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.”

Well quoted Jeremy!!  David and Jim are COMMITTED Anglicans: they believe in the Bible and they endorse the 39 articles.  They care about God’s truth. They also respect the fact that bishops have a certain authority over them within our denomination.  However, they cannot and they MUST NOT submit to a man who is a heretic, or they would be untrue to their ordination promises. 

I’d love so see more people add their comments of support for David and Jim.  I know some don’t think they should retain the property etc; but so far I think we are all agreed that we need to pray for David and Jim, their congregations, and the appalling situation in which they find themselves.

So let’s hear from others willing to indicate their support for these two godly men.

Mike Doyle - 03 March 2008 02:37 PM

The bishop is not happy, and so is taking this action against Rev Short and Dr J.I. packer.

How interesting.

Person A (same-sex-union-supporting bishop) disagrees with what Persons B & C (Short & Packer) believe and takes action against them, presumably to coerce them into agreeing with Person A’s viewpoint. A power struggle of sorts.

In my job, when we see a Person A type do that to some Persons B & C types, we tell it like it is.

In my job, we call that kind of power-abusing, coercive behaviour ”bullying”.

My support is completely and utterly behind Short & Packer. Thank God they are standing up for the truth!

Tia Zheng,
MTeach, BMus, AMusA
S.A.C. Sydney
C.C.C.M.P.
Music teacher, Bondi Junction

David Palmer - 04 March 2008 10:43 AM

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.

I can’t speak for David Short or Jim Packer, but the oath of canonical obedience that I took was neither unqualified or absolute.  The same is true of the promises I made at my ordination.  While that could of course be used as a rationalisation for disregarding my bishop all the time, it is nevertheless important.  There must come a point where a person says, “I can no longer submit to this person and remain faithful to the Chief Shepherd.” This is surely what Short and Packer have done.  And seeking alternative episcopal oversight is an appropriate way to proceed, similar in character to resignation, but doing so in a way which says, “I am not resigning from ordained ministry, from the Anglican church, or from my responsibilities to this congregation, but I can no longer pursue these under the authority of a person who has departed from the teaching of Scripture.”

This may be off thread (and I most heartily support David Short and Jim Packer), but what would happen in Sydney if a congregation sought episcopal oversight from another bishop over, say, Sydney’s refusal to consecrate or recognise women bishops?

If property is the issue, maybe we could transfer all the property to their Diocese of choice - along with all the insurance and other responsibilities undertaken by the Property Trust! I wonder if that has occurred to the bishops currently locking congregations out of their buildings? Possibly - but who wants to give up property? :)

video report on the issue from CBC the Canadian version of the ABC here - a little old now but useful background

One of the books that most shaped my early Christian understanding was Jim Packer’s Fundamentalism and the Word of God, in which he put a clear and compelling case that to treat the Bible as God’s word was to have the same view of Scripture that Jesus himself held.

There was some poor sap of a liberal that no-one really knows about that JI chose to use as a representative of alternative views. Packer chewed him up and spat him out in the politest possible way.

The book is still worth reading.

The next Packer book I read was Knowing God, and that too is a book worthy of many re-readings.

What a shameful blight on the reputation of the Canadian church that they would seek to muzzle such a man by taking away his licence.

Packer wrote “Fundamentalism and the word of God” so titled by the publsher as (in Packer’s own words) as a “defiant echo” of Gabriel Hebert’ s critique “Fundamentalism and the Church of God”.
Now it is perfectly true that Packer is much better known than the late Mr Hebert, by several orders of magnitude. But his name still crops up in the writings of Liberal Anglicans, especially those he taught in (from memory) Adelaide.
It does the cause of evangelicalism no good to dismiss our opponent as “some poor sap of a liberal that no-one really knows about “.
Our archbishop has modelled for us treating those we disagree with with respect. We don’t want to be seen to be blokey and arrogant do we?

Gordon Cheng - 11 March 2008 11:15 AM

Packer chewed him up and spat him out in the politest possible way.

If only we could do the same…

Adelaide, eh…

anyway, I certainly didn’t mean to express contempt for the man, whose name I’d expunged from memory until you mentioned it, John. More a sense of pity. If Packer decides to dissect your argument on scriptural grounds, it seems to me that liberal or not, you’ll discover you’ve been turned to mincemeat without even having noticed that the blades were slicing.

And I wouldn’t hesitate using strong language to descibe the actions of the bishop acting in such a disgraceful way against Packer and Short.  Certainly both our Lord and the Apostles and other NT writers did not hesitate to use very strong language (brood of vipers, mutilators of the flesh etc) of those opposed to the gospel and to those proclaiming the gospel.

Well, Jesus appears to have picked his moment. And we all are grateful that he has not dealt with us as we have deserved.
In the St John’s Shaunessy YouTube interviews linked by Jeremy, neither Short nor Packer raise their voices and they avoid vituperative speech. I think they are all the more convincing for that.

Gordon, I agree that Packer is/was the sharper thinker of he and Hebert. At 82 he is sharper than I ever was.

I don’ disagree with you John; David and Jim are showing great wisdom in showing restraint, for they are the victims of the bishop’s actions, and they are dealing with complex legal issues as well as serious ethical and theological issues. 

However, in my view, there is a time for Christians to use strong language against false teachers who persecute Bible based believers or seek to convince others to their heretical point of view. 

Yes, we are all very glad that the Lord Jesus has shown us grace rather than what we deserve, but it does not follow that he, his apostles, pastors and teachers of the New Testament era and those who teach his word today must not use strong language to refute and condemn false teachers. 

We must be careful not to misrepresent anyone, or to impute motives to others unfairly, or make personal , vituperative attacks gratuitously; and we must always pray for those who are caught in error.  It is interesting to note that the apostle Paul’s use of language against false teachers is strong, plain, and deals with the issue at hand (Philippians 3:2).  In that verse ‘dogs’is not needlessly vituperative; it is almost certainly used ironically against Judaizers seeking to impose circumcision on gentile Christians, whom they would term ‘dogs’ because they are ‘unclean’ before God as they see it.

So then, I would contend that there is a place for us to speak plainly, strongly and in language that deals with the issue at hand in Canada.  In fact, it is loving to do so, for we don’t want people for whom our Lord died caught up in the false teaching that promotes or endorses same sex unions and undermines the authority of the Scriptures.

I was just sent this today from Christianity Today, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/march/26.66.html and I thought how wonderful that this wonderful godly elder stateman, can still talk about being “happy”.  (sorry, don;t know how to direct link it).
Gill.

Just a word about David Short. Most of the words here have been about JI Packer, and not surprisingly, as his public profile is higher.

I remember David Short and his wife Bronwyn, from my time at Moore College, with a great deal of affection. They had Fifi and I around to their place for dinner a number of times, and helped us to feel at home in a new environment.

I have also heard David teach the Bible, many years later at a Sydney clergy conference. He’s lost none of his scriptural edge, and I can see why someone like JI Packer would choose to place himself under David’s teaching ministry. He is a clear and faithful Bible teacher and it was wonderful to hear someone who had been ministering for years in a liberal diocese, yet continuing to stand firm for the truth of the gospel. He is not a mealy mouthed or weak preacher, and his decisions at this time of crisis are consistent with the sort of man I’ve known him to be for many years.

A few issues to note in this debate:
1. My memory is faint, but if I remember correctly, Jim Packer resisted leaving the Anglican church with many others a generation or 2 ago when there was a strong push for evangelicals to leave. He is a strong believer in the Anglican church and its structures.

2. Ken Short is the son of a Bishop, so will know of the struggles of what a bishop goes through, and of the need for canonical obedience. He is not a congregationalist, although there is a nice drop of Congregationalism within Sydney Anglicanism (which prevents us from having absolute obedience to a bishop).

3. Parishioners are more often than not the real providers of the property, not the diocese. Most parishes are highly encouraged (forced?) to put their property in the hands of the Diocese, who hold it in trust for the parish. When a parish wants to seek alternative oversight, not simply the minister wanting it, should they have the opportunity to take their property with them?

4. For many years now the Anglican Communion has been wrestling with alternative episcopal oversight. There are some flying bishops, and there are some other forms. Unfortunately they appear not to have been deemed acceptable in Canada.

5. As we express support for Packer, Short and the others, (including the parishioners), we should also pray for God to change the heart of Ingham to love all those entrusted to him, & to accept the written word of God with a gentle heart.