It has been a very long while since I posted anything here. It is late, and I won't say much for the moment, hopefully will expand on this over the next few days, as time and inspiration warrant. But, briefly....
If you have not already read it, I highly recommend the Anglican Communion Instititute "Open Letter."
http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/
And for all those unfamiliar with the history of the "current unpleasantness" contrived by the PB of TEC against the Diocese of South Carolina, be sure to read the appendix included with the letter.
The importance of this letter seems lost on some conservative Christians. There seems a tendency among those who see TEC as too far gone to write off the effort made by the ACI as pointless. I do find a certain irony in the idea that those who follow Anglican blogs would find such work worthless, or dismiss it because TEC bishops are unlikely to act on it.
1) The three priests of ACI have extensively documented the non canonical (and potentially illegal) activities of the PB. The ACI writers have (by risking deposition themselves, no doubt) taken on the task of laying out the numerous canon violations engaged in by the PB in what has become a persecution of the Diocese of South Carolina, and its bishop, +Mark Lawrence.
2) The letter presents the case directly to the House of Bishops of TEC- there is no longer "plausible deniability" that would allow them to say they were "unaware" of the facts or that there "were no grounds" for complaint.
3) The letter effectively counters the misinformation campaign being carried out by TEC's official news outlets, and spokespersons. The letter is being read widely abroad, and has been quoted on blogs worldwide. Much of what is in it is common information to those of us who have closely followed Anglican affairs in the US, but comes as a shock to many in Europe, Asia and Africa, who cannot imagine church affairs being conducted in such manner.
So, for what little it may be worth from an old Anglo Catholic who has been out of TEC for several years now, the good fathers of ACI (the Rev's Turner, Seitz and Radner), and their colleague Mr. McCall, will have my prayers in the coming days, and my thanks.
Gracious Father, we pray for thy holy Catholic Church. Fill it
with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt,
purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is
amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in
want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake
of Jesus Christ thy Son our Savior. Amen. (BCP 1979)
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Sermons on Newman
Thanks to (oddly enough) the rather Evangelical blog Fulcrum for pointing to these sermons on John Henry Newman by the Reverend Dr Nicholas Sagovsky. As he is an Anglican theologian, no doubt my more Catholic minded friends will find some bones to pick here, as I may myself as I read and digest these sermons. However, I think it is significant that the Evangelical Anglicans of England (and dare I say some are "Open Evangelicals"- a sort of more "Protestant" parallel of "Affirming Catholics") are of a sudden discovering what they are losing with Anglo Catholics being forced out of western Anglican Churches. Take a look-
Link to Fulcrum page
Link to Fulcrum page
"Newman was fascinated by how we become sure about anything. Above all, he believed we can be sure about the truth of the Christian faith. He did not think we can be convinced of Christian truth by clever arguments, by piling up more and more evidence, by trying to increase the probability that it is true to the point where we become certain. He believed – and I am sure he was right in this – that truth dawns upon us."
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Where do we go from here?
As is obvious, my intentions to "keep up" the blog expressed in my Advent posting were not fulfilled. I am about to "violate" another of my own self imposed rules, and comment on the current state of the Anglican Communion. I have been inspired to do so by a variety of recent events, and by some postings that have been put up elsewhere on the net, and to some degree by comments those posts have drawn in various quarters. I am currently away from home, and I don't have access to my library, or the archives on my computer, so much of what I write below is somewhat dependent on a questionable memory.
I commend to you the recent posts put up by ACI ( www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com ), especially the piece by Dr. Philip Turner, that lay out the current state of affairs in the Communion. For the record, I have no connection with ACI, and nothing I say after this point should necessarily be taken as their opinion. I have taken an active part in the discussion of the Primates Meeting and its aftermath on various threads at StandFirm and T19, where I suppose one can see my thinking as it evolved. I would also recommend that everyone view the lecture by, and interview of, Archbishop Mouneer Anis at the Mere Anglicanism conference, and the post-Primates Meeting interview with Bishop Venables, all of which are available from Anglican TV, and also linked on any number of blogs and websites.
From those various sources, one can get a pretty good idea of where the Anglican Communion is right now. The Archbishop of Canterbury has come in for a lot of criticism, seemingly from all sides, and given that I have leveled no small amount of negative commentary myself, I will say that I think much of the blame for our current circumstances rests on his doorstep. But everyone knew he was a liberal when he took office, on that score, his actions have been consistent and predictable. What was not so apparent, and what has damaged the Communion more deeply is that his actions are remarkably inconsistent with his words, and that he seems incapable of keeping up with the pace of events. Which is to say, the Anglican Communion's time frame is much shorter than the Archbishop's, and he can't keep up. His call to everyone, politely, to slow down (ie- moratoria), was ignored first by TEC, and then the GS responded. He ends up asking bishops to consider not doing something that they have already done. And the archbishop seems also to be completely incapable of dealing with an ultimatum in a constructive way. When the ABoC encounters an ultimatum, and he will ignore it completely, whether it is the TEC ultimatums (we will perform this gay marriage on such and such a day, and consecrate this gay bishop on such and such a day) or GS ultimatum (if the PB of TEC is invited, we will not attend). He just ignores the ultimatum, and goes on as though nothing had changed once the ultimatum has been carried out. So he ends up making statements that are almost ludicrous in the circumstances, about the close cooperation in mission of churches that have entirely different doctrines, and which are diametrically opposed on interpretation of the Gospel.
The Anglican Communion is, as a result of that diametric opposition, currently misnamed. It would be more accurate to identify the "Anglican Communion" as the 60 million of the Global South and scattered throughout the rest of the world, who share a common Gospel and indeed have a high degree of communion, both spiritually and sacramentally. In addition, there are 20 million who view "autonomy" (some might say "hegemony") as the determining principle of Anglicanism. The irony of the calls for "autonomy within the Anglican Communion" is that "autonomy" and "communion" are antonyms. You can have only one or the other, you cannot have both.
However, it is the 20 million in favor of autonomy over communion who have all the money, all the media access, and control all the levers of power within the organization. Look at the current makeup of the ARCIC delegation. It is headed up by the Primate of a church (New Zealand) where you can substitute a home grown statement of faith for the Nicene Creed. It includes a TEC resident priest (ie- canonically resident in diocese of Chicago), who would otherwise be excluded under the Archbishop's Pentacost letter, but is currently teaching in a UK college- although he is an open opponent of Lambeth 1.10. (parenthetically, one warns the orthodox within the CoE that this has been a long term strategy of pushing the revisionist agenda in their church- the importation of wildly revisionist US professors into their seminaries). And a Canadian bishop from Toronto, which has openly defied the Windsor moratoria and the Windsor Continuation Group recommendations. How have any of these people been appointed to an ecumenical group rather than mainstream Anglican theologians? Well, because their churches wield power, while the majority of the Communion does not. And because the "powers that be" want to push the Catholic Church as far as possible in the ecumenical dialogue- including all the revisionist nonsense these people will spout in the meetings in the press releases- so that they can make the most outlandish revisionism appear "mainline" by making it appear that the Catholic Church is in dialog with them. If you wanted to represent the actual center of the Anglican theological spectrum, more sensible appointments might have been ++John Chew, Stephen Noll+ (an ex-pat American, if you must have one) and the bishop of Gibraltar. Such a group would have provided more diversity theologically and economically, and have better represented those who value Anglican formularies and commonly accepted doctrinal standards.
Another rather interesting very recent development that I am pondering is the recent editorial faux pas from the Church News of Ireland which has put up a current article on the resolution passed at last year's CoE Synod, proposing that the Synod at some later date take up the question of full communion between the ACNA and Church of England. The CNI article seems to have "borrowed" the headline from one of the more "optimistic" bloggers on the event last year, claiming recognition by the CoE for ACNA. All that resolution (after amendment) actually said was that the archbishops (Canterbury and York) were "invited" to study the matter and report back to Synod this year (which anyone who has followed the ABoC probably knew meant "at the later session of Synod, 2011- since Synod usually meets twice). This, of course, has raised all sorts of hackles among the TEC hierarchy.
In the course of discussion over at Stand Firm, commenter "Pageantmaster" (who appears to be a member of the CoE, and often has astute comments on the state of affairs in the CoE) let us know that Ms. Lorna Ashworth did indeed rise during the recent (ie- Feb. 2011) session of Synod to ask about the status of the Archbishops' study and whether they would be reporting back:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/27227/#455577
Those of us in ACNA in the US owe thanks to Lorna Ashworth, as the person who was bold enough to offer a resolution declaring communion with us (which was subsequently amended by the CoE bishops into the current resolution). This was quite a bold move for a lay woman from Chichester, and she is deserving of our thanks and our prayers. And it is good to know she is a member of the current Synod.
So, what do we do next? Whither the Anglican Communion?
Much of the criticism that has been leveled at ACI and even the Global South Primates is along the lines of "ok, you have pointed out the problem, now what is the solution?" and "so, that's great, but what have you done for me lately" and "when are you going to show us the way forward" and "when will orthodox bishops hold a conference?" Not that my opinion really amounts to a hill of beans in this crazy world, but here would be my recommendations for the orthodox Anglicans in the North America, Australia, New Zealand, the British Isles and Europe.
1) Pray daily for all that stand with us as Christians throughout the world. Thank those working to defend and expand the Church.
Recognize that people around the world have offered us enormous support over these last several years, acknowledge that, and thank them for it. Because the fellows at ACI are gifted theologians and analysts does not necessarily make them prophets, and they may not wish to take on that role. But be thankful for all the work they do. Likewise, the GS Primates are doing a lot, all the time, to further the work of Christ and His Church. And often, like now, they have things that are critically important that will take their attention away from the goings on in Communion politics. At this moment, Archbishop Mouneer in Egypt and Archbishop Daniel in the Sudan face simply enormous challenges going forward due to the political changes in their nations, not to mention the physical dangers faced by them as individuals and by their people. Christians are targets of hatred and terror in their countries, and many other nations of the Global South.
2) Study what has actually happened.
All too often, writers, bloggers and commenters seem ignorant of what has already happened, as though there were no action being taken to deal with the dissolution of the Communion due to actions of western churches.
Question: When will the GS hold a meeting of orthodox bishops and leaders from around the world? (asked by any number of commenters win the last few days in response to the primates meeting)
Answer: 2010 in Singapore. The Singapore "Global South Encounter" included bishops ranging from Nigeria and Rwanda to Communion Partner bishops from TEC. No one, other than Rowan Williams, received an invitation unless their church (or they personally) subscribed to Lambeth 1.10. As it turned out, ++Rowan was unable to attend due to his flight being canceled when a volcanic eruption grounded all the planes at Heathrow. "An act of God," one might say.
8 Primates signed statements that they would not attend the recent Primates meeting, and in 2 other cases, statements had been signed by their predecessors (S. Cone and Rwanda), due to attendance by TEC. The statement from the ACO office , if read carefully, says that 7 specifically wrote to Canon Kearon stating this, and is often misquoted to say that only 7 Primates did not attend due to the presence of the PB. However, Primates of 7 Provinces (the "Gafcon Primates"- not including +Duncan) signed the Oxford statement, which made this clear. In addition, ++Mouneer Anis, ++Ian Earnest, and ++John Chew were among the 7 who responded directly to Canon Kearon. So, while "only" 7 may have written to Canon Kearon, a total of 10 were on record, in writing, that they would not attend. Of the other 5 Primates who did not attend, we must accept the reasons stated by their various offices, at least until such time as the Primates themselves make some clarification of the reasons issued for their absence.
3) Determine who the orthodox bishops of the Communion are, and follow their lead.
Both Archbishop Mouneer and Bishop Greg Venables have stated that another pan-Anglican meeting is in the planning stage. We must pay attention to what they have to say to us, and stop telling them what they should or should not do. Full stop. Offer to them your skills and analysis, but be prepared to follow the lead of the orthodox bishops even if they are not saying what you want them to say. The Gafcon bishops and the "moderate" bishops of Africa and the Global South have been reaching out to one another in an effort to restore unity in the Communion (read the statements from the Singapore meeting and the CAPA meeting in Entebbe). Let us be part of that unity, and not become a divisive element for the Global South.
4) Reach out for communion.
For those of us in ACNA, let us stop demanding that "Church A should recognize communion with us." Might one rather suggest that the proper attitude here is not one expressed by "all orthodox Anglican Churches should declare full communion with ACNA." But rather, it is perhaps more appropriate for us in the west to approach these churches, where the modern martyrs are to be found, and where one might argue, our Lord is more "remembered", in a way more in keeping with the Prayer of Humble Access. After the mess we have made of the Lord's Church in North America, communion is something we are not worthy of. We should approach the table of Egypt, or Sudan, or Nigeria, or East Asia, with humility, and recognize the sacrifice and witness of these valiant Christians.
I really don't see the Church of England or Church of Ireland as representative of orthodoxy, but I do think they are still worthy of our respect- their churches are on a slippery slope, but they have not allowed them to descend to the levels of the churches in North America. So in these cases also, we must approach the question of communion between churches with humility rather than hubris. In many comments I read, I detect an attitude that "unless you declare communion with us, you are not orthodox Christians." My prayer would be that whether they decide to enter into a communion relationship with us or not, that they will say, "ACNA was not arrogant in our discussions."
5) Money.
I know it seems crass. But let's be real. Many churches in the Global South have sacrificed a great deal by refusing the monetary support of TEC, knowing that it comes with strings attached. While we in ACNA cannot approach the monetary resources of TEC, we must do what we can, as dioceses, parishes and individuals to support the Christians in faraway places who suffer violence, disease and famine, and we must support their ministries by assisting with such things as building churches, and sponsoring ordinands. And at home, by providing such support as we are able to those seminaries that maintain an orthodox Christian program of study.
So, there are my 5 recommendations for the future of Anglicanism. No, there is nothing there about re-establishment of Instruments, or calling for resignations, or breaking communion with this or that church. I would recommend that the GS implement the various disciplinary measures already agreed in Communion councils, but I think they are already doing that. Beyond that I will await the councils of the Global South and other orthodox bishops to make recommendations, and then follow their lead. The bishops of the GS have a much better perspective on how to advance the Lord's work in their provinces than I do, and a better perspective on what the Communion needs. My hope is that they find me, the little congregation I am a part of, and the fledgling ACNA worth of communion with their Churches.
I commend to you the recent posts put up by ACI ( www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com ), especially the piece by Dr. Philip Turner, that lay out the current state of affairs in the Communion. For the record, I have no connection with ACI, and nothing I say after this point should necessarily be taken as their opinion. I have taken an active part in the discussion of the Primates Meeting and its aftermath on various threads at StandFirm and T19, where I suppose one can see my thinking as it evolved. I would also recommend that everyone view the lecture by, and interview of, Archbishop Mouneer Anis at the Mere Anglicanism conference, and the post-Primates Meeting interview with Bishop Venables, all of which are available from Anglican TV, and also linked on any number of blogs and websites.
From those various sources, one can get a pretty good idea of where the Anglican Communion is right now. The Archbishop of Canterbury has come in for a lot of criticism, seemingly from all sides, and given that I have leveled no small amount of negative commentary myself, I will say that I think much of the blame for our current circumstances rests on his doorstep. But everyone knew he was a liberal when he took office, on that score, his actions have been consistent and predictable. What was not so apparent, and what has damaged the Communion more deeply is that his actions are remarkably inconsistent with his words, and that he seems incapable of keeping up with the pace of events. Which is to say, the Anglican Communion's time frame is much shorter than the Archbishop's, and he can't keep up. His call to everyone, politely, to slow down (ie- moratoria), was ignored first by TEC, and then the GS responded. He ends up asking bishops to consider not doing something that they have already done. And the archbishop seems also to be completely incapable of dealing with an ultimatum in a constructive way. When the ABoC encounters an ultimatum, and he will ignore it completely, whether it is the TEC ultimatums (we will perform this gay marriage on such and such a day, and consecrate this gay bishop on such and such a day) or GS ultimatum (if the PB of TEC is invited, we will not attend). He just ignores the ultimatum, and goes on as though nothing had changed once the ultimatum has been carried out. So he ends up making statements that are almost ludicrous in the circumstances, about the close cooperation in mission of churches that have entirely different doctrines, and which are diametrically opposed on interpretation of the Gospel.
The Anglican Communion is, as a result of that diametric opposition, currently misnamed. It would be more accurate to identify the "Anglican Communion" as the 60 million of the Global South and scattered throughout the rest of the world, who share a common Gospel and indeed have a high degree of communion, both spiritually and sacramentally. In addition, there are 20 million who view "autonomy" (some might say "hegemony") as the determining principle of Anglicanism. The irony of the calls for "autonomy within the Anglican Communion" is that "autonomy" and "communion" are antonyms. You can have only one or the other, you cannot have both.
However, it is the 20 million in favor of autonomy over communion who have all the money, all the media access, and control all the levers of power within the organization. Look at the current makeup of the ARCIC delegation. It is headed up by the Primate of a church (New Zealand) where you can substitute a home grown statement of faith for the Nicene Creed. It includes a TEC resident priest (ie- canonically resident in diocese of Chicago), who would otherwise be excluded under the Archbishop's Pentacost letter, but is currently teaching in a UK college- although he is an open opponent of Lambeth 1.10. (parenthetically, one warns the orthodox within the CoE that this has been a long term strategy of pushing the revisionist agenda in their church- the importation of wildly revisionist US professors into their seminaries). And a Canadian bishop from Toronto, which has openly defied the Windsor moratoria and the Windsor Continuation Group recommendations. How have any of these people been appointed to an ecumenical group rather than mainstream Anglican theologians? Well, because their churches wield power, while the majority of the Communion does not. And because the "powers that be" want to push the Catholic Church as far as possible in the ecumenical dialogue- including all the revisionist nonsense these people will spout in the meetings in the press releases- so that they can make the most outlandish revisionism appear "mainline" by making it appear that the Catholic Church is in dialog with them. If you wanted to represent the actual center of the Anglican theological spectrum, more sensible appointments might have been ++John Chew, Stephen Noll+ (an ex-pat American, if you must have one) and the bishop of Gibraltar. Such a group would have provided more diversity theologically and economically, and have better represented those who value Anglican formularies and commonly accepted doctrinal standards.
Another rather interesting very recent development that I am pondering is the recent editorial faux pas from the Church News of Ireland which has put up a current article on the resolution passed at last year's CoE Synod, proposing that the Synod at some later date take up the question of full communion between the ACNA and Church of England. The CNI article seems to have "borrowed" the headline from one of the more "optimistic" bloggers on the event last year, claiming recognition by the CoE for ACNA. All that resolution (after amendment) actually said was that the archbishops (Canterbury and York) were "invited" to study the matter and report back to Synod this year (which anyone who has followed the ABoC probably knew meant "at the later session of Synod, 2011- since Synod usually meets twice). This, of course, has raised all sorts of hackles among the TEC hierarchy.
In the course of discussion over at Stand Firm, commenter "Pageantmaster" (who appears to be a member of the CoE, and often has astute comments on the state of affairs in the CoE) let us know that Ms. Lorna Ashworth did indeed rise during the recent (ie- Feb. 2011) session of Synod to ask about the status of the Archbishops' study and whether they would be reporting back:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/27227/#455577
Those of us in ACNA in the US owe thanks to Lorna Ashworth, as the person who was bold enough to offer a resolution declaring communion with us (which was subsequently amended by the CoE bishops into the current resolution). This was quite a bold move for a lay woman from Chichester, and she is deserving of our thanks and our prayers. And it is good to know she is a member of the current Synod.
So, what do we do next? Whither the Anglican Communion?
Much of the criticism that has been leveled at ACI and even the Global South Primates is along the lines of "ok, you have pointed out the problem, now what is the solution?" and "so, that's great, but what have you done for me lately" and "when are you going to show us the way forward" and "when will orthodox bishops hold a conference?" Not that my opinion really amounts to a hill of beans in this crazy world, but here would be my recommendations for the orthodox Anglicans in the North America, Australia, New Zealand, the British Isles and Europe.
1) Pray daily for all that stand with us as Christians throughout the world. Thank those working to defend and expand the Church.
Recognize that people around the world have offered us enormous support over these last several years, acknowledge that, and thank them for it. Because the fellows at ACI are gifted theologians and analysts does not necessarily make them prophets, and they may not wish to take on that role. But be thankful for all the work they do. Likewise, the GS Primates are doing a lot, all the time, to further the work of Christ and His Church. And often, like now, they have things that are critically important that will take their attention away from the goings on in Communion politics. At this moment, Archbishop Mouneer in Egypt and Archbishop Daniel in the Sudan face simply enormous challenges going forward due to the political changes in their nations, not to mention the physical dangers faced by them as individuals and by their people. Christians are targets of hatred and terror in their countries, and many other nations of the Global South.
2) Study what has actually happened.
All too often, writers, bloggers and commenters seem ignorant of what has already happened, as though there were no action being taken to deal with the dissolution of the Communion due to actions of western churches.
Question: When will the GS hold a meeting of orthodox bishops and leaders from around the world? (asked by any number of commenters win the last few days in response to the primates meeting)
Answer: 2010 in Singapore. The Singapore "Global South Encounter" included bishops ranging from Nigeria and Rwanda to Communion Partner bishops from TEC. No one, other than Rowan Williams, received an invitation unless their church (or they personally) subscribed to Lambeth 1.10. As it turned out, ++Rowan was unable to attend due to his flight being canceled when a volcanic eruption grounded all the planes at Heathrow. "An act of God," one might say.
8 Primates signed statements that they would not attend the recent Primates meeting, and in 2 other cases, statements had been signed by their predecessors (S. Cone and Rwanda), due to attendance by TEC. The statement from the ACO office , if read carefully, says that 7 specifically wrote to Canon Kearon stating this, and is often misquoted to say that only 7 Primates did not attend due to the presence of the PB. However, Primates of 7 Provinces (the "Gafcon Primates"- not including +Duncan) signed the Oxford statement, which made this clear. In addition, ++Mouneer Anis, ++Ian Earnest, and ++John Chew were among the 7 who responded directly to Canon Kearon. So, while "only" 7 may have written to Canon Kearon, a total of 10 were on record, in writing, that they would not attend. Of the other 5 Primates who did not attend, we must accept the reasons stated by their various offices, at least until such time as the Primates themselves make some clarification of the reasons issued for their absence.
3) Determine who the orthodox bishops of the Communion are, and follow their lead.
Both Archbishop Mouneer and Bishop Greg Venables have stated that another pan-Anglican meeting is in the planning stage. We must pay attention to what they have to say to us, and stop telling them what they should or should not do. Full stop. Offer to them your skills and analysis, but be prepared to follow the lead of the orthodox bishops even if they are not saying what you want them to say. The Gafcon bishops and the "moderate" bishops of Africa and the Global South have been reaching out to one another in an effort to restore unity in the Communion (read the statements from the Singapore meeting and the CAPA meeting in Entebbe). Let us be part of that unity, and not become a divisive element for the Global South.
4) Reach out for communion.
For those of us in ACNA, let us stop demanding that "Church A should recognize communion with us." Might one rather suggest that the proper attitude here is not one expressed by "all orthodox Anglican Churches should declare full communion with ACNA." But rather, it is perhaps more appropriate for us in the west to approach these churches, where the modern martyrs are to be found, and where one might argue, our Lord is more "remembered", in a way more in keeping with the Prayer of Humble Access. After the mess we have made of the Lord's Church in North America, communion is something we are not worthy of. We should approach the table of Egypt, or Sudan, or Nigeria, or East Asia, with humility, and recognize the sacrifice and witness of these valiant Christians.
I really don't see the Church of England or Church of Ireland as representative of orthodoxy, but I do think they are still worthy of our respect- their churches are on a slippery slope, but they have not allowed them to descend to the levels of the churches in North America. So in these cases also, we must approach the question of communion between churches with humility rather than hubris. In many comments I read, I detect an attitude that "unless you declare communion with us, you are not orthodox Christians." My prayer would be that whether they decide to enter into a communion relationship with us or not, that they will say, "ACNA was not arrogant in our discussions."
5) Money.
I know it seems crass. But let's be real. Many churches in the Global South have sacrificed a great deal by refusing the monetary support of TEC, knowing that it comes with strings attached. While we in ACNA cannot approach the monetary resources of TEC, we must do what we can, as dioceses, parishes and individuals to support the Christians in faraway places who suffer violence, disease and famine, and we must support their ministries by assisting with such things as building churches, and sponsoring ordinands. And at home, by providing such support as we are able to those seminaries that maintain an orthodox Christian program of study.
So, there are my 5 recommendations for the future of Anglicanism. No, there is nothing there about re-establishment of Instruments, or calling for resignations, or breaking communion with this or that church. I would recommend that the GS implement the various disciplinary measures already agreed in Communion councils, but I think they are already doing that. Beyond that I will await the councils of the Global South and other orthodox bishops to make recommendations, and then follow their lead. The bishops of the GS have a much better perspective on how to advance the Lord's work in their provinces than I do, and a better perspective on what the Communion needs. My hope is that they find me, the little congregation I am a part of, and the fledgling ACNA worth of communion with their Churches.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Hallelujah! (in case you missed it)
with a tip of the hat to Stand Firm (we will see if this works, my first try at embedding video)-
Sunday, November 28, 2010
+Andrew Burnham sets sail from the Grey Havens
Damian Thompson writes on the last Mass and sermon of +Andrew Burnham as an Anglican bishop.
Several friends have asked me why I would consider "crossing the Tiber" since it would mean accepting all sorts of "strange" doctrine. I usually respond that I do not find Benediction strange, or veneration of Mary (having been raised an Anglo Catholic). The doctrines I find strange are women priests and bishops, communion of the un-baptized, using the Qu'ran in place of the letters of Paul, making the Nicene Creed optional, denying the Real Presence, and the various and sundry other new doctrines of TEC and Western Anglicanism in general. For the record, I also think the folks in Sydney who advocate lay presidency just don't get it either.
Whether I follow him (or his US equivalent) to Rome, or not, I pray that Bishop Andrew and the Ordinariate are successful, that the Catholic Church is enriched by their presence, and perhaps itself regains some of what it has lost, as those who follow the good bishop regain something they have lost. And ask their prayers for those of us they leave behind.
...on your journey of discipleship, look not to me but to the Lord whom we serve. He alone can teach us how to be pilgrims on the way that leads to Paradise.Amen. Godspeed, Andrew Burnham.
Several friends have asked me why I would consider "crossing the Tiber" since it would mean accepting all sorts of "strange" doctrine. I usually respond that I do not find Benediction strange, or veneration of Mary (having been raised an Anglo Catholic). The doctrines I find strange are women priests and bishops, communion of the un-baptized, using the Qu'ran in place of the letters of Paul, making the Nicene Creed optional, denying the Real Presence, and the various and sundry other new doctrines of TEC and Western Anglicanism in general. For the record, I also think the folks in Sydney who advocate lay presidency just don't get it either.
Whether I follow him (or his US equivalent) to Rome, or not, I pray that Bishop Andrew and the Ordinariate are successful, that the Catholic Church is enriched by their presence, and perhaps itself regains some of what it has lost, as those who follow the good bishop regain something they have lost. And ask their prayers for those of us they leave behind.
Advent
O Come....
I have never been good at waiting. If a friend asks me for a stock tip, I tell him he would be better off asking me what I bought 6 months ago. Most of the stocks I've bought do well over long time periods, but they often don't do well at all in the first few months. I tend to move too soon. I suspect I do this in terms of the Church as well. Which is not to say that I am quick to adopt the latest "new thang" in religious revisionism, but rather that I react to those new things often before I've really developed my thinking. So, over the years, I have tended to react to TEC innovations and heresies with an immediate emotional response, rather than with a methodical, researched and documented response.
Unfortunately, modern communications make this all too easy. I log into a website and launch a diatribe, or a barb, or toss down a gauntlet (depending on whether I've logged into Stand Firm, MCJ or Covenant). Used to be that I would have several books at my elbow, and while some comments were "one liners", the better ones were more like short essays- utilizing quotes, Bible verses and references to the writings of theologians of 20 centuries to substantiate my point. Nowadays, I am more likely just to fire something off the top of my head, based on a bad memory and virtually no analysis.
I haven't posted on this blog lately because this is the place where I am hoping to better discipline myself, to prepare what I have to say, or at least read through the drafts a couple times in an effort to communicate what I really want to say. To present ideas and analysis.
In Advent, we await the Second Coming of our Lord. A day that, I suspect, most of us anticipate with both hope and fear. Hope for His return, but at the same time knowing that we are not yet prepared, in our selves and our souls, for that day. What I know I must learn, yet, in order to be ready is to defend the Faith in a calm, orderly and, for want of a better word, scholarly fashion. It is not enough to launch a "zinger" now and then when heresy rears its head. What is called for instead is sufficiently reasoned argument to convince those who oppose Christ and His Church- whether they be non-believers or the heretics in our own house. So I will try to better prepare, try to remain silent when I have nothing to offer but caustic humor. And I ask your forgiveness, and His, for the times when I fail, and my rude sense of humor comes to the fore on Stand Firm or MCJ.
I have never been good at waiting. If a friend asks me for a stock tip, I tell him he would be better off asking me what I bought 6 months ago. Most of the stocks I've bought do well over long time periods, but they often don't do well at all in the first few months. I tend to move too soon. I suspect I do this in terms of the Church as well. Which is not to say that I am quick to adopt the latest "new thang" in religious revisionism, but rather that I react to those new things often before I've really developed my thinking. So, over the years, I have tended to react to TEC innovations and heresies with an immediate emotional response, rather than with a methodical, researched and documented response.
Unfortunately, modern communications make this all too easy. I log into a website and launch a diatribe, or a barb, or toss down a gauntlet (depending on whether I've logged into Stand Firm, MCJ or Covenant). Used to be that I would have several books at my elbow, and while some comments were "one liners", the better ones were more like short essays- utilizing quotes, Bible verses and references to the writings of theologians of 20 centuries to substantiate my point. Nowadays, I am more likely just to fire something off the top of my head, based on a bad memory and virtually no analysis.
I haven't posted on this blog lately because this is the place where I am hoping to better discipline myself, to prepare what I have to say, or at least read through the drafts a couple times in an effort to communicate what I really want to say. To present ideas and analysis.
In Advent, we await the Second Coming of our Lord. A day that, I suspect, most of us anticipate with both hope and fear. Hope for His return, but at the same time knowing that we are not yet prepared, in our selves and our souls, for that day. What I know I must learn, yet, in order to be ready is to defend the Faith in a calm, orderly and, for want of a better word, scholarly fashion. It is not enough to launch a "zinger" now and then when heresy rears its head. What is called for instead is sufficiently reasoned argument to convince those who oppose Christ and His Church- whether they be non-believers or the heretics in our own house. So I will try to better prepare, try to remain silent when I have nothing to offer but caustic humor. And I ask your forgiveness, and His, for the times when I fail, and my rude sense of humor comes to the fore on Stand Firm or MCJ.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
A letter worth reading....
15 "Catholic minded" bishops have written a letter to the clergy of the Church of England. Rather like several of the recent pastoral letters from the various individual "flying bishops" and others, I find this statement melancholy, but it is well worth the read.
Letter from the bishops
Letter from the bishops
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)