Clarification regarding Todd Atkinson
Last week, ACNAtoo highlighted the Province's announcement of Todd Atkinson's deposition. We made a mistake in our coverage, writing that "... Canadian Anglican priests warned Bp. Charlie Masters in 2018 about Atkinson’s prior misconduct and asked him not to hastily recommend Atkinson to the ACNA." The Canadian priests referenced were not aware of Atkinson's serious misconduct involving inappropriate relationships that both Bps. Charlie Masters and Trevor Walters knew about. Therefore, we should have written that the Canadian priests “raised serious concerns to Bp. Charlie Masters about ANiC’s recommendation that Via Apostolica become an ACNA missionary district.”
Evidence of the priests' concerns can be found in a letter from 2018 that was signed by a number of ANiC priests, below. While not focused on Atkinson himself, the letter contains this prescient reference in its single footnote: 'For example…some of us are troubled by the apparent claim to extra-biblical revelation by Bishop Todd. Others have raised concerns that the ‘unique discipleship method’ of VA may incline toward ‘Heavy Shepherding’ with its unaccountable reliance on one leader.' The priests’ important critique of the larger process remained unheeded, and these red flags about Atkinson were cast aside with it.
To: Bishop Charlie Masters
And ANiC Council
27 November 2018
Dear Bishop Charlie and ANiC Council,
We are writing to express our concern with the passing of the motion initiating “the establishment of Via Apostolica for full membership in ACNA as a Missionary Diocese within ACNA”. We love ANiC and thank God for his goodness and our leaders, and pray for your wisdom and strength. It is a privilege to be part of a movement with our five priorities. It is a joy to share the mission stated in the proposal “Beyond a Lifeboat” (BAL): “To proclaim Christ more effectively, and to build biblically faithful gospel sharing Anglican Churches across the nation and beyond.” We recognize ANiC has reached an inflection point where changes in our structures and ordering are required to better fulfill what the Lord of the harvest has for us in the next years. We are grateful that the BAL proposal now allows for proper consultation and discernment over the next year with regard to some of the complexities and entailments, and look forward to working with the task group to be set up.
It is important to express our genuine affection and love toward those we have met and spent time with from Via Apostolica. It is clear that the Lord is doing a work among them and we recognize the marks of Christ in them, as they do in us, as well as their desire for accountability. It has been enriching to have them as Common Cause partners.
However, in passing the motion regarding Via Apostolica (VA) during the last session of Synod, we believe a disservice may have been done to Synod. Our concerns are fourfold.
1. Lack of Process Coherence.
The expectation articulated in the BAL proposal, published before Synod, was that a Recognized Missionary District under ACNA Canon 12 was one “option” to be considered as part of the BAL proposal. The other option was creating a Diocese in Formation. (Appendix 2 “Recommended Ways Ahead”.) While some option was adumbrated in the Bishop’s Charge at Synod, the first notice of any motion regarding VA was less than an hour before it was put to Synod. This precluded genuine consultation with either Synod or ANiC Council. The motion created significant confusion. Many of us believed that the status of VA was included in the BAL proposal and therefore would be part of the discernment process and consultation of this next year. There was a lack of clarity (even agreement) in the motion between our bishops, as the preamble was quickly removed on the floor of Synod. In addition the presence of Bishop Todd and the VA clergy during the discussion placed all those with reservations in an inappropriately invidious position. How could we be expected to graciously express reservations without the opportunity for VA to give significant reply?(1)
2. Lack of Pastoral Coherence.
We are concerned for our brothers and sisters in AMMiC. What was undoubtedly an unintended consequence of the hasty passing of this motion is that in effect we said “yes” to VA’s desire to be recognised as a unique entity within ANiC while at the same time we said “no”, or at least “not at this time” to the Asian Bishop, clergy and congregations of AMMiC. VA has been a Common Cause partner with us for four years now, but AMMiC have been part of ANiC since the beginning. Our Asian and Multicultural brothers and sisters have agreed to be patient, to allow for sober consideration of these structural and strategic questions. We believe that they are understandably hurt by this inconsistent decision.
While a Missionary District is distinct from a diocese, it is still an ecclesial structure the trajectory of which would seem to be the eventual formation of an independent diocese on cultural or affinity grounds. The moving and passing of this motion just after a motion calling for “a season of discernment” on precisely these questions lacks pastoral coherence.
3. Lack of Coherence in Our Witness.
There remains a distinct lack of clarity about the implications of the passing of the motion. What is the envisaged relationship with ANiC should VA become a Missionary District of ANCA? What are the consequences for creating a new Anglican entity in Canada when the coherence of our witness is already under question with various entities operating under the name “Anglican”? What are the implications of having a new Missionary District operating in Canada without any accountability in Canada? Will establishing VA as a Missionary District accountable to ACNA diminish the coherence of Anglican witness in Canada? We believe that more consideration should be given to the model in which VA’s incorporation to ACNA / ANiC is made.
4. Lack of Theological Coherence.
We rejoice in the evangelistic energy in the VA churches, yet one of the most important issues which was absent from the motion has to do with what constitutes our Anglican identity. The sad necessity for ANiC and the new Anglican alignments arose out of a disregard for the clear teaching of Scripture and the tradition of the church enshrined in the Anglican formularies. It remains unclear where VA stands with regard to these formularies: the Book of Common Prayer, the 39 Articles together with the Ordinal. These represent the essence of Anglican identity and form the basis for our confessional unity. It would be theologically troubling for us to move forward with a proposed Missionary District without these issues being somewhat resolved.
Our coherence in process, pastorally, in witness and in theology is an important part of our growth as a movement. Despite the passing of the motion we believe the motion was ill-timed and ill-considered. We pray that God will to continue to pour out his goodness and lovingkindness on us and through us. We trust that ACNA has its own process to consider these matters, but understandably we expect them to put weight on the force of ANiC’s recommendation.
We respectfully request the following four things.
That ANiC council exercise reasonable discretion and consider the four concerns we have raised.
That Synod motions of structural significance be properly vetted and adequate time be given for consideration. That ANiC Council develop policies and procedures to deal with such significant motions in the future.
That the task force set up under the motion regarding BAL consider the concerns identified above in a wide and open manner: particularly the eccesial and theological implications of such structural changes, along with the implications of affinity / missionary districts.
That communication to ACNA include a request for time for our concerns to be considered and resolved.
We regret the necessity for this letter. We do not want to be considered contumacious, cranky or eccentric. Our concern is for the future of our beloved ANiC.
For example, recognizing what John Stott termed the “principled comprehensiveness” of Anglicanism, some of us are troubled by the apparent claim to extra-biblical revelation by Bishop Todd. Others have raised concerns that the “unique discipleship method” of VA may incline toward “Heavy Shepherding” with its unaccountable reliance on one leader.