Protest, Providence, and Promise in Global Anglican Realignment.
Edited by George Egerton, Kyle MacKenney, David Short and Trevor Walters.
Anglican House, 2021.
This book gives first-hand accounts of how the Anglican Church of Canada split over issues of human sexuality.
What happened in Canada twenty years ago is repeating itself in the Church of England today. It may indicate where we are likely to end up if we don’t learn from previous mistakes.
It is told from the perspective of the traditionalists. In 2005 they separated from the ‘liberal’ established Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) and formed the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC). The network has made international connections. In 2009 they joined traditional Anglican parishes in the US to create the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). They are also part of the GAFCON (Global Anglican Future Conference) movement of traditionalist Anglican provinces world-wide.
The ANiC has recently changed its name:
“In November 2024 at our general synod we voted to adjust our name from the Anglican Network in Canada to the Anglican Diocese of Canada, to better express who we had become as an established and growing diocese within the ACNA.” https://dioceseofcanada.ca/history
With fifteen authors, each writing a chapter recounting their own experiences, it is difficult to follow the order of events. There is a timeline as an Appendix, so it is best to read that first.
Bishop Donald Harvey was a bishop in the Anglican Church of Canada, who left to become a bishop in ANiC. He writes in Chapter 6 about how human sexuality dominated the debates in the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada over many years until the position shifted to introduce the liberal changes. Bishop Harvey was elected bishop in the Diocese of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador in 1992 and attended his first House of Bishops meeting:
“The main topic on the agenda was their continuing study on human sexuality in general and the blessing of same-sex unions in particular.
When I retired from this house twelve and one-half years later, the main topic on the agenda still was human sexuality and same-sex blessings, as indeed it had been at every one of the twenty-five intervening week-long meetings I had attended.
Bishop Michael Ingham of New Westminster quickly emerged as the champion for the cause of the blessings (note that same-sex marriage was not even on the agenda at that stage) and, together with a number of very vocal and persuasive fellow bishops, seemed to be gaining momentum.” Page 124.
Fighting against the proposed changes was a coalition of anglo-catholics, evangelicals and charismatics. Canon George Sinclair writes in Chapter 5 that the main bodies were:
“The Prayer Book Society of Canada (PBSC); Barnabas Anglican Ministries (BAM), which was the Canadian branch of the Evangelical Fellowship in the Anglican Communion; and Anglican Renewal Ministries (ARM), a charismatic renewal ministry” Page 104.
Bishop Charlie Masters, in Chapter 7, explains:
“We were committed to biblical orthodoxy within Anglicanism, and we were blessed with a high level of unity, which previously seemed unlikely, but perhaps in part was possible because we all three recognized we were dealing with an attack on scripture.” Page 150.
Today in the Church of England, anglo-catholics, evangelicals (e.g. Church Society) and the charismatic wing (e.g. Holy Trinity Brompton and the New Wine movement) have formed a coalition to oppose services of blessing in church of same-sex relationships.
The Diocese of New Westminster was the first diocese to authorise same-sex blessings in the Anglican Church of Canada. Canon David Short was a vicar in the diocese. He writes in Chapter 10 why, for him, this was such an important issue:
“this was a salvation issue – that according to the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, any of the list of lifestyle sins he mentions, if continued without repentance, means disinheritance in the kingdom of God.” Page 215.
The Bishop of New Westminster did not consider the Bible to be the deciding factor. When his diocese first voted a desire to introduce same-sex blessings, Canon Short said to the bishop:
” “You cannot be happy with this decision and have Romans 1 in the Bible.” He was surprised: “What does Romans 1 say?” I indicated we should meet together. We did so several weeks later, and, after forty minutes of looking at the text, the bishop stated, “Alright, I accept that the apostle Paul was against same-sex intercourse – but so what? Paul was also a misogynist.” “ Page 217.
Dr George Egerton, Professor of History, writes in the Introduction:
“The bishop was masterful at aligning himself with post-Christian cultural shiftings that embraced liberal, secularist advancement of human rights, equity entitlements, and sexual liberation.” Page 5.
Bishop Michael set up a series of discussions, saying he wanted people to hear the arguments on both sides. But it was not a level playing field. Dr Edith Humphrey, Professor of New Testament, writes, in Chapter 3, that she was invited to present the traditionalist view:
“The bishop’s plan was to … host three theologians at various events … the process was already weighted, with two of the three theological voices favourable to revision in some form
… I was surprised to hear reports from friends in New Westminster that my papers had been suppressed in a few of the pairing discussions” Pages 74-75.
Trevor Walters was a vicar in the Diocese of New Westminster, Canada, who later became a Bishop in ANiC:
“Strict rules governed the process, disallowing the quoting of scripture. The playing field was to be the field of experience, rather than scripture or reason.” Page 193.
The Revd Robin Guinness, who was a vicar in the Anglican Church of Canada, who later left and joined ANiC, writes in Chapter 4, that the origin of the church votes for same sex blessing can be traced back several decades:
“the New Curriculum material for parish education approved by the 1962 General Synod [of Canada] … reflected situational ethics, moral relativism, and a diminished emphasis on the authority of scripture. … from the mid-sixties the ACC [Anglican Church of Canada] began to raise a generation of Sunday school children and Sunday school teachers who would no longer look to scripture as the final and supreme authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. It was only a matter of time before these children would become adults and participate in votes in diocesan and General Synods” Page 100.
The Bishop of New Westminster argued that services of same-sex blessing did not change church doctrine, it was just a matter of pastoral care. David Avren and Joyce Lee, two lawyers in Canon Short’s congregation in Vancouver, who were involved in the legal battles between the ACC and ANiC, write in Chapter 11, about Bishop Ingham:
“Though in his nomination process he had denied any intention to bless same-sex unions, the then bishop and the diocesan team described what they were doing as a “pastoral care” response to certain needs … rather than saying plainly that such a blessing is a fundamental change to marriage.” Page 240.
“On May 28, 2003, the first ceremony of “blessing” was held … The rite was indeed as marriage-like as possible …
Was the blessing legal? … it was intentionally and carefully managed so that it did not directly and formally contravene the marriage doctrine” Page 242.
Today in the Church of England, the liberal majority on General Synod is more than 50% but less than two-thirds. A 50% majority is needed for ordinary legislation, but a two-thirds majority is needed to change doctrine. The liberals claim that services of same-sex blessing would not change the Church of England doctrine that marriage is between a man and a woman. They therefore argue that they can introduce their changes with only a 50% majority. This requires a tightrope to be walked, by having a legal note in the draft services stating that it is not a wedding, whilst the service itself to be as wedding-like as possible, including an exchange of rings and prayers for the new household.
Bishop Trevor Walters writes that when the change was introduced, the concessions offered to traditionalists to enable them to stay in the ACC were inadequate:
“on May 2, 2003, Bishop Ingham had offered to us and to those who remained in the diocese who were more theologically-orthodox an episcopal visitor (EV). Bishop Bill Hockin accepted Bishop Michael’s invitation to be the episcopal visitor. … Bishop Hockin … resigned in less than a year saying that it was a token appointment that meant that the visitor’s function was to hold the hand of the disenfranchised … the visitor had no real power or authority. … No further episcopal visitor was appointed.” Page 206.
Dr Egerton writes:
“The concessions offered traditionalists by the bishop, a conscience clause and an episcopal visitor to provide pastoral ministry to dissenters but without jurisdiction, proved unacceptable and unworkable when imposed. … Effective episcopal oversight and sharing could have been designed, with imagination and generosity, but this was not on offer.” Pages 5-6.
Today, in the Church of England, discussions are continuing on what provision should be given to traditionalists if standalone services of same-sex blessing are introduced. The liberal majority are only prepared to offer a bishop under the delegated ‘extended’ authority of the diocesan bishop, not an alternative bishop.
It was not long before the dissenting parishes were forced out of the church. Trevor Walters was a vicar in the Diocese of New Westminster, Canada, who later became a Bishop in ANiC. He writes in Chapter 9:
“I was invited to the diocese [of New Westminster] in 1991 to be the rector of St. Matthew’s Abbotsford and was thrown out of the diocese in 2004. … Dr. J. I. Packer, Canon David Short, eleven other priests, and I were defrocked by the Bishop of New Westminster, Michael Ingham.
How does one move from welcome to unwelcome? The simple answer is by not moving. More precisely not moving one’s beliefs about scripture as the word of God … The diocese moved and we did not, resulting in our losing … our buildings, our status as clergy, a significant part of our pensions, and, for some, our homes.” Page 188.
Canon David Short was vicar of St John’s Church in Vancouver. After the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) was formed from the traditionalist parishes, the Bishop of New Westminster took action and the legal battles began:
“In August 2008, Bishop Michael Ingham “presumed” all the priests in the four ANiC parishes in the Vancouver area had abandoned the ordained ministry. He then took action against two of the parishes, resulting in bank accounts being frozen, and attempted to take over the church buildings and evict the congregations. The two remaining parishes (including St. John’s Shaughnessy) realized we would be next if the first two congregations were forced out. Therefore, all four parishes commenced legal proceedings to see the court’s opinion as to who properly controlled the parish corporations and their assets … A three-week trial commenced May 25, 2009.
… The judge ruled against us, and though all but one of his rulings were overturned on appeal, we lost. We lost our church buildings, the gardens, the offices, and the youth and children’s space we had purpose-built. This was traumatic and filled with grief for us as a church – yet when we moved out of the church, we decided we would bless those who came after us as a way of showing the surpassing worth of Jesus Christ. … We repainted the property and cleaned it freshly. We wrote messages of blessing and prayers … As a church, we have not been able to purchase a suitable property and have continued in an extended wilderness wandering since 2011, making use of leased property.
It was painful to receive charges, to have payroll and house taken, and to be squeezed out of the Anglican pension. My wife had her own breakdown in 2014 – a spiritual crisis for her.
My wife and I lost our home of twenty years, and the diocese pursued my wife and me personally. After the trial, my symptoms became debilitating. I lost all physical strength, emotional resilience, capacity and perspective. My doctor ordered me to stop working, as it turned out, for twelve months.” Pages 233 – 234.
What was the status of the ANiC that was created – was it officially Anglican? Bishop Charlie Masters, the second bishop of the ANiC, writes in Chapter 7:
“because we love the Anglican way … we all worked very hard at establishing from the beginning that we were truly Anglicans in life and in structure.” Pages 156-157.
When a church splits, which of the two churches is the ‘real’ church? If the board of directors of the Coca-Cola company vote by a majority to change the recipe, and most factories start making the new recipe, but a minority of factories and continue to make the old recipe. If you want to drink the real Coca-Cola, which bottle should you buy? Or are both recipes, the real stuff?
The traditionalists were a minority position in Canada, but part of a majority position internationally. Canon George Sinclair was a vicar (presbyter) in the Diocese of Ottawa:
“in the eyes of the Diocese of Ottawa I was a fringe presbyter in a mainstream diocese, but in the eyes of most of the Anglican Communion, I was a mainstream presbyter in a fringe diocese.” Pages 109 – 110.
Given that the changes in the Anglican Church of Canada went against the official teaching of the Anglican Communion, ANiC hoped for support from the official bodies of the Anglican Communion. But all they got was warm words.
Bishop Donald Harvey writes that he was encouraged when an international meeting of Anglican Archbishops (the Primates Meeting) issued a unanimous statement re-stating the traditional doctrinal position. That statement had been signed by Archbishop Michael Peters, who was the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada from 1986–2004. Would Archbishop Michael therefore bring his liberal dioceses back into line?:
“There were several Primates’ Meetings during our formation … each one issued a communiqué that initially looked hopeful … especially since their messages were claimed to be unanimous. Sadly, some of the primates, especially those of the US and Canada, were very deceptive and, as soon as they returned home, immediately reverted to their previously held positions. I once challenged Archbishop Michael Peters on this, and he simply replied that while with the primates, he simply voted that the conclusion was an accurate account of what had been agreed upon, but he had not accepted it.” Page 140.
When ANiC was formed, they sought recognition from the Archbishop of Canterbury that they were officially part of the Anglican Communion. At a “Global South to South Encounter” event (the date is not given in the book but was probably the third conference in 2005) the Archbishop of Canterbury gave them hope:
“The conference itself was visited … by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who agreed to a question-and-answer time, with the proviso that questions would be reduced to writing and submitted to him the night before. At 11.am., the question was put, “When can the Networks (US and Canada) expect to be recognized by the Communion?” He rather dramatically looked at his watch and said, “As of 10:55 this morning.” …
We saw this as a major breakthrough, but subsequent events were to show it meant nothing whatever.” Page 139.
The final three chapters are more positive, and tell how ANiC has grown since its separation from the Anglican Church of Canada. Dr George Egerton refers to the international trends that are signs for hope that things will swing back the traditionalist way:
“in 1900, more than 80 per cent of the world’s Christians were located in Europe and North America: by 2000, the non-Western world contained more than 60 per cent of the Christian total. … That Two-Thirds World Anglicanism is predominantly orthodox in its theology, moral teaching, and evangelical mission gives great cause for hope in Anglicanism’s future.” Page 173.
Is there any prospect that ACC and ANiC could ever re-unite? Bishop Trevor Walters recalls how personal tragedy can bridge divisions. He was a vicar in Bishop Ingham’s diocese, and was separating to be part of ANiC. Then Trevor’s wife died:
“When Julie died on February 18, 2007, I knew that I needed to hear from my bishop. The only bishop I had at that time was still Bishop Michael Ingham. Michael did not disappoint me; he rose up to be the man I knew he was, and a wonderfully compassionate card arrived in the mail. …
There was indeed great complexity in my relationship with Michael. In some ways, we were like two British public school boys who were put in a boxing ring … During the fight, we would do our best to take shots at each other, but as soon as the fight was over, we would shake hands and resume a friendship. Given that our paths did not come back together and we have gone our separate ways, sadly, a friendship was not resumed.” Page 210.
February 2025
Adrian Vincent