The rejection of the authority of Bishop Ingham has been followed by threats of expulsion. There is a lengthy presentation available on YouTube including an interview with J I Packer.  http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=wallyjo40&p=r

Please notice his deep sadness as well as his principled resolution.

David

We have just published on Fulcrum Andrew Goddard's article, 'New Westminster, J I Packer and the Anglican Church of Canada'. Well worth reading and discussing on this thread.

'The failure of the ACC and the inability of the wider Instruments to address the problems caused by Bishop Ingham (for at least the last six years and arguably longer) have resulted in a situation where Dr Packer (and many other good evangelicals and others) are no longer able to accept his jurisdiction.'

This is helpful.  But apart from honouring Packer et al, can we not say that at least in the context of their diocese that they have done the right thing?   Andrew Goddard leaves us to assume that, given the charge of a congregation in that diocese, he would not be breaking fellowship with Ingham.  I'm confused. 

To shift things down to the more local level, if after repeated admonition from various angles to come into line with Scripture and tradition, my vicar insists on going his own 'prophetic' way, am I not obliged to break fellowship?  Then if SSUs are declared 'holy' at the National/Provincial level, surely the same applies.  A former lecturer of mine at McGill took a lot of heat for leaving the ACC just at that point, but he did the right thing based on his conviction that error had reached 'the citadel' at precisely that point.  I felt that it had happened some time before that.  And it's not because I'm more 'radical', as Andrew implies, but because I was actually trying to wresle with the implications of the innovation for Anglican polity.  When the pastor of my diocese failed to discipline those among us who were blessing what God has not blessed how could I remain?  There's a deep problem of interpretation here: I cannot represent that diocese as my home church when abroad, even if it seems I can 'work from within' for a while.

Sometimes I wonder whether you, Fulcrum/Essentials Federation friends, are taking stock of just how profoundly churches like ACC have embraced an alternative religion (a term you dislike, I realize).  Every now and then I glance at my old dicoesan paper (the Montreal Anglican, or whatever it's called now) just to remind myself just how much garbage is promoted within the ACC mainstream. 

_Dr Packer and all others served ‘presumption of abandonment’ notices are undoubtedly still in communion with the overwhelming majority of the Anglican Communion_ (in the article).

No he is not, in that he has chosen to boundary-cross. What he could have done was move to another diocese or indeed another Church (like the Church of England - for the time being). He could have stayed and made all kinds of oppositional statements. He is out of order, by boundary corssing, and more than this is throwing his lot in with GAFCON. This is fine, but it comes with a consequence.

Should I chose to go elsewhere, for example, it comes with a consequence. Everyone understands this. The Churches and dioceses have a right to decide, through proper process (here episcopal) what they will do ritually and in terms of belief. No problem dissenting but when you up sticks you are signalling that you've gone.

To Steve:  Hmmm.  Here I have just been reading *my* old Diocesan newspaper which interestingly is also called the 'Montreal Anglican' and was amazed to see just how frank and furious the debate was (in print - anyway) particularly that between Canon Simons of the Montreal Diocesan Theological College taking one side of things and Professor Ian Henderson taking the other.  Sterling stuff!

The whole idea of an emergence of 'another religion' in the ACofC puts the question on the same level as Godzilla leveling the city.  It's a caricature and does little justice to the situation there.

I read that Simons-Henderson exchange too.  I'll leave it to you to decide whether I'm engaging in caricatures.  I've raised some points on other threads about the nature and shape of the new/old religion which is becoming the 'received' theology of the ACC.  I respect Ian Henderson for speaking up the way he does.  As orthodox folk we'll differ on the point at which we can no longer work from within.  But rather than caricature my 'caricature', why don't you engage some of the substance of what I'm claiming?  You just dismiss it....

The letters of suspension have been sent to all the ordained clergy of St John's. Dr Packer has been singled out by the press due to his international reputation. see for example:

http://www.anglicanplanet.net/TAPCanada0803b.html

David

Pluralist, I'm pretty sure that Packer and others knew what the consequences of their actions would be.

But this does really sure up the issues in 'revisionist' Diocese. It just screams Mark 7 at us doesn't it? When the Pharisees have a go at Jesus disciples for not obeying their 'rules'. Jesus reply is simply which will you follow, rules of men or commands of God. I can find things in the Bible about the line Packer et al are taking a line on. I can find parrallels in Church history for their actions. I can't see how ACC revisionists have a leg to stand on.

It's sad really, "Oh know he's crossed a Parish/Diocesan/Provincial boundary!! This is awful". The fact that they are altering/ignoring the commands of God - bizarre. I also seems St John's put a lot more effort in to staying in than ACC did in keeping them in. It shows what is important to who. For Packer et al it is obediance to God. To ACC authorities it is maintaining their own authority.