View From The Pew
by Gerry Hunter
(Posted Feb. 6th, 2001).
In the very early part of the imposition of the dialogue process, Bishop Michael Ingham made it very clear that, although he could not control the selection of synod delegates, he expected them to be chosen from participants in the exercise. In a memo dated August 15, 1999, to all clergy, church wardens, and members of diocesan council, Bishop Ingham stated [the emphasis was in the original]:
Decision in 2001
We all understand the significance of this study and dialogue process for the decision we have to make as a diocese. It would assist the Synod of 2001 if parishes send informed and qualified delegates. While Diocesan Canons permit parishes to elect whomever they choose as a Synod delegate (within certain limitations), I strongly recommend that Annual Vestry Meetings that year select from among those who have participated fully in this dialogue process. We should avoid, as far as possible, the electing of lobbyists. Those chosen for this responsibility should be reminded of their duty to take counsel with others for the well-being of the diocese as a whole.
In the February 2001 diocesan newspaper "Topic," Bishop Ingham is quoted as saying:
Bishop Michael Ingham has asked that the issue of the blessing of same sex unions not overly dominate the selection of lay delegates to the Diocesan Synod in June. "It is important that people be selected for their wisdom, spiritual maturity, and good judgement, rather than for their position on any single issue," he wrote in a letter to all clergy and church wardens.
From someone who has single-mindedly and forcefully herded the members of the diocese towards his chosen corral, such a shifting could hardly escape the notice of anyone paying even the least attention to the process as it unfolded. The question then arises, "Why the shift?"
Perhaps the clue is found two paragraphs later in the same article.
He [Bp. Ingham] announced that after this process is completed this year, he would bring the motion back to for another vote at Synod - if there is nothing in canon, civil, or common law that says a Diocese cannot authorize such blessings. A Legal and Canonical Commission of lawyers will give the Bishop a legal opinion later this spring. The bishop told Diocesan Council last month that if the lawyers say that the Diocese fails to have the authority to authorize same sex blessings, Motion 9 will not be brought back to Synod.
With perhaps the exception of some requested papers from commission members, it would be hard to convince anyone in the diocese that the bishop did not have a very firm grasp on the process as a whole. Very few things that happened, such as the unplanned, unannounced propaganda video produced for showing during the discussion of the "blessing rite" would have come as a surprise to him. Some things, such as Dr. Edith Humphrey's outstanding paper in response to that rite, perhaps did. But, would the findings of a commission, chaired by Mr. George Cadman, QC , the Diocesan Chancellor who oversaw the continuing of the mandated dialogue process during Bishop Ingham's sabbatical, be one of them? To assume that it would takes a very vivid imagination indeed.
We in New Westminster now find ourselves in the position of rats running a maze with a trap door. And it could be that the trap door is about to be sprung. After all of the propaganda, all the coercion, there may not even be a vote. In these circumstances, shifting ground is absolutely vital, lest one fall through one's own trap door. And why is this question surfacing now? If the question is so critical that its answer can stop everything in its tracks, why wasn't it addressed first? Could it be that to do so would have deprived the proponents of moving away from Christian belief and teaching of a propaganda opportunity, which could soften up the faithful for another effort? In those circumstances, an astute politician would certainly delay the timing of answering a critical question to the last possible moment, would he not?
Quietly, in the background, a second move could be taking shape. On January 25 2001, clergy in the diocese were presented with a document concerning ethics in pastoral counselling. There is some history to this turn of events In 1997, Rev. Roger Simpson, then of Holy Trinity, Vancouver (now returned to the UK), arranged for Rev. Mario Bergner and his ministry team to come to Vancouver. It was much, much more than just an "Ex-Gay seminar," but of course, with Mario's and some of his team's background, their healing journeys figured prominently during the sessions.
The bishop was less than pleased over the whole thing. He set things up so that no other conferences could be held by Anglican parishes without diocesan council (i.e., his indirect) approval. As a consequence, a 1998 "Church and Homosexuality" conference was held at the McPherson Convention Centre, instead of St. John's, Shaughnessy, parish, which could have easily accommodated it.
Following the 1997 event, a psychologist and militant gay activist, who has been active on various national church committees, and who insists there is no such thing as an ex-gay, (and who figured prominently in the recent propaganda video,) commended to diocesan council that there be some ethical guidelines drawn up. They were passed out at a clergy get-together on January 25, 2001. Will we now have a situation where it will be "unethical" to lead those who wish to receive it along the path to Christ's healing grace? Is this move on the "ethical" front the counterpart to the ECUSA's move to consider blessing almost any relationship, when they backed off from blessing same sex unions? It seems very clear that the contents of this document on "ethics" will go a long way to providing insight into what the revisionist element has in mind for future action.
Those who would hold firm to the faith once delivered would be very wrong to see a "no vote" situation as any kind of a victory. The propaganda exercise has run its course, in spite of the fact that a critical question was left long unanswered so it could do so. And, there are clearly other irons in the fire.
As June approaches, believers are called to enhanced vigilance, vote or no vote.