Out of the Cyber Mayhem

A View From The Pew
by Gerry Hunter

Last Tuesday was April Fool’s Day, and a group of cyber miscreants apparently saw fit to celebrate it by denying service to the internet server that let faithful Anglican Christians access a valuable source of information. The Classical Anglican Net News (and everyone else in the same internet domain) had their site become invisible to their URL. That, fortunately, has been put to rights.

It would seem, though, that even more mayhem than intended might have eventuated. Quite unexpectedly, what appears to be a sensitive briefing paper from the diabolical realms came to be on my hard drive. Needless to say, attempts at tracing its origins and authenticating it have proved fruitless. If it was indeed the concocted cyber-storm that caused it to misroute, then the passing of that storm makes following its path back to an origin quite impossible.

One can never be sure, when dealing with fiendish utterances, just how much of them contain real information and deliberate misinformation. But if this is indeed what it purports to be, its contents deserve careful, if prudent and discerning, consideration.

As for its apparent similarity in form and structure to a recent utterance from the powers that be in the Diocese of New Westminster, about the only comment that comes to mind is, “The devil, you say!”

Lower Command Policy Analysis
Regarding Recent Events in New Westminster

On March 19, despite threats by Bishop Michael Ingham, Bishop Terrance O. Buckle of the Yukon offered to provide "alternative episcopal oversight" and provide faithful oversight by a bishop for several parishes in the Diocese of New Westminster. Seven parishes, at Vestry meetings, subsequently voted to take up the offer.

Lacking a spiritual basis to respond, the Chancellor of the Diocese, George Cadman, labelled Bishop Buckle's offer as "highly irregular" and "outside the Canonical structure of the Canadian Church." Bishop Ingham, setting aside his previous “sensus fidelium” arguments likewise took a corporate power play approach and declared that the actions of the Vestry meeting "null and void."

This sheet is intended to explain the current situation to those who implement the policies of the Low Command.

Why is Bishop Buckle's offer troublesome?

We have relied on the fact that the church gives bishops permission to exercise individual authority only within their own dioceses, and collectively only within the General and Provincial Synods. The powers of bishops are constrained by Canon Law.

Bishop Buckle has no corporate authority within the boundaries of this diocese and can offer episcopal ministry to parishes over which he has no corporate territorial jurisdiction only on the basis of the adherence to the principles of what the Enemy’s followers refer to as “the faith once delivered to the saints.” Bishop Buckle's letter of March 19 was written in spite of Bishop Ingham's formal "inhibition" sent to him on February 24. Such displays of faithfulness and courage are inherently unacceptable to the Low Command.

His "offer" is analogous to the Premier of Alberta sending a medical team to Deep Cove because the residents were beset by a plague, and their plight ignored by their current Provincial government. There would be, and is here, no constitutional basis for the "offer". It would be, and is here, a direct intervention into the area predicated on faithfulness to the Enemy. That, too, is inherently unacceptable to the Low Command.

What did Bishop Buckle observe before he made the “offer”?

Bishop Buckle noted the failure of any group in the Anglican Church of Canada to respond to the revisionist’s actions. There has been no meaningful response by either the Canadian House of Bishops or the Provincial House of Bishops. When Bishop Ingham made it clear to Bishop Buckle on February 24 that his intervention was not welcome, Bishop Buckle went ahead anyway, thereby placing spiritual concerns ahead of the corporate concerns which the Low Command had directed be encouraged, in expectation they would serve as the primary smokescreen for the revisionist’s actions.

Why mustn’t Bishop Ingham just give Bishop Buckle permission to be bishop to the protesting parishes?

Bishop Ingham, in his ordination vows, promised to uphold the unity of the Church. However, as the Prayer Book the Enemy’s followers have used for centuries notes, Bishops also promise “with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word.” Many times it is stated that the Anglicans are an example of “unity within diversity.” That is their tradition. There are “high” Anglicans and “low” Anglicans; there are “liberal” Anglicans and “conservative” Anglicans; there are “evangelical” Anglicans and those who shy away from that designation. Historically, the Church of England was established as a national church, not one defined by a particular theological position. Diversity produces strains, but it also gives strength, provided that church is faithful to the Enemy. The Low Command’s wish in this matter is to encourage the departure from faithfulness, and the substitution of worldly based concerns, deriving from psychology, the pseudo-science the humans invented themselves. Without the Enemy’s gift of unity in response to faithfulness, the Low Command envisages that the erstwhile sources of strength will become forces of destruction, with the pathetic substitute the humans have invented for themselves proving quite incapable of countering them.

If Bishop Buckle were allowed to establish what we should seek to have portrayed as a diocese within a diocese, he would split Anglicans in that part of the world along lines of faithfulness to historic Christianity, and therefore to the Enemy. He would set a precedent for maintaining faithful witness not only for the Canadian Church, but for the Anglican Communion. No doubt other issues arising from revisionism would come to the fore in other dioceses. From our standpoint, what would become of Anglicanism then? There is an expressed wish of the leadership within the protesting parishes to stay a part of the Anglican Church of Canada, and the Anglican Communion. The Low Command cannot possibly risk having an outburst of faithful witness undermine our efforts to destroy this organization. But the local bishop, bolstered by the compromised synod, must continue to maintain that, if these troublesome parishes want to remain a part of the Canadian church, they have to accept and respect corporate authority without regard to matters of faithful witness. This includes their governance structure. They live with diversity. We want that, not faithfulness, to be perceived as the essence of the Anglican way. And as long as faithful witness is suppressed, the Low Command is confident that events will continue to unfold as Our Father Below would favour.

Didn’t the Vestry in each of the protesting parishes vote to accept Bishop Buckle’s offer?

What Bishop Buckle proposed to the parishes is not envisaged Canon law, which itself was not written to combat rampant revisionism. From a corporate and legalistic perspective, vestries, even with large majorities, cannot act ultra vires, that is, beyond the scope of their legal power and authority. We must continue to suppress the fact that the bishop and synod have abandoned faithful witness, and emphasize this humanistic, corporate approach to matters.

Why couldn’t anyone stop Bishop Buckle from offering his service as a bishop?

Each bishop in Canada has promised obedience to his or her Metropolitan. In the case of Bishop Buckle (and for that matter Bishop Ingham), Archbishop David Crawley of Kootenay is the Metropolitan. The diocesan Chancellor, George Cadman, QC, has written to Archbishop Crawley asking that Bishop Buckle be sanctioned for making his offer. It is the opinion of the staff of the Low Command that the Metropolitan had rendered himself incapable of responding to a faithfulness issue, as evidenced when he washed his hands of any responsibility for maintaining and defending that despicable institution of marriage, and is therefore now only a corporate force.

Specifically, what Bishop Buckle has done, from the corporate perspective, is to violate Bishop Ingham’s “inhibition” against him issued on February 24, asking Bishop Buckle not to exercise any Episcopal ministry within the geographical boundaries of the Diocese of New Westminster. The offer of March 19, we would want concluded, directly violated General Synod Canon 17. Corporately, what happens now is up to the Archbishop. For the time being, the Low Command is satisfied with this situation.

In summary, Bishop Buckle could not be stopped because he placed faithfulness first, and all that was left to counter him was recourse to corporate, litigious responses.

Does this mean there is no prospect that priests in the protesting parishes will be required to bless same sex unions?

Definitely not. Last June, after years of browbeating, manipulation, and coercion, masquerading as study and careful listening, the diocese synod decided to allow those parishes and clergy who wish to do so to bless what was presented as the “committed partnerships” of homosexual couples. This, on its face, was presented as an act of permission, not requirement. Provisions touted as safeguards were put in place to appear to protect those who felt unable to offer this “pastoral ministry” in their church. The synod asked only that everyone should respect the conscience of others in this matter, quite apart from considerations of the witness to what the Enemy’s followers have taught and held for years, based on their “Holy Scripture” and tradition.

No clergy, immediately, was required to perform same sex blessings; no parish was to be a place where same sex blessing take place unless a majority at a Vestry meeting vote to become such a place (six parishes to date have so voted, and a policy on how to honour those votes while ignoring the votes of the seven dissidents is near completion); no clergy would presently be required to refer homosexual couples to other clergy who have agreed to perform the blessings (although the local bishop did say he expected it to happen). A powerless Episcopal visitor would be appointed to provide the façade of pastoral care to clergy and parishes who request it. Meantime, Lower Command has determined through analysis, that through continued browbeating, manipulation, and coercion, augmented by direct appointment of clergy to troublesome parishes, would eventually drive faithful witness to extinction.

To meet Lower Command’s requirements, the church must be willing to indiscriminately tolerate diversity of opinion, but must not tolerate the break up of its structures, even in response to deliberate disregard for the Enemy’s teachings.

On what basis did the diocesan synod assert the “right” to request the bishop to authorize a rite for the blessing of same sex unions?

The decision to proceed with the blessing of same sex unions in that diocese was made after three separate synods had considered the matter, each (by increasing majorities, but nothing close to unanimity at all) asking the bishop to proceed. The decision, that was driven by the bishop, with the people of the Diocese of New Westminster constrained to act through a gerrymandered synod, was taken with care, crafting, a façade of prayer, and emphasized the following of the Canon law of the Canadian church over and above faithful witness. There was a public show of “consultation” with other elements of the Canadian church and the wider Communion, and denigration of scripture and tradition. It was done to resemble the way Anglicans do these things when they act out of faithfulness.

Among many steps taken was the appointment of a Legal and Canonical Commission to examine the question of corporate jurisdiction. The Commission included two lawyers expert in Canon law from outside the diocese, and the Chancellor of the diocese. After careful study and review of submissions from all parts of the country, the Commission crafted an argument that any bishop and any diocese had the necessary jurisdiction.

At the same time, a national Task Force on Jurisdiction, established by the Canadian House of Bishops and the Council of General Synod, reported that the practice of the Canadian church is that “when jurisdiction in a contentious matter is not specified, it will be decided at the highest level that has the will to decide it.” This disregard of a duty to faithfulness made it easier for the diocese to appear to have acted properly and in good faith.

The former Archbishop of Canterbury and several Primates of Provinces within the Anglican Communion have stated their opposition to the blessing of same sex unions. What is the effect of this opposition?

While it must appear that outside voices are respectfully listened to, Lower Command staff analysis has determined that no one beyond the Anglican Church of Canada can be permitted to be taken as giving other than advice as to what takes place within the Church in Canada. The corporate norms call for The Archbishop of Canterbury to issue invitations to the Lambeth Conference every ten years, thereby indicating who is within the Anglican Communion. The practice of the Archbishop of Canterbury has been to accept the decision of each national province as to which bishops are included. Accordingly, it was up to the Anglican Church of Canada as to who in Canada is to be designated as being in the Anglican Communion.

In Lower Command’s view, continued emphasis on these corporate mechanisms must continue and intensify, to serve as a mask for the actions of revisionists in disregarding, weakening, and eventually eliminating Christian faithfulness as a criterion for being an Anglican.

Will the national church (the General Synod) deal with the issue of same sex blessings?

The Canadian House of Bishops has passed the buck, asking that the issue of same sex unions be put on the agenda of the 2004 national General Synod meeting in St. Catharines, Ontario, on May 28 through June 4, 2004. Delegates to this General Synod will be elected at the Diocesan Synod on May 30 and 31, 2003. In so doing, the house opted to overlook the promise to “with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word,” and leave the matter to be resolved through purely corporate avenues.

New Westminster is claiming that the bishops did not ask the diocese to rescind the decision of the June Synod, nor ask Bishop Ingham to delay issuing of the rite of blessing until the General Synod, but merely asked dioceses which have not yet voted on the issue to wait until then.

Although that is far from clearly being the case, it is Lower Command’s policy decision to support this perception of the state of affairs.

Why doesn’t Bishop Ingham suspend or dismiss clergy in parishes where the Vestry has voted to ask another bishop to take jurisdiction?

In order to maintain church order, Canon Law empowers a bishop or a diocesan court to admonish, suspend, or remove from office any ordained person for ecclesiastical offenses, which include (among other things) disobedience to a bishop or contemptuous or disrespectful conduct towards a bishop in matters pertaining to the administration of the affairs of a diocese or a parish.

Bishop Ingham on March 24 wrote to clergy in the pesky parishes to ask whether they agree with their Vestry’s action, or disassociate themselves from it. A letter was received on March 31 with the names of the clergy involved, but signed by only one of them. The letter did not answer the bishop’s specific questions. An ecclesiastical offence is a serious charge; due process must and will be followed in all cases.

Given the contents of the response letter, which was signed on behalf of all clergy in the pesky coalition of the faithful, and pointed to unlawful behavior on the part of the bishop, the contents of a letter written by the Bishop of Saskatchewan, which undermined the arguments we had been relying upon to prevail, and the prospect of action on the part of Anglican Communion Primates, Lower Command is striking a task force to more profoundly consider this situation.

What has happened to the `process of reconciliation’?

The Canadian House of Bishops asked the Diocese of New Westminster and the pesky faithful parishes to engage in a reconciliation process, and the each has complied. Three meetings were held, and then the talks broke down. The Diocesan team have repeatedly said they are willing to resume talks with any parish or group of parishes that wishes to talk about reconciliation.

Lower command’s analysis is that the exercise was predicated on no real considerations other than sham and show. It notes that even the bishop acknowledged its futility several times before it even began. Continued references to this exercise, though, will only serve Lower Command’s objectives if they are made in a manner which masks the fact that, from the point of view of faithfulness to the Enemy, no basis for “reconciliation” exists. It also directs that when used, the term will be employed as an incantation, and only when it fits the pattern described by the secular pseudo-science of psychology. Under no circumstances will it be used when even the slightest chance exists of it being recognized as referring to the gift given by the Enemy in return for faithfulness.

What happens next?

The matter of Bishop Buckle’s offer to take over parishes outside his jurisdiction is in the hands of the Metropolitan, Archbishop David Crawley. Lower Command anticipates a purely corporate and secular response.

Clergy in the protesting parishes are to again be directed to tell to Bishop Ingham as to whether they accept the motions of their Vestries, and their previous reply utterly ignored.

The best result Lower Command can envisage would be for Bishop Buckle to withdraw his offer, the clergy involved to disassociate themselves from it, and for everyone once again to attempt a sincere effort at secular, organizational reconciliation, in the incantatory sense described above.

Longer term, Lower Command directs that continued disregard for faithful witness to the Enemy, and continued emphasis on corporate and legal machination, be fully encouraged. This could, according to analysis, lead to increased mayhem and disruption of the faithful. The alternative, faithfulness, could lead to renewal, an outcome which Lower Command will not tolerate.

Under the authority of the Low Command,

By order of the Undersecretary,

Tapeworm

© 2003 by Gerry Hunter
All rights reserved.