Posted on 02/28/2008 11:36:25 PM PST by kaehurowing
BREAKING: JI Packer threatened with suspension
Michael Daley on Feb-28-2008
As evidence of the escalating crisis in the global Anglican Communion, today one of the of the world’s most esteemed Christian theologians, Dr. J.I. Packer, received a letter threatening suspension from ministry by the controversial Bishop of New Westminster, Michael Ingham. Bishop Ingham accused Dr. Packer, hailed by Time Magazine as the “doctrinal Solomon” of Christian thinkers, “to have abandoned the exercise of ministry” after the church where he is a member voted to separate from the diocese and join the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone under the oversight of Anglican Archbishop Gregory Venables. Dr. Packer, who was ordained in the Church of England, is the author of the Christian classic, “Knowing God,” and joined Billy Graham and Richard John Neuhaus as one of Time Magazine’s 25 most influential evangelicals in 2005.
Dr. Packer, who received his theological education at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, was ordained a deacon (1952) and priest (1953) in the Church of England. He was Assistant Curate of Harborne Heath in Birmingham 1952-54 and Lecturer at Tyndale Hall, Bristol 1955-61. He was Librarian of Latimer House, Oxford 1961-62 and Principal 1962-69. In 1970 he became Principal of Tyndale Hall, Bristol, and from 1971 until 1979 he was Associate Prinicipal of Trinity College, Bristol. In addition to his published works, he has served as general editor for the English Standard Version of the Bible. He currently serves as the Board of Governors’ Professor of Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia.
He will be 82 in July.
But you still have The Church.
Prayers up that the righteous shall be vindicated.
Ping
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
May God richly Bless this Godly man...
Seems this is SOP. Too bad they feel they have to pick on a man in his 80’s.
TEC INTREP
Bishop Ingham says that Packer has "abandoned the exercise of ministry” after the church where he is a member voted to separate from the diocese and join the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone under the oversight of Anglican Archbishop Gregory Venables.
So let's look at that. Packer was ordained by the CoE. Packer belongs to a parish that has voted to disaffiliate from CoE.
As an ordained priest in the Church of England, Packer promised obedience to his bishop. The bishop has a right to expect obedience from his priests ... it's a fundamental tenet of Anglican practice. And he also has a right to expect that his priests will actually honor their vows as priests of the Church of England, and to remain as such.
So Packer has a choice: if he wants to retain his ordination within the CoE, he must distance himself from those who have removed themselves from CoE.
If he refuses to do that, and abandons the Church of England ... on what basis could he possibly expect to retain his ministry as a priest of the Church of England?
Like it or not, the Anglican church has a lot of rules governing the ordination and ministry of its priests.
It seems to me that this "controversy" stems from a bunch of folks wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. Anglican rules evidently matter only when somebody else is breaking them.
It's really kind of sad, in a way. Here is a fellow who purports to be taking a brave stand for the faith, but he's so wedded to his worldly position (ordination in the Church of England) that he can't give it up.
If Packer is really serious, then he should "Leave the dead to bury their own dead," and cease the pointless whining about Bp. Ingham doing what any bishop is required to do.
I think Packer is a priest of the CofE, not the Anglican Church in Canada. Not that the CofE may not end up at that point, but right now it is Bishop Ingham who is in rebellion against the Anglican Communion, not Packer, by pushing homosexuality and requiring his priests to acknowlege homosexual marriage, aka “blessings,” despite condemnation by the worldwide Anglican communion.
One would like to hope this would finally galvanize Archbishop Rowan to break ties with Ingham and the other heretics in the Epsicopal Church and the Anglican Church in Canada and to anathematize them, but you know it will never happen.
Again -- we can grant that; but Ingham is properly exercising his duties as a bishop in this case. Packer can leave, but if he does so, he can't claim to retain his ordination.
Sodom expels Lot.
” It seems to me that this “controversy” stems from a bunch of folks wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. Anglican rules evidently matter only when somebody else is breaking them.”
Anglican church rules do not require you to follow your Bishop to the pit of Hell.
True enough. But the fact remains that the bishop is only doing his job here. The "controversy" is that some folks seem to think that Packer should retain his ministry even as he abandons the diocese by which his ministry was granted.
Packer is free to leave. He's not free to act as if he hasn't left.
“The “controversy” is that some folks seem to think that Packer should retain his ministry even as he abandons the diocese by which his ministry was granted.”
Packer has not moved doctrinally. His diocese has abandoned the faith.
A heretical Bishop has no valid “job” to do in the Church.
So you’re basically saying that church rules only apply if you say they do. And you differ from the liberals in that regard ... how?
Hypothetical:
If Gene Robinson was your bishop, would you feel required to follow his rule?
(Let’s say he required your children to attend pro homosexual classes.)
It depends. Am I claiming to be a priest in his diocese?
“So you’re basically saying that church rules only apply if you say they do. And you differ from the liberals in that regard ... how?”
There is a rule higher than the Church.
We are not required to follow the leadership of heretics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.