Three representatives, two clergy and one lay person, offered to meet with panel members last week in London to discuss their application for Adequate Episcopal Oversight through the Anglican Network in Canada, said Cheryl Chang, Executive Director of ANIC. Present with her was the Rev. David Short, rector of St. John's Shaughnessy, in Vancouver, BC, the largest Anglican church in Canada, and the Rev. Stephen Leung from the Church of the Good Shepherd also in Vancouver. They traveled to London to make their voices heard and to answer any questions the Panel might have regarding their situation, in the hope of expediting the process, said Chang to VOL in an a phone call from her office in Vancouver.

It is only the second meeting of the Panel since they met last July to discuss the process to receive applications.

"The Panel members said they preferred to have the subcommittee charged with investigating our case come to Vancouver to meet with the orthodox parishes involved in ANIC's application to the Panel and the Diocesan representatives at the same time. "They wanted to do this in order to avoid any perception of bias or unfair advantage for one side or another," said Chang.

"New Westminster Bishop Michael Ingham claims we have left the Anglican Church of Canada, but that is not true," said Chang. "We are still part of the Canadian Church. It is the diocese and bishop who are leaving the Communion, she said.

In October 2005, the Diocese of New Westminster passed a motion essentially outlawing membership in the Network and requesting the bishop, in consultation with the Chancellor and others, to take such action as he deemed "necessary" against any clergy or parish that declared itself to be a member of the Network. Ironically, in the same month, the Archbishop of Canterbury publicly declared members of the Network to be in full communion with him.

Chang said the Canadian group was able to meet with the Chairman of the Panel, Archbishop Peter Carnley, retired Primate of Australia, as well as the Joint Secretaries to the Panel, Canon Gregory Cameron of the Anglican Consultative Council and Dr. Brian Hanson who staffs the panel. "The chairman expressed the Panel's concern for us and their desire to treat us pastorally. They wanted to be fair and the conversation was helpful in clearing up a number of mutual concerns. We were assured that the Panel intended to deal with our application expeditiously," she told VOL. Chang said that as a result, the sub-committee of the Panel assigned to ANIC's application, the Rev. Stephen Trott, Church Commissioner of the Church of England and Chancellor Rubie Nottage from the Province of West Indies, agreed to visit Vancouver as soon as possible. "We are in the process of finding mutually acceptable dates for the parties," said Chang.

The Anglican Network in Canada has seven congregations across the country that have joined and four others in New Westminster are prepared to take that step, said Chang.

In a communiqué issued on the occasion of the second plenary meeting in St. Andrew's House, London of the Panel of Reference (the Panel's first meting was ten months ago) They noted they had received three references from the Archbishop of Canterbury. All three were received by the Panel at the end of October 2005.

In a back handed slap at the group, the Panel indicated in its first communiqué that speed of response was an important consideration, and that normally it would seek to give its response to the Archbishop within six months of reference.

DIOCESE OF FT WORTH. The first reference to the Panel arose from an appeal by the Diocese of Forth Worth in the Episcopal Church USA. The Diocese does not ordain women to the priesthood, and they were appealing to the Archbishop of Canterbury on the grounds that it is in serious theological dispute with the Episcopal Church, which at its 72nd General Convention in 1997 passed canons to make the ordination of women mandatory. The Panel considered the preliminary draft of its report, and hopes, after consultation with the parties, to publish its recommendations in the near future.

DIOCESE OF CONNECTICUT. The second reference came from the Diocese of Connecticut and to an appeal by six parishes against the oversight of their Bishop Drew Smith. In January 2006, however, civil proceedings were initiated in respect of matters connected with these situations. The Panel decided last year as a matter of principle that it should not normally consider references where civil cases are proceeding. The Panel is not a court, and its recommendations, which may be published with the consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury, have moral and pastoral force only. Civil proceedings should either have come to completion or be stayed if the work of the Panel is to have space in which to operate. On this basis, the Archbishop of Canterbury has withdrawn the reference to the Panel until such time as the matter of the civil cases has been resolved.

DIOCESE OF NEW WESTMINSTER. The third reference was an appeal by parishes in the Diocese of New Westminster in the Anglican Church of Canada for alternative episcopal oversight. Consideration of this reference could not proceed until March 2006 while the identity of the applicants who wished to be named to carry this matter forward with the Panel was established. Representatives of the New Westminster parishes invited the Panel to meet with them during their meeting.

In the case of the DIOCESE OF RECIFE, it is still in the hands of Lambeth and has yet to be referred to the Panel.

The Panel made it clear that it is not a tribunal or court which can intervene formally to adjudicate in the affairs of the autonomous Provinces of the Anglican Communion. The formation of the Panel arose from the request of the Primates at Dromantine, Northern Ireland, in February 2005, for the Archbishop of Canterbury to establish a panel to advise him by supervising the adequacy of arrangements for extended episcopal ministry in situations where parishes were in serious theological dispute with their dioceses, or dioceses in dispute with their provinces. In such cases, the recommendations of the Panel are intended to assist the situation by offering to the parties an independent assessment of those measures which might move the situation forward. These recommendations are intended to provide sufficient protection to parties who fear oppressive action by ecclesiastical authorities on account of their theological differences.

In addition, the Archbishop of Canterbury has indicated that he might ask for the advice of the Panel on other grave situations of dispute which may arise in the Communion. The recommendations of the Panel in such cases would be directed towards reconciliation, and would offer advice to the Archbishop of Canterbury on how his ministry could assist the situation.

END