Hi Chris, could you link to any official report saying they are wanting to strip them of their frocks?

There is a huge difference between revoking / changing a license and defrocking!

Craig Bennett - 03 March 2008 11:14 PM

Hi Chris, could you link to any official report saying they are wanting to strip them of their frocks?

There is a huge difference between revoking / changing a license and defrocking!

Hi Craig,

It seems the most information available at present is in the article on this web site by Russell Powell, which includes the following:

The charges not only involve revocation of licence, but also seek to nullify the ordination of Mr Short and Dr Packer.

The canon being used by Bishop Ingham says - “The bishop’s affirmation of abandonment of the exercise of ordained ministry removes from the priest or deacon the right to exercise the office, including the spiritual authority as a minister of Word and Sacraments conferred in ordination. Any licence held for which it is an indispensable qualification for him or her to have such a ministry shall be null and void.”

Grace & peace,
Terry

Philip Griffin - 03 March 2008 09:58 PM

In response to David Palmer, whilst I do not agree with you, I don’t wan’t to debate the issue of who should own the property etc on this thread.  Perhaps if you wanted to debate that you could start a separate thread.  I’d like to keep the focus here on support for two brothers in Christ who need to know we stand with them in their struggle for the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

Frankly speaking, property is the issue.

The issue of a licence is a piffling issue. Who would want a licence from Ingham a revisionist if ever there was one. I’m sure Venable or whoever will reissue Packer and Short with licences.

By all means stand with the men. Who hasn’t been blessed by Packer, but forget (mock) rage over withdrawal of Ingham’s licences.

David, I am with you on this one.

Terry I’m not sure that the reading of that text actually involves defrocking from ordination, rather its more to do with the license the AB has given him as I have already said.

Perhaps someone else from standing committee or who is in the know regarding the politics regarding the licensing of clergy could share more.

hmmm… Here is Bishop Ingham’s media officer (posted on Christianity Today’s feedback section)

Can we be clear about the position of Dr. Packer? He is indeed recognized as a prominent theologian, and highly respected.
He is also a priest, and as such licensed by his bishop to serve as an honourary assistant at St. John’s Shaughnessy. Dr. Packer has held that position for many years. Until recently, the parish congregation considered itself in the Diocese of New Westminster. This was the formal arrangment. Relations were indeed estranged, for the parish, in protest of the decision of the Diocesan Synod in 2002 to request of the bishop a rite of same sex blessings, has since then refused to pay its financial assessment. But it was still in the diocese and Dr. Packer was a priest licensed to his parish, despite any public statements he made. He did not submit a letter of resignation.
Following the meeting of the parish congregation on Feb. 13, 2008, after which it was widely reported that the parish congregation had voted to come under the episcopal jurisdiction of the Province of the Southern Cone in South America, the bishop has asked Dr. Packer and seven other priests whether they still consider themselves in the diocese. They have two months to reply. At this point no communication has been received. If the priests choose not to reply, the bishop will (quite reasonably) have no choice but to assume they have left, and so declare they have abandoned their ministry. The bishop has not suspended anyone, but is seeking to learn whether certain of his priests are in or out of his diocese.
It would be sad to lose such a world-renowned theologian as Dr. Packer, but the choice is his, and I am sure that he will do as his conscience dictates.
Neale Adams
Communications Officer
Diocese of New Westminster

And here are some U-tube videos of David Short and JI Packer talking about the issues for the benefit of their congregation

I salute the stand David and Jim have taken for the gospel and for the sake of their congregations, who will be devastated if a bishop endorsing heretical views successfully has their respective ministries brought to an end in the parish in which they serve.

How sad it would be if we put the authority of a bishop ahead of the authority of the Lord Jesus over his church, and how sad it would be that a bishop espousing heretical views contrary to the 39 articles and the Bible would be able to deprive two godly men of their orders.  How sad it is that David and Jim had no choice but to seek alternative episcopal oversight.  How sad it is that there has not been a very strong call from Anglicans world wide for their bishop to resign.

Again, let me urge those who agree with me and want to support David and Jim and the parish in which they serve to add your comments on this thread.

This is a complex political and legal situation, but a very simple theological one. I’m with David Short and James Packer and the people of St John’s. Their cause is right and I urge them to continue to stand firm. For our part in Sydney I don’t think there is much value in micro analyzing the political and legal aspects of this debate. Let’s rather clearly support the stand they are taking.

Simon Roberts.

Philip,

In no way do I wish to take away from your desire to honour these men and I think your should add the men who took the decision 3 or 4 years earlier to leave New Westminster at considerable personal cost as I remember.

However, respectfully, and as you know I’m not an Anglican, (though I was a member of Sydney Synod in the early 1970’s as a young layman), I believe in your last statement you speak as a congregationalist.

Unless I’m mistaken, I think as a clergyman you made certain commitments to your Bishop, perhaps even vows. I am prepared to argue that if this is done then the vows must be honoured or else a resignation is required. May be Presbyterians are stronger on this issue, but I thought this aspect of allegiance to duly, historically verifiable constructed authority was part of Anglicanism as well. So again, I say if in conflict with local authority as surely these men are (and rightly so!) then let them walk forth trusting God, taking whoever attaches themselves to these men and begin afresh, having gladly surrendered their licences.

Maybe one of the problems in Anglicanism is that you have not had the experience of Presbyterianism where there is a history of this kind of thing happening, going back to the 17th century Covenanters, but most famously in 1843 in the Great Disruption when 400 plus ministers and elders left the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland as it was meeting, leaving their churches and manses behind and beginning again from scratch. That with respect, I suggest, is the honorable way to proceed.

Oh the joys.....

I agree with Simon here. The legal wranglings only blur the issue.

But having said that, it is clear to me that if Packer and Short say they have left the Diocese (and are now linked with Venabled) then the Bishop will have to send in new clergy to run the church because it is their church building and as far as they will say, if the clergy who used to run the church have left the Diocese then there is a church without clergy.

It really is very clever of the liberal bishop. He is not a dummy!!

The wisdom of Solomon is required here and my prayers are with Packer, Short and the two members of my church currently studying at Regent College and working with David Short!!

Nerida and Nerida - may God bless and preserve your ministry and that of your leaders. Amen.

I can’t say that I fully understand all the issues, but I am more than happy to stand up and support David Short and James Packer and the people of St Johns. And to pray for them, of course!

Cheers,
Andrew

I pray that God will strengthen David Short, JI Packer and all the Anglican ministers in Canada who are facing similar difficulties:

I pray that out of his [the Father’s] glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being,
so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love,
may have power, together with all the Lord’s people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ,
and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.
[Ephesians 3:16-19, TNIV]

I also pray that those in postions of diocesan power will step back from aggressive actions and apply the Biblical principles of justice and mercy in these situations:

Micah 6:8 :
He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
[NIV translation]

Matthew 23:23 :
“Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You give a tenth of mint, dill, and cumin, yet you neglect what is more important in the law — justice, mercy, and faithfulness! You should have done these things without neglecting the others.”
[NET translation]

Grace & peace,
Terry

I also am praying for the wise and godly in this situation to remain wise and godly.
Gill.

It is greatly encouraging to see men of the stature of Jim Packer and David Short willing to stand on Biblical principle in the face of threats from denominational heirachy. ‘Do not fear their intimidation and do not be troubled’ (1 Pet 3.14). 

Scott Tarrant

Andrew Goddard’s article in Fulcrum is the best explanation I’ve seen about this matter.

While Ingham’s actions are therefore shocking and revealing of the seriousness of the situation in his diocese, they are simply the inevitable canonical consequences within the ACC of the actions taken last month by Dr Packer, Revd Short and others. They did not relinquish their ministries under canon XIX. They did not presumably for the simple reason that they wish to continue to exercise the office and spiritual authority as ministers of Word and Sacraments conferred on them in ordination…

it is important to note that Fulcrum is the voice of the so-called evangelical left or moderates (like Elaine Storkey and NT Wright) not reformed evangelicals

That Fulcrum is shocked by Ingham’s actions is very, very telling.

Some on this thread have seriously under-estimated the seriousness of the charges against Packer and Short. The legal language in Canada is different to Australia but the charges are akin to ‘defrocking’.

To be frank it is an outrage that leaders outside New Westminster left Short and Packer in this situation for 6 years!!! Theirs has hardly been a knee-jerk reaction.

What a sad, pathetic and tragic joke.

Ingham shows himself to be the most consummate of Anglican politicians. (...hmmm… or may be not.. has he actually unified evangelicals by attacking the much-loved Packer)

As Goodard says:

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. However, as committed Anglicans, he and they have now placed themselves under a godly ordinary and chief minister to whom they can in good conscience submit.”