Anglican Journal reports on Bishop of New Westminster Michael Ingham’s campaign against retired Bishop of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador Donald Harvey.  Bp Ingham’s spokesperson supplies some additional information but, in my view, it only muddies the waters.

“An advertisement in a local newspaper invited people to attend a meeting sponsored by the ‘Anglican Church of the Resurrection’ in Hope, B.C. on July 23, to meet (Bishop) Harvey,” said diocesan spokesperson Neale Adams. “We have no such parish, but in the ad it claimed to be an ‘Anglican church,’ a member of the ‘Anglican Network in Canada’ and a ‘member of the world wide Anglican Communion.’”

Is Mr Adams really claiming that the Diocese of New Westminster doesn’t know when or why Church of the Resurrection came into being?  (After Bp Ingham forced Rev Dr Archie Pell of Christ Church, Hope, into early retirement, most of the congregation started the new church outside Ingham’s jurisdiction.)  That’s rich: Mike obviously shadows Donald Harvey like a hawk, yet claims total cluelessness about the church Bp Harvey actually visited.  Disingenuous is putting it mildly.

As for the church’s calling itself Anglican this and Anglican that, the last time I checked, neither the Anglican Church of Canada nor the Diocese of New Westminster has trademarked the adjective “Anglican”.  So, what exactly is the problem here?

Mr. Adams denied reports circulated online by Essentials, a group of Anglicans opposed to same-sex blessings, that Bishop Ingham was “bringing action” against Bishop Harvey. He said that “if anyone will take appropriate action” against Bishop Harvey, it would be the primate, Archbishop Andrew Hutchison and Archbishop Terrence Buckle, metropolitan, or senior bishop, of B.C. and the Yukon.

Medieval scholastics were ridiculed for allegedly debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin—but they had nothin’ on Mike Ingham.  He’s the only one bellyaching about Bp Harvey so, if Harvey is officially sanctioned, it will be only because Mike Ingham launched a formal complaint against him.  If that doesn’t qualify as “bringing action”, then nothing does.  Does this pass for nuanced argument in New Westminster?

Hmmm.  I see a pattern in these self-serving obfuscations.  Claiming to be unaware of Church of the Resurrection deflects attention from Bp Ingham’s role in creation of that church.  Denying that he’s “bringing action” deflects attention from his initiative in accusing Don Harvey.

Calling it sophistry would be an insult to sophists.

Previous related posts: