Former primate on the mend

Dear editor,

On my 79th birthday, April 30, I received an unusal but vitally important birthday present - a triple by-pass operation! The operation went well and on May 6, I was discharged from hospital and since arriving home have made excellent progess. This is illustrated by the fact that as of May 20, my wife and I walk over a mile each morning.

My family and I are deeply grateful to our doctor, my cardiologist, my surgeon and the very extensive team of doctors, nurses and others in a wide range of paramedical fields who make such operations possible. During the six days I was in hospital I identified over 100 different persons who provided service to me and other patients in the cardiac ward.

We also want to express our appreciation for the prayers and expressions of concern that flowed in from all parts of the country. These provided a real sense of support and meant more to us than we can adequately express. I am grateful to the editor for allowing me space to say thank you to people spread all across our great country.

Archbishop Edward W. Scott

Former primate

Toronto

 

 

Jesus was a lay person

Dear editor,

I write regarding lay presidency. My, my! Surely lay people do celebrate the eucharist. However, I have been waiting for the issue of lay presidency in eucharistic celebrations to surface following the developments in scriptural studies about which many in most denominations are woefully uninformed.

Jesus was a lay person, human and divine; the first disciples, including the 12 hand picked by Jesus, were all lay persons but we have no indication that any of them were ever ordained to anything, yet they and others presided over the eucharist. This view is neither "low" nor radically Protestant.

Forgive me please, for I have no right to point that out to Anglicans, though we share a common Christian heritage. I rejoice in my service in the ordained priesthood and in the still-higher order of deacon. The issue of lay presidency will bring us to a better understanding of the origin and development of holy orders and their place for good order in the church.

Chris Diamond

Cobble Hill, B.C.

 

 

Abandon superstition

Dear editor,

Archbishop Peers says priestly celebration is essential for "demonstrating how central the eucharist is to (the church's) existence." But the Bible too, is central to the church's existence, yet we don't confine its reading or exposition to clergy. Is the Lord's Supper more central than Scripture?

The Primate also says priestly celebration "connects us ... with Christians around the world." Well, it doesn't connect us with Protestant Christians. But it does preserve some links with Rome and Orthodoxy.

The real issue is actually quite simple. If our concern is to have the Lord's Supper celebrated competently by persons of approved doctrine, control can be achieved by licensing the celebrants. But any insistence on priestly celebration cannot be justified except on the superstition that clergy, by virtue of the act of ordination, have power to perform - or be the agents of - divine visitations of which other Christians are not capable. I guess those who do not share this superstition are what Archbishop Peers means by "a radical Protestant group of Anglicans who are very "low" in their understanding of the sacrament."

Robert Lyon

Guelph, Ont.

 

 

Stick with tradition

Dear editor,

Regarding your April story, Eucharist Ruling Fuels New Debate, it should be obvious that lay presidency would destroy the raison d'être of the Anglican Communion. Currently it is the largest existing body of reformed western catholicism possessing a validly ordained ministry and valid sacraments, unless one takes an existential view of validity and rules out the apostolic succession. The Utrecht line of Old Catholics and the totally Erastian and national Lutheran Church of Sweden are both blessed with these advantages, but neither is a worldwide communion such as ours.

At this time we can still be considered as a reasonable alternative to Rome or Orthodoxy. Once lay presidency were accepted, there would be little point in being Anglican at all.

Surely the sensible solution to clergy shortage would be to create mass priests? Suitable people, maybe lay readers, teachers and others working in various jobs, could, after a certain amount of minimal training, be ordained to a non-stipendiary priesthood with certain functional limitations imposed by the bishop.

John Pechell

Ottawa

 

 

Show some backbone

Dear editor,

Over the past month we have wept at the disgraceful package offered by the federal government for the victims of Hepatitis C, but even more we have wept at the lack of moral outrage expressed by any bishop or other leaders in our church.

Is this issue not politically correct enough for our church leaders? Do they only react to issues concerning welfare mothers, immigration, AIDS victims, homosexuals, gambling casinos and anything that Ontario Premier Mike Harris does with which they don't agree? The silence from the church on the hepatitis issue has been deafening. For shame!

Gord and Joan Lever

Markham, Ont.

 

 

Looking for answers

Dear editor,

Your May editorial was my first awareness of new licensing canon (Pink Slips No remedy for Unsatisfactory Clergy).

I've been unsuccessfully trying to get more background information - posted a question about it to Diocese of Huron list, as well as to the General Synod website. Either no one is concerned or else everyone is as unaware as myself as my questions couldn't be answered.

Question: Who is proposing this change? Is it coming from the House of Bishops or from the laity? What is the reasoning behind asking for the change? Is it prompted in response to unfair dismissal cases being launched by clergy working under bishops who have given themselves this authority already? Is it to give parishes the same powers that the United Church and other congregationalist style churches have over their clergy?

Are there any statistics available on how often clergy who work for churches with the power to fire without cause are leaving congregations? How much is this costing those churches in litigation fees? Is there information available about the impact on clergy and there families. Was this issue taken into consideration in the discussions regarding the change from rectories to clergy-owned housing. I don't see how one can put in an offer to purchase if one is working on a day-by-day basis.

Ruth Demitroff

(via e-mail)

 

 

Weary of liberals

Dear editor,

I know I speak for many other Anglican traditionalists when I say that I am very weary of the use Archdeacon Hannen, Mr. Williamson, and others of their school of thought try to make of Jesus' words "when the spirit of truth comes, he will lead you into all truth."

Can it really have escaped the notice of these eminently intelligent clergy and laity that Jesus did not address these words to them, or to the present-day bishops of the Anglican Communion? Jesus was speaking to the apostles and to nobody else.

The mainstream (a.k.a. catholic) Christian position has always been that the Spirit did lead the apostles into all truth. They embodied that truth in a deposit of faith. The only reliable evidence for that deposit is the documents they and their followers left behind (the New Testament) and the teaching they passed down to their followers (apostolic tradition).

The ancient bishops claimed to be the apostles' successors only in the way that the trustees of a foundation are successors of the founder. Their job was to make sure the intentions and ordinances of the founders were strictly carried out - not to update them, much less dispense with them as they saw fit.

As that great Anglican bishop John Jewel wrote in his Apology for the Church of England, "It is not sufficient to claim succession of place; it behoveth us rather to have regard to the succession of doctrine." So, dear liberal brethren in Christ, please stop throwing John 16:12 at us conservatives. We don't understand it the way you do, and we never shall.

William Cooke

Toronto

 

 

Sad state of church not obvious

Dear editor,

Thank you very much for the excellent article about the book Two Religions One Church by Rev. George Eves. I have since obtained a copy of the book and it is well worth reading.

I had no idea about the sad state of our church until I read about it in this book. I would encourage ordinary Anglicans who are unaware of these issues to obtain a copy. It is a real eye-opener.

Eileen Somers

Grand Manan, N.B.

 

 

Resurrection a dead issue

Dear editor,

Canon Harold Percy, in his April column, gives us a new version of the resurrection of Jesus that truly is, to use his term, "outrageous;" that, "on Sunday, he (Jesus) was alive again and out walking around." This is a version not found in the New Testament. It differs radically from the empty tomb version of Mark's gospel, the start of the general resurrection version of Paul and the ascension-style resurrection of John.

It is the popular, simplistic concept of Jesus' resurrection held by many and does what they want it to: assures them that, if they believe it, they're going to heaven when they die.

The earliest reference to the resurrection of Jesus is by St. Paul in I Cor.15. His arguments for its historicity are based on Scripture (Old Testament), witnesses and his own vision and are extremely weak. He sees it as the start of the general resurrection at the Last Day, which he believed in as a Pharisee before he became a Christian and which he mistakenly thought would take place in his lifetime.

Both the Resurrection and the idea that Jesus died to save us from our sins on the Day of Judgment are products of the early church and get in the way of following the program of Jesus which is about living in a spirit of justice and equality with God as our king.

Rev. J.C. Riesberry

Cochrane, Ont.

 

 

Whistling in the dark: the Lord's Prayer

Dear editor,

It was surprising to read in your April issue that the Church of England has given its approval to use the words: "save us from the time of trial."

If by the words "time of trial" is meant the Day of Judgment, church linguists may be whistling in the dark: you can't cheat your way out of Judgment Day.

The implication in the traditional wording, that a loving God might lead us into temptation, is equally specious: that function clearly belongs to Satan.

With great respect, therefore, may one venture that it would be more appropriate to say: "sustain us in the time of trial," a phrase which goes to the very core of human need and which, so I understand, sits in harmony with the Aramaic words of our Saviour.

Wallace Beaton

Woodbridge, Ont.

 

 

Brief notice too brief

Dear editor,

Your brief notice in the world section of your May issue alarms me, because it is too brief and does not quote an original source, but a digest.

I have been following the controversy concerning the fact that Mrs. Mary McAleese, the president of Ireland and a practising Roman Catholic, received holy communion in Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin.

Most of the letters printed in the Irish Times were from Roman Catholic priests who approved of Mrs. McAleese's action and who, in some cases, pointed out that more than one doctrine of the eucharist is actually believed in the Roman Catholic Church, whatever the official line may be. A summary of these letters would be more irenic and more ecumenical than the snippet you quoted.

Graham Cotter

Warkworth, Ont.

(via e-mail)

 

 

Licensing canon flawed

Dear editor,

As a parish priest I would like to thank you for your May editorial, Pink Slips No Remedy for Unsatisfactory Clergy. Although this letter would be published after General Synod, I think it is still important for us as a church to consider some of the issues raised by this proposed draconian canon on licensing.

The proposed canon is flawed even in its smallest details. For example, the proposal to apply specified term limits to licences, as you point out in your editorial, is already in place in some dioceses. It is perhaps one of the most insidious attacks on effective parish ministry ever conceived. Imagine beginning a parish ministry by saying good-bye. When a specific date of departure is included in the announcement of the arrival of a parish priest it effectively kills any chance of the Holy Spirit operating through that priest to be an agent of change and growth in the parish.

Not only will those opposed to the change dig in their heels and resist any growth by opting not to participate in the life of the parish (a technique well practiced in some parishes already), but if they already know the departure date of the present incumbent they will be able to begin marking the exact number of days of their resistance on the calendar. Furthermore, what price are we asking the families of parish priests to pay? To move every two to five years? I wonder if those who propose term limits on licences have any notion about how devastating an impact this practice will have on young families. These factors, combined with the constant fear of dismissal after the application of nebulous performance evaluation criterion, will bring about the end of any effective parish ministry.

I think that most people would agree with your statement that, "priests who stubbornly refuse to improve their skills and do a better job shouldn't be able to hide behind the rule book and destroy a parish." Of course this begs the question, what constitutes "a better job?" Or more to the point, by what criteria shall we evaluate the effectiveness of a priest's ministry?

Until we answer these questions any attempt to propose a solution such as this ill-conceived canon, will serve only to harm the church.

Rev. William J. Morton

Rector, parish of Campbellton

Campbellton, N.B.

(via e-mail)

 

 

Sensible solution

Dear editor,

Michael McAteer (March issue) has given a timely reminder that we need to look at how taxation rules apply to clergy. Revenue Canada's IT-141 deals with clergy's residences. It is important to realize that the deduction Revenue Canada allows is not the housing allowance clergy may be paid. Rather, the deduction allowed is only the actual amount paid as rent or the fair rental value of the accommodation if it is personally owned. This deduction cannot be claimed by clergy who are employed to lecture or teach, while my reading of IT-141 suggests that retired clergy are not eligible for this deduction unless they are also receiving remuneration for continuing service as clergy.

There are additional wrinkles when you consider contributions to the Canada Pension Plan and to Employment Insurance. Canada Pension Plan contributions must be deducted from housing allowances, but not on that portion the clergy person is claiming as a tax deduction. However, EI must be deducted for earnings in cash or in kind, including any housing that may be provided. And how many are aware that gifts that are given to an employee are considered to be a taxable benefit from employment whether these are received in cash or in kind?

However, Mr. McAteer's article raises two even more important issues for us to consider as a church. First, why should clergy continue to expect to receive any preferential tax treatment when those working for other charities do not? Second, the complexity of the tax rules surely suggest that there is an urgent need for the national office to produce annual statements to dioceses, clergy and church treasurers on how the tax rules are to govern what they do in relation to deductions for tax, Canada Pension Plan, EI, etc. Surely it is unreasonable to continue to expect volunteer church treasurers to keep up with the annual changes to tax regulations.

Rev. David Paton

Saskatoon

(via e-mail)

 

 

Impressed with Journal

Dear editor,

It has been a privilege to have served for the past six years on the advisory board of the Anglican Journal, and as chair of the board for the last three years. I wanted to let all Anglicans in Canada know how impressed I have been with the Journal.

David Harris as editor and Doug Tindal as director of information resources, in particular, have achieved extremely noteworthy results despite a difficult environment. Half of the $250,000 cut in funding reluctantly imposed on the Journal by General Synod in 1995 has been made up through the Journal Appeal and increased advertising. Investments in printing, design and distribution systems have drastically increased both efficiency and attractiveness. The Journal has become better integrated with the overall communications strategy of the church, while retaining its all-important, if occasionally contentious, editorial independence. And now the Journal has just won top prize for overall excellence from the Associated Church Press, from among hundreds of religious publications in North America, for the second year in a row!

I hope that all Anglicans in Canada will continue to generously support the Journal financially as it continues to prove its ability not only to inspire and challenge us but also to pay its own way.

David J. Smith

Chair, Journal Advisory Board

Toronto