do so shortly thereafter.

Despite the statement of the Primates less than a month prior, on November 13, the Diocese issued a media statement explaining that that Bishop Ingham had written to Holy Cross, suggesting they withdraw their September vestry motions and accept his jurisdiction as their Bishop, in exchange for the possibility of restored funding. The media release did not mention the Primate’s statement nor the House of Bishop’s task force. The leaders of Holy Cross learned of Bishop Ingham’s letter in an article in the Vancouver Sun on November 17.

Holy Cross leaders replied to Bishop Ingham in writing, saying that the motions of the congregation were consistent with the October 16 statement of the Primates of the Anglican Communion and the intentions of the Canadian House of Bishops at its most recent meeting. They also said that their vestry motion was a matter of faith, and should not be confused or combined with matters of funding.

On December 18, Bishop Ingham wrote Rev. Wagner to say that he had decided to terminate the church, adding that Rev. Wagner may not “undertake any continuing or permanent Anglican ministry for which a license would be required”.

Church of the Holy Cross continues to function under the leadership of Rev. Wagner, although he and his congregation recognize that they are no longer within the Anglican Communion or under the oversight of any Bishop. They continue to hope that the Lambeth Commission’s recommendations will provide a way for them to rejoin the Communion.

General Observations

While these accounts are compelling on their own, they are only two stories among many that illustrate the nature and depth of the crisis in the Diocese of New Westminster. While the decisions of the Diocesan Synod, encouraged by the Bishop of New Westminster, have set the Diocese outside the moral mainstream of Anglicanism, the consistent theme within the Diocese has been a tendency to enforce its decision-making with legal and canonical intimidation and insistence on to-the-letter observance of church order. Beginning within a week following the Diocesan Synod of 2002, trustees and clergy of the so-called “dissenting parishes” received numerous written warnings and threats from the Diocese regarding parish property, clergy licenses, and ecclesiastical charges. On other occasions, while claiming to provide a “safe place” for conservatives within the Diocese, Bishop Ingham has asserted that “On this homosexual issue, we're not dealing with theology. Some people have a pathological dislike for homosexual sex…it’s not rational, it’s visceral.” On other occasions, the Diocese has abandoned attempts to represent the conservative viewpoint, attacked them from the pulpit or in the media, and publicly exaggerated or misstated conservative viewpoints, facts regarding the situation in the Diocese, or the reality of threats on the unity of the Communion perpetuated by the Diocese.

While the pattern of ongoing reference to canonical law and church order is clear and definable, it is also demonstrably selective. For example, a 2001 report from the Bishop-appointed Legal and Canonical Committee, struck to consider the legality of the blessing of same-sex unions with the Diocese of New Westminster, reported that the Bishop of New Westminster has the jurisdiction to create a blessing rite. However, a reputable Canadian law firm issued a report in 2003, saying that “the plain reading of the Canons of the Diocese of New Westminster is that they exclude any power in the Bishop to authorize such a rite or ceremony.” The Diocese widely published its own report, but ignored the dissenting report entirely.

In October 2003, the Metropolitan of the Ecclesiastical Province of British Columbia wrote Bishop Buckle, explaining that he had determined Bishop Buckle had committed an ecclesiastical offense. But the Archbishop arrived at his determination without a charge or a trial of any kind, both of which are required under provincial canons, or without adherence to several fundamental principles of natural justice as required by Canadian canonical and civil law.

These developments and others like them have led to an enormous sense of frustration and powerlessness amongst many New Westminster Anglicans. They have found themselves within a Diocese that rejects higher church authorities beyond its own jurisdiction. It has done so pleading principles of inclusion, love, and equality while at the same time attempting to control protests to its decisions by jettisoning these very principles in favour of the exercise of political power and canonical instruments. Many Canadian Anglicans have grown to deeply distrust a type of Anglicanism that chooses to use church legal structures to enforce a unilateral departure from established church teaching and moral authority.

The developments in the Diocese of New Westminster are a symptom of isolationism within the Anglican Church of Canada. In recent years, the Anglican Church of Canada, along with some other western churches, has begun to emphasize the nature of its relationship with other Communion provinces in terms of autonomy rather than interdependence. Within Canada, the Communion itself is increasingly understood not as a family of provinces sharing the bond of koinonia through one united body, but as merely a set of autonomous and loosely-affiliated national bodies. Accordingly, many Canadian Anglicans often have a rather poor understanding of our role and place in the Communion as a whole. In many cases, this growing culture of isolationism leads to a stark form of institutionalism: the view that it is our internal canons and our decision-making structure that serves as our ultimate and unassailable authority, rather than Scripture or the moral and spiritual connection we have with Anglicans around the world.

Remedies regarding the crisis in New Westminster

1. We seek remedies that dispel isolationism. Whatever recommendations the Commission may issue to address the developments in New Westminster and ECUSA, we ask that the Commission pay particular attention to the culture of growing isolationism within the Anglican Church of Canada, and consider remedies that in general may serve to enhance and deepen the connection Canadian Anglicans have with the worldwide community.

2. We ask for a legitimate, sufficient, and detailed remedy for the New Westminster situation. It is clear that the status quo within the Diocese of New Westminster cannot continue, and that a “conscience clause” and other pastoral solutions designed to achieve reconciliation within the boundaries of the Diocese ultimately do not address the issues at stake. We urge the Commission to recognize that the needs of ACiNW are not extraordinary: to be reconciled in full communion with Anglicans around the world, under the spiritual authority of God’s revealed Word and the undivided church, and to be legally and in all other ways protected from aggressive steps against them and attempts to remove them from their parish properties.

3. Remedies should not be restricted to pastoral care. There is a misperception in many quarters that the decisions in New Westminster have led to little more than a handful of negative feelings, uncertainties, and anxieties on the part of orthodox Anglicans, most of which, it is assumed, will soon pass away with the proper administration of pastoral care. But this is a gross misunderstanding of the issues at stake, which are not exclusively rooted in pastoral care but also in theology, the authority of Scripture, the unity of the Communion, the mission of Christ, and the gospel itself. Not surprisingly, proposals to provide temporary pastoral counseling for orthodox parishes in New Westminster have been rejected by the ACiNW as inadequate , and have been found to be largely unpopular for orthodox parishes not belonging to the ACiNW .

4. Any remedies should provide for the future security of orthodox parishes within the Anglican Church of Canada, and particularly in the Diocese of New Westminster, to ensure that faithful preaching of the gospel is maintained in perpetuity. At the current time, orthodox parishes within the Diocese of New Westminster need to hire clergy for vacant positions. As a result of the crisis, there are no orthodox ministers with the same understanding of these issues who will be able to come under the jurisdiction of Bishop Michael Ingham. In order to preserve parishes and their teaching, there must be a remedy that allows parishes to hire clergy who share their beliefs, the same understanding of Scripture and the Anglican Communion. There must be an ability to ordain new clergy with the same orthodox views, to hire such clergy into these parishes, and to confirm members of the church who are steadfast in the faith.

5. We ask that remedies should be administered by the Primates, and that accountability for their implementation be placed at an international level. It has become the opinion of many Canadian Anglicans that the Anglican Church of Canada may be unable to resolve the crisis within the Diocese of New Westminster. The Canadian House of Bishops appears deeply divided in respect to issues surrounding episcopal oversight or other remedies that require serious realignments or structural changes. The House of Bishops, as a body, has thus far been unable to offer a legitimate solution despite several opportunities to do so. In fact, the House of Bishops own task force on Alternative Episcopal Oversight11 recommended full jurisdiction, but many Bishops, including Bishop Ingham, have expressed their opposition to the report. At their Spring 2004 meeting, the House of Bishops narrowly defeated a motion that would have accepted the report and recommended a pastoral care solution similar to provisions already in place. When Bishop Ingham left that meeting early to meet with the Dalai Lama in Vancouver, the House of Bishops decided to defer the matter to their October 2004 meeting. This has left the ACiNW parishes in what appears at times to be an endless limbo. In many respects, the issues surrounding the blessing of same-sex unions have profoundly polarized our church and rendered strictly internal resolutions difficult and unlikely. It is therefore appropriate for the Commission to provide detailed ways in which the Primates can execute an “enhanced responsibility” in their teaching leadership in respect to the situation in the Diocese of New Westminster, enabling adequate provision of godly and effective episcopal oversight.

© 2004 ACiNW. all rights reserved