Of Time and the Essence

A View From the Pew
by Gerry Hunter

In considering what happened at the Financial Synod in the Diocese of New Westminster on 18 January 2003, it is useful to summarize what has happened to date.

Since the diocesan Synod last June, as is well known, eight parishes have distanced themselves from the path of apostasy embarked on in the diocese. They have noted the vacuous nature of the “pastoral provisions” made for them by the synod, both the erstwhile conscience clause and the meaningless episcopal visitor, and have sought national and international assistance for the provision of oversight by a faithful, believing bishop supportive of their faithful witness. The national House of Bishops at its meeting last October chose to turn its back on this expression of faithfulness, and not to question the actions of a synod that made the decision it did, but instead called for a process of facilitated discussions, which they seem to expect to lead to reconciliation, on the basis of that synod's decision, and called for wider discussion of same-sex blessings in the whole Canadian church.

In the last few months this process of discussion has got underway with the assistance of a professional facilitator, even though the House of Bishops never established that a basis for reconciliation exists. It is going ahead against persistent scrutiny from the Internet, which has become in many cases the only place where the reality of the situation is being examined.

Those engaged in these discussions have agreed to certain standards of mutual respect, avoidance of false characterization, and a spirit of genuine enquiry, even though the provisions provide an opportunity for one side to suppress the witness of the other. They have agreed not to offer private commentary, nor to engage in debate through the media, although hopes of stifling commentary on what is happening seem to be in vain. Sometimes the agreement is honoured by saying only that talks continue, that there have been no fistfights, and that there are currently plans to keep meeting, however tentative.

In that environment, the Synod of New Westminster met to equip their bishop to continue his assault on the faith once delivered to the saints. It turns out that all that was needed was rearranging the allocation of funds already at hand. As for reconciliation, the deceptive lip service paid to it by the bishop in his opening remarks proved more than sufficient for the synod. This should come as no surprise. After following the bishop’s lead, the synod is hardly in a position to do otherwise, since it would then have to admit that it had done other than the Christian thing in following him in the first place. But in its actions, there was a strong message.

The Canadian House of Bishops, and some who claim to be faithful in the diocese of New Westminster, have rallied around the banner of order, giving it precedence over the banner of truth. Apparently in the name of order, the House of Bishops called for reconciliation, and never mind that to which all were to be reconciled. Apparently, it matters not if people go into the hills to worship Baal, so long as the procession proceeds in lock step. And so, falling into line, the synod soundly defeated a motion that would have permitted those who will not abandon the faith once delivered to the saints to support the national church. As sad as this is, it is sadder to note that the synod did so in an atmosphere of deception.

Synod has been deceived by the House of Bishops, first of all. The craven cop-out of this body, forsaking a duty to stand true witness to the faith, and placing its trust in the premise from humanist psychology that anything can be “reconciled” laid the groundwork for the deception. From this starting point, there has been a careful nurturing of that assumption by those in the diocese who exercise corporate power. It was said that blessings of same sex “unions” have been delayed so as not to impede “reconciliation”. But the Bishop has told a number of people that he sees no hope of reconciliation. Indeed, whenever he is asked if he will bless same sex unions, he always answers with an unequivocal “yes”, knowing full well that this is precisely what makes “reconciliation” an impossible pipe dream. One is indeed hard put to reconcile his statements to synod on the topic of “reconciliation” with acknowledgements of that reality, when each is made within days of the other. But such, it is evident, now passes for “order” in his diocese, even as the façade crumbles.

Yet history may well overlook this succumbing to deception by the synod, and remember it rather for its manifestation of naked meanness. In the final motion it considered, synod displayed for all to see that the bishop’s claims that no one is being coerced are as much of a sham as is commitment to a “reconciliation” that will never occur. For it was moved “that the Diocese of New Westminster seek reimbursement of funds advanced to the Church of the Emmanuel, Richmond, by the Diocese from the date of inception of the mission.” In a way, it is indeed fitting that this apostate body saw fit to entertain a motion directed against a believing community whose exemplary faithful witness has been constant, steadfast, and visible. And there is a place for gratitude to a Providence that has made the viciousness into which the corporate organs of the diocese have descended so plainly visible. Its much-touted and frequent calls for tolerance not withstanding, it is also noteworthy that the synod saw fit not to deal with this infamous motion, but referred it to Diocesan Council.

It speaks volumes on the state of the diocese when its synod will overwhelmingly defeat attempts to support the national church, but runs for cover rather than stand for what it professes. But then again, this is the body that was so easily deceived by a call to an impossible reconciliation, so the depths of wonder need not be too profound.

All of this would indeed be very depressing if the meeting of this synod, marching (though in order) into Christian irrelevancy, had been the only meeting that weekend. Not everyone in the Anglican Christian community has a history of avoidance, denial, and self-interest in the face of apostasy.

Indeed, at Pawley’s Island, South Carolina, there was a meeting, at the same time, of the Anglican Mission in America. The synod may deceive itself into thinking it holds final sway over those will have none of its antics. Even houses of bishops or general synods may convince themselves that without them, there can be no faithful witness to Jesus Christ and the faith once delivered to the saints. But as they turn inward, and in some cases grow mean, there are still those who emulate the immediate and unequivocal responses of Simon and Andrew, James and John, to the call to follow Jesus. This call, recorded for Christians in St. Mark’s gospel, and prescribed for the lectionary reading this Sunday past, is still being answered. It must have been hard for these fishermen to cease tending to their nets and become fishers of men. No doubt, it was harder then for them to leave behind nets they had carefully tended, than it could ever be today for nets where those who are charged with maintaining them have left them to simply rot. (Sadly, it is now history that the then timely call “To Mend the Net” has been ignored in North America.)

In spite of the delusion that has captivated the synod, the immediacy of the call is still very much acknowledged in New Westminster. Let there be no delusion that the spread of faithful witness to Jesus Christ and the faith once delivered to the saints is in any way dependant on the actions of those who put order before faithfulness. For the path of faithfulness has not always been a path of pristine order, but it has always been a path of growth. Let the synod hang on tight and manifest order and meanness. It cannot thwart the growth of faithful witness.

Indeed, faithful Christians in the Lower Mainland are again presenting a celebration of faithful orthodox Christian witness, this time in Vancouver, to support those whom the synod saw fit to target. And it is fitting that Bishop Chuck Murphy will be present to instruct and encourage those who will not be diverted from the call to faithfulness, coming as he does from a place where deception and delusion has not succeeded in stifling support for both witness and growth.

Now that the financial synod has met, and now that the nature of that body has been made manifest, the time is ripe to abandon all pretense that the word “reconciliation” has been used as other than a façade for inaction and ineptitude. The call is to grow through sharing the faith, and it is time to answer that call. It is essential to faithful witness.

- END -