Incoming Messages

A View From The Pew
by Gerry Hunter

One of the most trying times I encountered when I served as Rector’s Warden in my parish occurred, not surprisingly, at a time of tragedy. For the sake of the people involved, I can only recount it in outline. One of our parish members was married to a man who was also her partner in a professional practice. He had a very severe problem with alcohol, to the point that it had impacted that practice. In concert with the governing body of the profession, he was given a second chance, but with strict stipulations concerning the problem. He struggled valiantly; she supported him faithfully, but the damage had been done. Their marriage ended with his suicide, when the problem re-emerged in the context of the professional practice. There was abundant sadness.

Here in the pews, we are awaiting the culmination of a long struggle for faithfulness. Synods have acted; parishes have responded; provincial and national church formations have deliberated, and in the Communion, the Primates have met. Yet the plans of the revisionists who would bless sin have not been thwarted, and appear on the verge of reaching fulfillment. When that happens, and a “union” is “blessed”, it will be important for us in the pews to examine the incoming messages very carefully.

First of all, there will be the message from the revisionist bishop of New Westminster, and those in his thrall. This will be, perhaps, the clearest message of all to interpret. When a union is blessed, we will know for certain that the rejection by parishes in the diocese, the concerns raised within provincial and national bodies, and the objections of senior members of the wider Communion were utterly dismissed by the forces of revisionism. This will not be at all surprising, but it will be utterly undeniable. The critical questions we in the pews will have to answer will relate to whether or not denial continues.

How will the protesting parishes, and those who support them, react? There are several possibilities. We could see an unequivocal acknowledgement of the enormity of the action. That would be the clearest signal of a determination to remain faithful that we in the pews could hope for. It would be entirely and uniquely appropriate. It would be a clear acceptance of the Apostle Paul’s exhortation to “flee from sexual immorality.” (1 Cor. 6:18) It would stand out from one which was tempered by concern for the judgment of a world from which the followers of Jesus Christ have been called out. The world will, we can be sure in the pews, hate us for this position, and He warned us of that. In St. John’s gospel, Jesus makes it very clear that to follow Him will involve exposure to hatred, because first, the world hated Him. (Jn 15:18 ff) When all Biblical injunctions have been followed regarding brothers and sisters who advocate error, the call is explicit in 1 Cor 5:

⁹I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- ¹⁰not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. ¹¹But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

¹²What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? ¹³God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

So we in the pews have a clear measuring reference for the response to the “blessing” of a “union.”

One of the greatest disappointments here in the pews has been the utter absence of any evidence at all that the provincial and national formations of the church have, as yet, as a body, stood for the faith against this departure from it. On the contrary, we have seen suggestions to go elsewhere from the Archbishop of the Province, a denial of any urgency at all by the national primate, who saw no reason at all in June 2002 to convene the House of Bishops, and ineffectual witness by that House when it did meet to discuss the consequences of the apostasy which is rampant in New Westminster. This is a very disturbing situation for us in the pews. Some years ago now, a faithful rector once observed that if the vicar does not believe, what hope do the people in the pews have? So far, the reactions of the provincial and national formations of the Anglican Church in Canada have done nothing so much as restate that question in a bigger, bolder type face. Has, one is moved to ask, the degeneration of faithful witness progressed so far that no response in defense of the historic teachings of the faith is even possible any more? For the sake of our children, we in the pews must face this question, even when people who wear purple pass it on to a general synod. We will be watching the incoming message closely.

The situation about to culminate has also attracted attention in the wider Anglican Communion. When the synod acted to depart from historic Christian teaching, the serving Archbishop of Canterbury termed it “schismatic.” Primates from other Communion Provinces strongly expressed their concerns. Now, there is a new Archbishop in Lambeth Palace, and the Primates have just finished meeting in Brazil. In the pews, we will be watching to learn whether or not the degeneration goes even beyond the Canadian Church, and has crippled the wider Communion. And as sad as it would be if the evidence points that way, in the pews, we dare not ignore it.

So then, in the pews, we wonder whether or not there remains any capacity for unequivocal faithful witness to the historic Christian faith. Will the local parishes respond in a manner which is appropriate to the seriousness of the step which appears immanent? Will the national church show any evidence at all that it still retains the capacity to bear faithful witness to that faith? Will the wider Communion survive this event as a community which shares a common faith, or merely become, for all to see in an undeniable way, a federation of people who do not share the same faith at all, thereby rejecting the duties incumbent on a body which purports to be an expression of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ? We will not, it seems, have to wait much longer for the answers to these questions.

I began this essay with a sad story. A man had been so damaged by alcohol that the his efforts, plus those of a loving wife, a supportive community, in the end, did not prevent the damage already done from leading to his suicide. As we commended his soul to God’s mercy, so too we commended the wellbeing of all those who had supported him, his wife in particular, to the caring love of the Lord. She is now married to a former widower, and is the step-mother of two daughters. So in spite of the damage done, and its horrible consequences, there has come into being a family, under God, to His honour, and its member’s benefit and joy. We in the pews know that we, too, can expect God’s faithfulness upon those who remain faithful. The incoming messages will tell us the form that expression of faithfulness will take in the future. Faithful and Christian it will be. We await the incoming messages in the pews, that will tell us whether it will be local, Canadian, or even Anglican in nature.