Anglicans Ablaze

By Robin G. Jordan

In the days before the establishment of the Anglican Church in North America Archbishop Robert Duncan, then Moderator of the Common Cause Partnership, talked about the inadequacy of the old Anglican settlement and the need for a new one. Bishop Duncan did not go into great detail as to why the old Anglican settlement was inadequate. Presumably those whom he addressed were supposed to be fully informed on the subject. He did not offer a vision for a new Anglican settlement. Rather he stressed that change was needed and he and his fellow Common Cause Partnership leaders were ready to join with the global South primates to bring about this change.

In this article I look at a number of trends in the beliefs and practices of the Anglican Church in North America. These trends offer some clues to the emerging new Anglican settlement in that body. It would not be accurate to describe these tendencies as representing the direction in which the Anglican Church is moving worldwide. The Anglican Church in Canada and the United States has its own unique history, as do the Anglican Churches in other parts of the world. The North American Church has to a certain degree marched to the beat of a different drummer throughout its history. It has in the past influenced the direction of world Anglicanism (albeit not always in the best direction). More recently it has become a warning to Anglicans around the world of the dangers of liberalism and post-modernism. Yet there is also a lesson that they can learn from the direction that a part of that Church—the Anglican Church in North America—has taken in reaction to liberalism. This direction also has its dangers.

1. One of the trends in the Anglican Church in North America is a renewed emphasis on the so-called Anglican middle way, or via media. The emphasis on this theory of Anglican identity is in part pragmatic due to that body’s theological make-up.

The theory of the via media was first propounded by John Henry Newman in his Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church. Newman’s reading of history, however, was faulty. He was very selective in his use of the writings of the Caroline divines, choosing passages from their works that appeared to give strength to his claims but which, when they were read in context supported a different view from Newman’s.

Newman was also extremely sympathetic to Roman Catholicism. At the same time he had a very low opinion of the English Reformers. The via medi as he portrayed it did not run equal distant between the extremes of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism but ran very close to Roman Catholicism. Newman eventually rejected the via media theory before submitting to the Church of Rome and the Pope.

Frederick Denis Maurice reworked the via media theory into a form that made the theory more influential. Maurice argued that the Catholic and Protestant strands in the Church of England, while contrary, were also complimentary. They both maintain elements of the true church but were incomplete without each other. He maintained that through union of these opposites a true catholic and evangelical church might come into being.

In the twentieth century Maurice’s via medi theory and a number of strands of Anglican thought that derived from it were given wide currency in The Episcopal Church. A number of books led Episcopalians to believe that Anglicans had always seen their tradition as a via medi between Catholicism and Protestantism. Anglo-Catholics recognized in the popularity of the via medi theory a way to move the Anglican Church in Canada and the United States in a more Anglo-Catholic direction in doctrine, order, and worship. Liberals argued that their view of Anglicanism as a wide diversity of beliefs and practices, including theirs, was a natural outgrowth of the Anglican middle way. A broad comprehensiveness was characteristic of the Anglican via media.

Proponents of the Ancient-New Church and the convergence movements argued that God is bringing a third strand into the Anglican middle way—Pentecostalism. Three theological “streams” are converging in the global Anglican Church to form one might “river.” This view enjoys considerable popularity in the Anglican Church in North America, which is seen as where this convergence is taking place in Canada and the United States. Archbishop Duncan appealed to this view of the AC-NA in his address at the inaugural Provincial Assembly, claiming that God is creating in the AC-NA a church that is truly Catholic, truly evangelical, and truly Pentecostal.

The new AC-NA website on its “About the Anglican Church in North America” page contains the Common Cause Theological Statement that quotes with obvious approval the following words of Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher:

“The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ’s Church from the beginning.” It may licitly teach as necessary for salvation nothing but what is read in the Holy Scriptures as God’s Word written or may be proved thereby. It therefore embraces and affirms such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the Scriptures, and thus to be counted apostolic. The Church has no authority to innovate: it is obliged continually, and particularly in times of renewal or reformation, to return to “the faith once delivered to the saints.”

The statement concludes with these words, “To be an Anglican, then, is not to embrace a distinct version of Christianity, but a distinct way of being a ‘Mere Christian,’ at the same time evangelical, apostolic, catholic, reformed, and Spirit-filled.”

In the second half of the twentieth century Steven Sykes was a strong critic of Maurice’s theory and its various derivative strands of Anglican thought. Among Sykes’ criticisms was that an implied proposition of via medi theories is that there is no body of distinct Anglican doctrine beside the doctrines of the universal church. This proposition, he alleged, was used as an excuse for not undertaking systematic doctrine at all.

2. Another trend is an appeal to antiquity. There is a tendency to seek refuge from the liberalism of the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church in the doctrines and practices of the first millennium of the Christian Church. In his address to the inaugural Provincial Assembly of the Anglican Church in North America, Archbishop Duncan stressed the necessity of “regression,” of backward movement, in response to the crisis of liberalism. The doctrines and practices of this period it is argued are more Catholic and therefore more orthodox. This is similar to the reaction of the nineteenth century Oxford movement to the liberalism of its day. It is also argued that returning to these doctrines and practices is the key to the kind of church unity needed to keep liberalism from overtaking Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which retain these doctrines and practices, are presented as models of conservatism. The appeal to antiquity is uncritical. There is greater concern for catholicity than apostolicity. An important historical test of the apostolicity of doctrine and practice for Anglicans—the Bible—is given short shrift.

3. A third trend is a stress on ecumenism. This appears to be motivated in part by a desire for recognition. It is not a broad ecumenism that includes the Reformed Churches. It extends only to the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Here again there is a preoccupation with catholicity as opposed to apostolicity.

4. A fourth trend is the confusion of conservatism and traditionalism with apostolic doctrine and practice. There is a naïve assumption that because the doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church are conservative and traditionalist, they must be apostolic. The result is a very uncritical acceptance of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrines and practices that are inconsistent with the Bible. This is interpreted as the Holy Spirit uniting the Church. Yet I must wonder whether the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of Truth would be uniting the Church at the expense of the truth.

There is a similarity between this particular interpretation of developments in the Anglican Church in North America and the liberal interpretation of developments in the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church. In both instances God, we are assured, is doing a “new thing.” We are witnessing a prophetic movement. In both instances this “new thing” involves the disregard of the Bible.

5. This tendency to take a subjective approach to contemporary developments and to interpret them as the work of the Holy Spirit on the basis of their fulfillment of the aspirations of those interpreting them can be described as a fifth trend. There is also a similarity between this subjectivism and the views of the sectarians that the Thirty-Nine Articles describes as “certain Anabaptists.” These “Anabaptists” gave much greater authority to personal revelations from the Holy Spirit than to the Scriptures. Sectarian error was of great concern to the English Reformers as was Roman error. They saw the Holy Scriptures, interpreted by Scripture and reason, as a safeguard against both forms of error.

6. A sixth trend is a propensity toward ritualism. The video of Archbishop Duncan’s enthronement documents this tendency. In the opening procession almost all of the American bishops are wearing copes, stoles, and miters and pause at the entrance of the church to dip their hands in a pool of “holy water” and to sign themselves with a cross. After his induction Archbishop Duncan stands at the “altar rail” in front of the church with his chaplain flanking him, carrying his crosier, so that the congregation can come forward, pay him homage, kiss his ring, and receive his archiepiscopal blessing.

The tendency toward ritualism is evident even in the churches that are “contemporary” in their style of worship. The latter in the Anglican Church in North America is more likely to be convergent—blending traditional and contemporary forms of music; Anglo-Catholic vestments, ornaments, and ceremonial; charismatic expressiveness; and twenty-first century technology. Traditional Low Church worship like that which has been seen in mainline Protestant churches for generations is rare.

This ritualistic tendency is largely a carryover from The Episcopal Church. Anglo-Catholic ritualism has influenced that church for over a hundred and seventy-five years. Both the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, which are also used in the Anglican Church in North America, encourage an Anglo-Catholic ritualistic approach to worship. A large segment of the AC-NA clergy and laity is traditionalist Anglo-Catholic.

7. A seventh trend is that the English Reformation and the historic Anglican formularies are dismissed as things of the past. I have had at least one AC-NA priest tell me that contemporary Anglicans are superior in their understanding of the Bible and theology than their sixteenth century counterparts. His statement did not surprise me. He had originally been an Episcopal priest and that attitude is widespread in The Episcopal Church.

The old Anglican settlement gave a very large place to Scripture. The Bible was the test by which everything was tried—doctrine and practice. Article 6 states, “Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” Article 34 states, “It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike; for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word.”

Latitudinarianism in the eighteenth century, Anglo-Catholicism in the nineteenth century and liberalism in the twentieth century have eroded the place of Scripture in Anglicanism. The trends we are seeing in the Anglican Church in North America are also greatly weakening the place of the Bible in that body.

The emerging new Anglican settlement in the AC-NA shows no evidence of being an improvement upon the old Anglican settlement. Rather than being at the forefront of a new reformation, the AC-NA appears to be at the very front of a new counter-reformation. Biblical Anglicanism has no prospects in the AC-NA. Biblically-faithful Anglicans outside of North America who have given their support to the AC-NA are going to discover this unpleasant fact to their great consternation in the days ahead.

The New Orleans Saints won the 2010 Super Bowl, an upset victory against the Indianapolis Colts. The Church of England's General Synod is considering a private member's motion on recognizing the Anglican Church in North America. There must be an asteroid out there heading our way. Or the sun is about to go nova!

The Telegraph portrays upcoming debate on motion to recognize the Anglican Church in North America at General Synod this week as "new row" over homosexuality. Click here for the story. What should be the topic of debate is not just the AC-NA's stance on homosexuality but also its commitment to the principles of the Protestant and reformed Church of England? Does it really accept the historic Anglican formularies and consider them as authoritative today as in the sixteenth century? This is one of a number of questions that General Synod needs to ask.

Traditionalists are left in the cold by the latest Church of England plans for women bishops, Ruth Gledhill reports. Click here for the story.

For a another perspective on this story, click here.

For more on the same story by Ruth Gledhill, click here.

Reform highlights "hugh practical problems" with women bishops. Click here.

"'5. To covenant together is not intended to change the character of this Anglican expression of Christian faith. Rather, we recognise the importance of renewing in a solemn way our commitment to one another, and to the common understanding of faith and order we have received, so that the bonds of affection which hold us together may be re-affirmed and intensified. We do this in order to reflect, in our relations with one another, God's own faithfulness and promises towards us in Christ (2 Cor 1.20-22)'.

This could not be more wrong. Now is precisely the opportunity and the time to change the character of this Anglican expression of the Christian faith in those areas that have proven incapable of maintaining the unity and conformity of the churches of the Anglican Communion in Apostolic Faith, order and practice. Here again we confront in the proposed Covenant an unbiblical emphasis on maintaining provincial autonomy and a reluctance to state clearly the common, binding essentials of the Apostolic Faith as this Church has received them and stated them.

We think of Canon A5 of the Church of England that so clearly, beautifully and simply states: "The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Catholic Creeds, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, and the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal of 1662." Happily, this was adopted by the Jerusalem Declaration.

'(1.1.2) the catholic and apostolic faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation[2]. The historic formularies of the Church of England[3], forged in the context of the European Reformation and acknowledged and appropriated in various ways in the Anglican Communion, bear authentic witness to this faith.' (underlining mine)

This statement comes close to asserting the normative character of the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God written ("Scriptura Suprema") and the abiding value of the historic formularies (the Book of Common Prayer and ordinal 1662 and the 39 Articles of Religion) that set forth the Anglican understanding of the teaching of the Scripture and the ancient Church on the crucial matters that they cover.

However, there is a certain vagueness and hesitancy to give full expression to their authority in the Anglican Communion. Just what does 'uniquely revealed' mean, or 'authentic witness' imply? Canon A5 and the Jerusalem Declaration are far clearer and accord the historic formularies a stronger prominence in the Communion.

It is true that the Scriptures and the Creeds get a brief clarifying statement later, but the 39 Articles disappear from view, never to return. One senses a certain relief at their disappearance on the part of the writers of the Proposed Covenant."

John Rodgers makes a number of good points in this article. But what he says in some cases also applies to the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church in North America. Why didn't he speak up about those documents? All he did was urge evangelicals to accept them as they were written.

To read the entire article, click here.

"The young couple looked to be in their late twenties, very well dressed, happy, and confident. “May we take one of these Bibles?” they asked. 'Absolutely,' was my reply.

'We’ve never had one. Are they free?' Those words struck my heart like a knife… ”we’ve never had one!” I didn’t expect to hear these words in this context. You may think this conversation happened in some far away land with someone from an entirely different background. Not so. This young couple’s family had been in the U.S. for generations and had grown up in the heart of the upper mid-west in Minnesota. They had never been to church, never owned a Bible, and had never heard the gospel in their life. To say the least, they looked at things from an entirely different perspective from me. Their worldview was entirely different from the biblical worldview and mine.

If you are endeavoring to take the gospel to the lost of North America this scenario is no surprise to you at all. You have probably had numerous encounters similar to this one. The realities of immigration, the absence of a Christian witness for generations in many parts of North America, and other factors have drastically changed the landscape into which we seek to take the gospel.

We tend to expect a different culture when we venture into another country and seek to contextualize the message of the gospel so that the likelihood of the hearer understanding and accepting the message of the gospel will be greater. Yet, for many years, in North America the approach has largely been more of a one-size-fits-all when it comes to sharing the message of salvation. Current reality in North America screams to the would-be evangelist that many different approaches are necessary to reach the masses of unreached and under-reached peoples, who now call the U.S. and Canada home. Consider the different ways in which Jesus approached the Samaritan woman (John 4) and the rich young ruler (Mark10:17-22). He understood the way they looked at the world and spoke to them accordingly. Paul used many different approaches to speak into the hearts of his hearers (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).

One of the keys to developing more contextualized approaches to sharing the gospel is the understanding of worldview and those elements in their worldview that cause them to be positive toward Christianity (bridges) and those beliefs and practices that are contrary to biblical teachings (barriers). Worldview has been defined in a number of ways, however the heart of the meaning is the overall perspective from which we view and interpret the world. Worldview is the heart of what we believe, value, and do. We often try to change behavior or beliefs but even when change occurs it will only be short-lived at best, if there has been no change at the core level (worldview). This kind of change only comes about through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. As discipleship takes place in the life of a believer, their core beliefs are transformed into the image of Christ. The more we understand their perspective at the core level the better able we are to share elements from Scripture that will speak into and replace their worldview with a biblical worldview. This is the heart of real discipleship."

To read the entire article, which is posted on the Church Planting Village website, click here.

By Robin G. Jordan

Conservative evangelicals are welcome in the Anglican Church in North America—but not as conservative evangelicals. Their money, gifts, talents, and energy are welcome—but not their particular school of thought. They are too Anglican, if by Anglican, “of the Protestant and Reformed Church of England” is meant. They are the spiritual heirs of the English Reformation, the Elizabethan Settlement, the Glorious Revolution, and the Evangelical Revival.

What other group of churchmen has been as faithful to the principles of the English Reformation and to the historic formularies of the Protestant and Reformed Church of England—the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1571, the Book of Common Prayer of 1662, the Ordinal of 1661, and the homilies of Edward VI and Elizabeth I as conservative evangelicals have? The modern day Anglo-Catholics, the spiritual heirs of the nineteenth century Oxford movement with their strong affinity with Roman Catholicism cannot make this claim. Their claim that they are Anglicans is based upon the claim that their faith is that of the English Church before the Reformation, before the Reformers disowned and rejected the Roman innovations in doctrine and worship that defaced and overlaid the primitive faith in that church. They prefer the1549 and 1928 Prayer Books. They prefer the first because it is only halfway reformed and a step or two away from the pre-Reformation Medieval service books and the second because it moves the American Prayer Book closer to these service books and away from the more Protestant and Reformed liturgy of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Both of these Prayer Books they can supplement with various manuals—so-called “Anglican Missals” that bring the two Prayer Books even closer to the unreformed Medieval Roman Rite. If they take any interest in the Thirty-Nine Articles at all, it is to reinterpret them in a Rome-ward direction and then to argue that is how they should be interpreted.

The proponents of the via media school of thought also cannot make this claim. Despite their claim that their thinking truly represents historic Anglicanism, their school of thought is a relatively modern one. It has its origins in the thought of nineteenth century Oxford movement leader Edward Pusey and gained its current popularity in the twentieth century. Its proponents are likely to argue that the Thirty-Nine Articles are a thing of the past and the Anglican Church has moved on since that time. They prefer the 1979 Book of Common Prayer or the 1985 Canadian Book of Alternative Services.

In regard to its attitude toward conservative evangelicals the Anglican Church in North America does not differ greatly from The Episcopal Church. TEC welcomes conservative evangelicals as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves, acquiesce to the working theology of TEC, and do not attempt to uphold and maintain what they believe.



The fundamental declarations of the constitution of the Anglican Church in North America like the Common Cause Theological Statement from which they were adapted are intended to protect the views of the Anglo-Catholic and via media schools of thought. The first school of thought reintroduced into the Anglican Church the Roman innovations in doctrine and worship that the English Reformers disowned and rejected at the Reformation. It also introduced the innovations that the Church of Rome adopted at the Council of Trent and afterwards. The second school of thought sees Anglicanism as a middle path between Catholicism and Protestantism or a synthesis of Catholic and Protestant elements, and is open to the innovations in both categories. This particular school of thought dominated the teaching literature of The Episcopal Church in the twentieth century, and has a connection to the liberal and revisionist thinking prevalent in TEC. It can even be described as a liberal and revisionist view of Anglicanism. The theological and liturgical views of this school of thought are responsible for the 1979 Book of Common Prayer and the 1985 Canadian Book of Alternative Services.

Anglo-Catholics are willing to partner with the proponents of the via media school of thought because the latter accept some of their basic propositions and are open to others. Anglo-Catholics see it as a matter of time before they come around completely to the Anglo-Catholic way of thinking. Some of them are already halfway there. At the same time it is an uneasy partnership. Many proponents of the via media school of thought tend to have a progressive view of Anglicanism as something that is evolving and to support what are from a conservative or traditionalist Anglo-Catholic viewpoint unacceptable innovations such as the ordination of women and the divorce and remarriage of clergy. A significant number of them also lean more toward Protestantism than they do Catholicism. Anglo-Catholics perceive the inclusion of a strong conservative evangelical element in the Anglican Church in North America as a threat since the presence of that element might cause these Protestant-leaning proponents of the via media school of thought to move closer to the doctrine and practices of the conservative evangelical school of thought.



It makes no sense for conservative evangelicals to invest their money, gifts, talents, and energy in a church that has no room for their school of thought and shows no inclination to make room for that school of thought. But it goes beyond that. As James Crabtree and David Philips observe in their article, “Anglican Orthodoxy,” there are substantial differences between what Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics believe and what the Protestant and Reformed Church of England has historically believed. There has been a tendency in recent years to gloss over these differences and to act as if they have been reconciled when they actually have not. Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics have quite a different concept of salvation from that of the Protestant and Reformed Church of England. They preach a different gospel.

We hear a lot of talk in the Anglican Church in North America about spreading the gospel and planting new churches. But which gospel? The gospel as the Protestant and Reformed Church of England has historically understood it and as articulated in the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Homily on Justification? Or the gospel as Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics understand it? They are not the same. In the case of the gospel as the Protestant and Reformed Church of England has historically understood it, those who hear it and believe it are saved. It is the gospel of the New Testament. In case of the gospel as Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics understand it, those who hear it and believe it remain in their sins. It is “another gospel.” It is not only nonsensical to support a church that is spreading a false gospel, it is also “repugnant to God’s Word.” As the apostle Paul wrote the Galatians, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8-9 KJV) Paul also warned the Corinthians, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” (2 Cor 6:14-15 KJV) What we have here is not adiaphora, secondary matters, matters indifferent to our salvation. It concerns how we are saved, how we are made right with God. On such a matter there can be no compromise. To join with Anglo-Catholics who preach a different gospel and proponents of the via media school of thought who may not have a clear gospel message is the same as joining with liberal and revisionist Episcopalians who teach all people are saved no matter what they believe. This concern cannot be dismissed as an excessive preoccupation with doctrinal purity. The doctrine in question is a matter of life and death—eternal life and eternal death!

Planting new churches to reach the lost with the gospel of life, to make disciples, to teach them, and to equip them for the work of ministry is one thing. Starting new congregations to mislead people into believing that they can save themselves through the sacraments and other good works is another thing altogether.



The Anglican Church in North America needs to sort out what gospel it is going to proclaim. It cannot proclaim two gospels. To take that position is to take the position of The Episcopal Church that it does not matter what people believe.

The challenge facing Christians today is not just maintaining decency in face of an increasingly immoral world. It is proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ to a world that has grown hard of heart. It cannot be any gospel. It must be the true gospel. Only the true gospel has power to touch hearts and transform lives.

There are those who are concerned that any division in the present alliance between Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals will lead to the victory of liberalism and immorality in the Anglican Communion. Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals, they argue, must stand together at all costs. However, the forces of spiritual evil at work behind the spread of liberalism and immorality are also going to win if Anglicans proclaim a false gospel or muddle the gospel message. Souls will be lost as they would be lost to the pernicious effects of liberalism and immorality.

Until the Anglican Church in North America has decided upon what gospel it will proclaim—and I pray that it will be the true gospel, and makes other needed changes, conservative evangelicals need to give thought to what they are going to do to spread the gospel of life. This entails more than what we do as individuals as important as that is. It also concerns what we do collectively.

Conservative evangelicals who are in the Anglican Church in North America and who believe that God has placed them there for a purpose need to organize to work together as “leaven in the lump,” yeast in the dough. They need to do everything they can to encourage the AC-NA to proclaim the true gospel. If the AC-NA does not proclaim the gospel of life, everything else it may accomplish is worthless. They cannot settle for being the faithful few who share the good news of Jesus Christ in a church that otherwise proclaims a false gospel. They should not forget the warning of the apostle John in his second letter. “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (2 John 1:10-11 KJV)

Conservative evangelicals who are outside the Anglican Church in North America also need to organize. They need to join forces to establish a viable alternative to the AC-NA, a church that upholds and maintains the Protestant, Reformed and evangelical character of the Anglican Church. There is more to upholding and maintaining this character than preserving a heritage and passing it on to our posterity. At the heart of this character not only is the teaching of the Reformation but also the teaching of the apostles—we are saved by grace alone by faith alone. With these principles we convey to another generation the gospel through which God gives life and gives life abundantly.

The original discussion paper was written by David Holloway for the council of Reform and the wider church in 1996. It was revised in 1998.

"Our forefathers - the Anglican Reformers - did not believe that episcopacy was essential to the being of the Church. Whitgift's thesis, for example, was clear:

it is plain that any one certain form or kind of external government perpetually to be observed is nowhere in the scripture prescribed to the church.

And Article XIX (of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England) says nothing about a particular form of ministry being essential to the Church. True, a “godly” bishop was seen as perfectly acceptable. But he was acceptable and in a proper succession not by virtue of consecration and his being established in a see, but because of his doctrine. So Bishop Jewel can say to one of his opponents:

Succession, you say, is the chief way, for any Christian man to avoid antichrist. I grant you, if you mean the succession of doctrine.

Not unreasonably, therefore, the base unit for our Reformers in practical terms was not the diocese, but the parish congregation. The Church of England was a federation of congregations committed to mere Christianity to use Richard Baxter's phrase (borrowed by C.S.Lewis). Unlike independent congregationalists it was an ordered federation where ordained ministry was validated through a wider connection. Unlike the Roman Catholics it was not theologically rooted in episcopal dioceses and bishops, but as Article XIX says:

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

To read the entire discussion paper, click here.

"Anglicans in Zimbabwe who have been shut out of church buildings held a prayer meeting Sunday in protest of police harassment.

It was an open air prayer session for some 4,000 which was nothing new to them. For the past two years, the worshippers have been forced to hold services outside as they have been denied entry into churches. They have also suffered disruptions during church services from the police.

,This is not normal,' Bishop of Harare Chad Gandiya said Sunday in Africa Unity Square in Harare, according to Agence France-Presse. 'We are gathered in the open not because there is no room in the building where we are supposed to be but because we are being denied access.'

The police have been utilized by Nolbert Kunonga, who was excommunicated from the Anglican Church in 2007 after he tried to withdraw the Diocese of Harare from the Anglican Church of the Province of Central Africa. Kunonga, a supporter of President Robert Mugabe’s regime, set up his own Anglican province, appointed himself archbishop and has laid claim to church properties.

Despite a High Court ruling ordering the two feuding groups to share the church buildings, Kunonga and his followers, along with police, have continued to block access to churches, and use intimidation tactics, preventing the officially recognized Anglicans from holding services inside."

To read the entire Christian Post article, click here.

“But within the local church liberalism can be pervasive not because it enters via the pulpits, but via public worship—a softening of the mind and a lowering of the defences through the songs sung, the prayers prayed and the liturgies used. …

It is nearly eighty years since our forebears fought to ensure that the 1928 Prayer Book would not be accepted into the Church of England. Compared to Common Worship*, that book appears to be a compendium of soundness! The ex opere operato view which is pretty well explicit in the baptism service is simply astonishing. This is where at the Synod level evangelicals need to resist such trends and at the parish level refuse to capitulate.”

– Melvin Tinkler points out the bankruptcy of liberalism and offers advice on how to resist it. His 2008 article from Churchman has just been republished by Church Society (PDF file).

* Common Worship is in wide use in the Church of England.

Originally posted on the Anglican Church League website

I am posting this article from The Washington Times on the retirement of Washington Episcopal Bishop John B. Chane because it supports my contention that the bishops and other clergy of The Episcopal Church bear the lion's share of the responsibility for the present state of that denomination.

"Bishop Chane took the helm of the diocese in 2002 with a series of confrontational moves. On the Sunday after his consecration, he informed the congregation at the Washington Cathedral that he aimed to "engage the secular and political leadership of the District of Columbia, the Congress of the United States and those who hold the highest elected and appointed offices of this nation."

During the consecration, he had the Rev. William Sloane Coffin, an anti-war activist from the Vietnam era, preach the homily. Delivering an Easter sermon a few months earlier, while dean of St. Paul's Cathedral in San Diego, he questioned the validity of the Resurrection.

Once installed, the new bishop imported a number of liberal clergy onto his staff, including retired Massachusetts Suffragan Bishop Barbara Harris. He quickly commissioned a diocesan same-sex marriage rite and performed it himself in June 2004."

http://www.monergism.com/the_fall_by_packer.php

“It may fairly be claimed that the Fall narrative gives the only convincing explanation of the perversity of human nature that the world has ever seen.”

– This excerpt from J I Packer’s Concise Theology is a good reminder of what’s wrong with the world and why all need to hear of Christ.

Originally posted on the Anglican Church League website.

This article was originally printed in Cross†Way Issue Winter 2010 No. 115, and has been reprinted with the permission of the Church Society.

The recent offer made by the Vatican for disaffected Anglicans to be received into fellowship within the Roman Catholic church has brought into focus the relationship between Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics.

Anglo-Catholics vary in their attitude to the Roman Catholic church. Some are distinctly in favourof the Roman Catholic church and many of these may well take advantage of the Vatican’s offer.Others, while accepting Roman Catholic doctrine and practice, are less inclined to seek refuge within the Roman Catholic church.

Some Anglo-Catholics in the Church of England appear to have been looking to see what might emerge in the wake of the 2008 Global Anglican Futures Conference (GAFCON) which took place in Jerusalem. The inaugural meeting of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans UK (FCA UK) brought together on the same conference platform both leading Anglo-Catholics (mostly bishops) and conservative Evangelicals (mostly ministers of large churches). However, from comments heard both on the day and afterwards, it would seem that some Anglo-Catholics believe that the FCA UK is not going to deliver what they are seeking.

It is interesting that there were virtually no English Anglo-Catholic representatives at the GAFCON in Jerusalem. However, some of the prominent Anglo-Catholics who attended from north America (and who also attended the inaugural meeting of FCA UK) are decidedly Roman Catholic in both doctrine and practice. GAFCON therefore seems to have steered a course which defines Anglicanism in a materially different way from that which Evangelicals have recognized historically. Church Society’s two predecessor bodies (Church Association and National Church League) came into existence to defend the Protestant and Reformed character of the Church of England and to point out that the Anglo-Catholic movement was plainly distorting the well known meaning of the formularies of the Church of England (the Thirty-nine Articles, the Prayer Book and the Ordinal).

The Commentary on the Jerusalem Declaration (“Being Faithful : The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today”), which was released recently by the GAFCON Theological Resources Group, raises afresh the issue of what it means to be Anglican and in summary, defines Anglican orthodoxy by reference to genuine acceptance of the historic Creeds. This entails an acceptance of the authority of Scripture, since the Creeds seek to articulate Scriptural truth. Genuine acceptance of the Creeds also involves acknowledging that the factual statements contained in them are historically true and accurate, for example, in their affirmation of the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection.

While the focus on creedal orthodoxy has some attraction (not least marking a clear stance against the denial by some theological liberals of these historical facts), it does not address all relevant issues and therefore comes at a significant cost.

First, placing emphasis upon the third and fourth century Creeds seems to go hand in hand with bypassing the last 1600 years of history. Although British Christians were represented at some of the early church councils, the Anglo-Saxon tribes were still pagan and so the entire history of the English church since the fourth century is neglected if exclusive emphasis is placed on the third and fourth century Creeds.

In particular, the struggles of the Middle Ages are overlooked. One area of struggle concerned the growing temporal power of the Church of Rome and its claims to the obedience of not only those within the church but also political rulers. The decisive change in this struggle came with the Act of Supremacy 1534, which declared the English Crown and church free of Roman Catholic dominion. (The Act of Settlement 1701 remains an important safeguard of such freedom). An exclusive emphasis on the Creeds also overlooks the fundamental issues which emerged during the Reformation as to the nature of authority and the means of salvation. As a matter of official doctrine and English law, the Church of England is unequivocally Protestant and Reformed and upholds the supreme authority of Holy Scripture (sola scriptura). No Council (or Pope) can therefore claim authority over Scripture. In addition, the Church of England affirms, consistent with Scripture, that justification is by grace alone, through faith alone and therefore rejects the whole panoply of Roman Catholicism, with its system of masses, confessions, penances, indulgences, transubstantiation and prayers to the saints (etc). Our Evangelical forebears of the 19th and 20th Centuries sought to defend the Protestant and Reformed nature of the Church of England against both Roman and Anglo-Catholicism, as well as to protect it against theological liberalism. These tasks must continue today.

The critical issue confronting us as a result of the GAFCON and the setting up of the FCA is whether classical Protestant and Reformed Anglicanism is being upheld or abandoned in favour of a new definition of Anglicanism which does not accord importance to salvation by grace alone through faith alone and which accommodates Anglo-Catholic (and even Roman Catholic) teaching at the expense of the supreme authority of Scripture.

The Jerusalem Declaration is unclear or silent on important points and while the Commentary on the Declaration rightly affirms that the doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and reflected in the Thirty-nine Articles, the Prayer Book and the Ordinal, neither the Declaration nor the Commentary are consistent with this affirmation when articulating the nature of Anglican Orthodoxy. This has been highlighted by the Council of Church Society, and a copy of the Council’s letter to the members of the GAFCON Theological Resources Group forms part of this issue of Cross†Way.

These are important issues, which go to the heart of what is true, Biblical Anglicanism and they are likely to be covered in discussion at Church Society's Conference in May 2010.

James Crabtree (Chairman, Church Society) & David Phillips (General Secretary)

By Robin G. Jordan

My experience is that if an organization’s leaders do not make needed changes within a reasonable length of time after the need for those changes has been brought to their attention, harping upon them is not going to accomplish anything. The next step is to establish a new organization that incorporates the needed changes. In the case of the Anglican Church in North America it means starting an alternative Anglican church that upholds and maintains the Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical character of the Anglican Church and in which the government of the church is shared by the entire church, clergy and laity together, at all levels. In this series I seek to envision this new church.

In the Latimer Briefing, “The Church of England: What It Is, and What It Stands For” Roger Beckwith identifies eight principles, in part principles of belief and in part principles of practice upon which the Church of England “was originally founded, or re-founded at the Reformation.” It is these principles that “chiefly link” the Church of England “with, or distinguishes it from other Christian churches. Any new Anglican Church established to reach North America should, in order to stand in continuity with the reformed Church of England, be founded on seven of these principles. It must be biblical, confessional, liturgical, covenantal, episcopal, parochial, and reformed catholic.

Biblical. Being biblical goes beyond the regular reading of the Scriptures “in an orderly fashion, and in English, in the course of the appointed services.” It means recognizing Scripture as normative in Anglican teaching as the supreme rule of faith and practice. In both the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church the services include the regular reading of the Scriptures. It is claimed upon this basis that these two churches are biblical. However, the newer lectionaries used in both churches, in their selection and editing of Scripture passages to be read, tend to support the unbiblical theological and moral teaching of these two churches. The great doctrines of the Bible are not adequately represented in the Scripture passages found in these lectionaries. In the same churches the Scriptures are not seen as authoritative because they are God-breathed and have an intrinsic authority of their own. They are regarded as no more inspired than a play or poem of William Shakespeare. They have only the authority that humans give them.

Confessional. In his Latimer Briefing “The Church of England: What It Is, and What It Stands For” Roger Beckwith explains how the Church of England is a confessional church—something that he notes is often denied even “in the teeth of the facts.” Being a confessional church has not been quite the case of The Episcopal Church. While it adopted in 1801 its own version of the Thirty-Nine Articles adapted to the political realities of the infant United States, it did not require its authorized teachers to assent to its doctrine. This is also true of the Anglican Church in North America. Its fundamental declarations do not view the Articles as a confession of faith. To stand in continuity with the reformed Church of England’s confessionalism, in any new Anglican Church established to reach North America the Articles must be a living formulary. They must be as authoritative today as they were in the sixteenth century. Its authoritative teachers must not only “unfeignedly” accept the teaching of the catholic creeds about the Trinity and the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, they must also likewise receive as true the Articles’ “teaching on three other important areas of biblical theology, namely Revelation, Salvation and the Sacraments.”

Liturgical. Any new Anglican Church seeking to stand in continuity with the reformed Church of England will appreciate the value of set forms of corporate prayer. Its liturgy will be a modest revision of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, adapted to the culture of North America and incorporating some needed changes such as those suggested by Roger Beckwith in his Latimer Briefing, “Praying with Understanding: Explanations of Words and Passages in the Book of Common Prayer” and John Cheeseman in his 1982 Cross+Way article, “Time to Take off the Blinkers—Doctrinal Deficiencies in The Book of Common Prayer.” While it would introduce greater variety and flexibility, it would not carry this to excess, thereby making congregational worship easier.

Why not the 1928 Book of Common Prayer? Or the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book? As Beckwith notes in “The Church of England: What It Is, and What It Stands For,” “the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, though now bearing some marks of its age, is a liturgy of the biblical and edifying sort valued by the Church of England, and is a masterpiece of its kind.” In Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today the GAFCON Theological Resource Group makes the point that “the 1662 Prayer Book provides a standard by which other liturgies may be tested and measured.” With the 1661 Ordinal, the 1662 Prayer Book is a historic Anglican formulary, recognized by a substantial number of the Church of England’s daughter churches as well as the Church of England itself. Both the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book, while they adopt the language of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and to some degree its shape and forms of service, differ significantly in their theology from the 1662 Prayer Book. Both service books, for example, give liturgical expression to the doctrine of “the sacrifices of the Masses,” a doctrine that the Anglican Reformers rejected at the time of the Reformation and which the Thirty-Nine Articles describes as “blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.”

Covenantal. In “The Church of England: What It Is, and What It Stands For,” Beckwith explains why the Church of England can be called a covenantal church.

“…it emphasises God’s covenant with his people, which is a covenant not simply with individuals but with families — first with the family of Abraham, Israel, and then with gentile families adopted into the family of Abraham, especially since the coming of Christ. The Church of England therefore practises the baptism of infants, not just adults, but requires of those infants personal reaffirmation of the Christian commitment at the years of discretion, in confirmation. In this way it acknowledges both the priority of God’s grace, and the necessity of the individual response of faith, and attempts to combine the values of Baptist practice with those of historic Christianity.”

Any new Anglican church seeking to stand in the continuity with the reformed Church of England will wish to restore the practice of the Reformers of deferring confirmation and first communion to the age of discretion. Confirmation provides those baptized as infants to profess their own personal faith in Jesus Christ before the church and to receive the prayers of the church. The Prayer Book Catechism contains the question, “What is required of them who come to the Lord’s Supper?” It gives this answer, “To examine themselves, whether they repent them truly of their former sins, stedfastly purposing to lead a new life; have a lively faith in God’s mercy through Christ, with thankful remembrance of his death; and be in charity with all men.”

The rubric at the end of the Confirmation Service states, “And there shall none be admitted to the holy Communion, until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed.” Only those who, upon hearing the Gospel, have repented and believed, should be admitted to the Lord’s Table.

Article 28 emphasizes that only “to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive” the Supper of the Lord” the Bread is a partaking of the Body of Christ and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.” It further stresses:

“The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the means whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.”

Article 29, like the Prayer Book Catechism, lays stress on the need for repentance as well as faith. “The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saints Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they are partakers of Christ….”

Episcopal. There is a lot of misunderstanding as to what should be the proper role of bishops in the church. In The Episcopal Church bishops have largely become administrators. In the Anglican Church in North America one school of thought takes the position that the government of the church should be vested in the bishops of the church. A frequently heard argument made by members of this school is that strong bishops will prevent a repeat of what happened in The Episcopal Church from happening in the Anglican Church in North America. They, however, overlook the part that the Episcopal bishops have played in the developments in The Episcopal Church. In the largest judicatory of the Anglican Church in North America, the Anglican Mission, the bishops govern the judicatory and the clergy and laity have no share in its government.

In the 1661 Ordinal the role of the bishop is primarily that of teacher and pastor. To free a bishop to exercise his true role, smaller judicatories are critical. So is a form of church government in which the government of the church is vested in the entire church, clergy and laity together.

Parochial. A sixth principle upon which the reformed Church of England was founded was the parochial principle. Beckwith explains:

“The Church of England is parochial in that it consists wholly of parishes. It is not content with ‘gathered congregations’,wherever they can readily be formed, but divides up the whole country geographically, on a territorial basis, and attempts to form congregations and to provide evangelism and pastoral care in every area - ‘to bring the gospel to every man’s door’. If used in a generous and not grudging spirit, the parish system can be a valuable aid to any new venture of evangelism.”

He goes on to note, “In practice at least, the parish is the basic unit of Anglican church life, to which the diocese is accessory (not vice versa).” He then touches on the challenges facing the parish system in twenty-first century England.

The view that the diocese, or judicatory, is ancillary to the parish and not the other way around, was that of Bishop William White, the architect of the original constitution of The Episcopal Church. In this view the purpose of the diocese is to support the ministry of the parish. Compare this view with that which prevails in The Episcopal Church in the twenty-first century, and which sees the parish as a creature of the diocese and the diocese as a creature of the national church. The view that the parish is a creature of the diocese is also quite evident in the Anglican Church in North America and is embodied in its canon on property ownership which permits dioceses to hold local church property in trust and take church property into trust with the written consent of the local congregation using it.

Dividing North America into parishes and establishing a congregation in each parish may not be practicable. However, the goal of bringing the Gospel to every man’s door should be the goal of any new Anglican Church established to reach North America and planting new churches in as many areas as possible should be one of its objectives to achieve that goal.

The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in North America have tended to focus their church planting efforts on those areas where new congregations can easily be established. Consequently the newer congregations of both churches are largely concentrated in the same areas—the newer suburban and urban residential areas—and targeted at the same population segment—affluent, educated, middle class and professional. Reaching rural areas, small towns, and older suburban and urban residential areas is left to other denominations. The Episcopal Church has not done well in these areas and the Anglican Church in North America has shown a tendency to avoid them, apparently upon the basis of the experience of The Episcopal Church.

The challenges that face the Church of England in the United Kingdom are to a large extent the same challenges that face a new Anglican Church in Canada and the United States. They include “a shortage of clergy and money” and “the undeveloped state of lay ministry.” To meet these challenges a new Anglican church may need to make a greater use of bivocational ministers—non-stipendiary ministers engaged in secular employment to support their ministry—and of lay readers trained and licensed to preach and teach. It may need to help congregations assume greater responsibility for the pastoral care of their members and of the members of their communities. Instead of sending those called to ministry away to a seminary for three years, it may need to offer high quality teaching and training in ministry, to clergy and laity, locally and over the Internet.

In the twentieth century Associated Parishes, the liturgical renewal movement, and the 1979 Book of Common Prayer were responsible for the disappearance of Morning Prayer as the main service on Sunday morning in most Episcopal parishes. The Holy Eucharist was emphasized as the central act of Christian worship not only on Sundays but all occasions. Among the results was the spread of the Anglo-Catholic doctrine that “Jesus is present in the sacrament of holy communion in greater measurer than in other types of services,” along with the corresponding belief that “churchgoers receive more from holy communion than can be provided by the Word.”

This development contributed to the decline in preaching in the Episcopal Church. The length of sermons decreased and the quality of preaching deteriorated. The Episcopal Church was already feeling the effects of skeptical biblical criticism: a skeptical approach to the content of the Bible characterized a growing number of sermons. The notion that churchgoers benefit more from receiving communion than hearing the Word become one more thing to undermine the place of the Bible in the Episcopal Church.

With the emphasis on the Holy Eucharist as the central act of Christian worship came a revival of interest in ritualism—eucharistic vestments, stoles, elaborate ceremonial, incense, and the like. Episcopalians were offered “sensuous worship,” a wafer, and a sip of wine instead of the nourishment of the Word. “Faith comes by hearing” the Word and without faith the wafer is a wafer and the sip of wine is a sip of wine. They are not a partaking in the Body and Blood of Christ.

The emphasis upon the centrality of the Holy Eucharist created another problem. Weekly communion became the measure of being a real church. If a congregation did not have a priest and did not celebrate the Holy Eucharist every week, it was not a real church. Congregations that had everything that they need to worship God, to spread the Gospel, to transform lives, and to impact their communities did not think of themselves as real churches because they are unable to have weekly celebrations of the Eucharist. This idea accompanied Episcopalians when they migrated from The Episcopal Church to the Anglican Church in North America and influences the thinking of that church.

While frequent and regular communion is desirable, it is not essential. What matters is that “the pure Word of God is preached,” and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are “duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.” The preaching of the pure Word of God was at the heart of Jesus’ own ministry and the ministry of the apostles. It should be at the heart of the ministry of a new Anglican Church established to reach North America. Lay readers, lay catechists, lay evangelists, and deacons can do this gospel work as much as presbyters and bishops. This is not to denigrate the place of the sacraments in the life of a Christian church but to put them in perspective—as God’s Word made visible. “Faith comes by hearing” the Word. Only after we hear the Word and come to have faith, will the sacraments be able to accomplish their work—to enliven, strengthen, and confirm our faith in God.

To be a real church, a congregation does not need a weekly celebration of the Eucharist. What it does need is preachers, teachers, and other gospel workers to open the Word of God to its members and outsiders and to help them apply its truths and principles to their lives. These preachers, teachers and other gospel workers do not have to be seminary-educated or ordained but they do need to be called by God. This realization may not only help congregations to overcome the unrealistic and crippling expectation of weekly Eucharist celebrations but also a new Anglican Church to establish new congregations where they can not so readily be formed.

Reformed Catholic. There is a lot of confusion about what the term “Reformed Catholic” means. Anglo-Catholics have taken over this term to describe their form of Catholicism that is far from reformed. Anglicans and Episcopalians who view Anglicanism as a via media between Catholicism and Protestantism use the same term to describe this middle path. Neither use of this term is what Beckwith identifies as the eighth principle upon which the Church of England was re-founded. He writes:

“The Church of England is reformed in its emphasis on the Bible, in its 39 Articles, in its vernacular worship, and in its recognition of the royal supremacy in its government. But it is also catholic, in that it retains the ancient common heritage of Christendom, in a biblical form. The Church of England acknowledges the role of the church in interpreting the Bible correctly (Article 20), and uses the ancient catholic creeds as examples of such true interpretation. It maintains, as its practice, liturgical worship, infant baptism, episcopal ministry, parochial organization and national establishment, all handed down from antiquity. The Anglican Reformers valued this edifying heritage, well tested over the centuries, and rejected the idea of starting everything afresh, with the unnecessary controversy and practical mistakes which such a course would inevitably lead to. Instead they simply used the standard of Scripture, applied by reason, to correct whatever needed correcting in the church’s inherited forms.”

He goes onto emphasizes that the Church of England does not need to make concessions to Roman Catholicism in order to become catholic.

The base of a new Anglican Church seeking to stand in continuity with the reformed Church of England should be laid on the same principle.

Biblical, confessional, liturgical, covenantal, episcopal, parochial, and reformed catholic—they are the distinguishing characteristics of the Church of England and should be the marks of any new North American Anglican Church that genuinely stands in continuity with the reformed Church of England.

What I have offered so far is a rather broad vision of a new Anglican Church for North America. In future articles I will refine that vision.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100024340/unhappy-queen-sends-lord-chamberlain-to-ask-archbishop-nichols-about-popes-anglican-plan/

[Telegraph] 1 Feb 2009--"In a surprising departure from protocol, the Queen has sent the Lord Chamberlain, the most senior official of the Royal Household, to see Archbishop Vincent Nichols, leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, to discuss Pope Benedict XVI’s offer to Anglicans wanting to convert to Rome en masse.

My source says Her Majesty – who is expected to meet the Pope when he visits Britain this autumn – was “unhappy” about aspects of the scheme as she understood it. So, late last year, she dispatched Lord Peel with a list of questions for the Archbishop. The nature of the questions has not been revealed, but Archbishop’s House confirms that the meeting took place and was “mutually beneficial”.

The Queen – a somewhat “Low Church” Anglican who feels it is her solemn duty to preserve the Protestant identity of the Church of England – appears to have been alarmed by press reports of Pope Benedict’s Apostolic Constitution, Anglicanorum coetibus. This allows groups of ex-Anglicans anywhere to convert to Rome together, retaining aspects of Anglican worship. Some members of the Church of England have expressed interest in doing so, but are very keen to carry on worshipping in their former Anglican parish churches. Possibly the Queen felt that this process might conflict with her Coronation Oath to maintain all the “rights and privileges” of the bishops, clergy and churches of England."

To read the entire article, click here.

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/28019/#comments

[TitusOneNine] 1 Feb 2009--The letter from Bp. Mouneer Anis is a bombshell in the midst of the Covenant process, On Bp. Mouneer’s resignation, I note the following:

1. Bp. Mouneer’s bold and sad resignation needs to be seen alongside Abp. Orombi’s absence from the last three (Joint) Standing Committee meetings in New Orleans, in Jamaica and in London. I do not speak for Abp. Orombi, but I think his actions reveal that he views the illegitimacy of the Standing Committee in the same way as Bp. Mouneer. One can argue whether absence or resignation is the better course of action, but the fact remains that the creation of the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” was a putsch by the Communion bureaucracy.

2. Bp. Mouneer assumes that the Standing Committee of the ACC is one and the same as the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion,” so much so that he abbreviates it “SCAC.” If a former member who is not in favor of the direction of the Standing Committee nevertheless assumes that it is the one and only Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion and the one mentioned in the Covenant sec. 4, we have got to assume that this is what the other members of the Standing Committee, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, think. If Rowan Williams has a different understanding, let him speak out clearly on this subject.

3. In his sec. 1, Bp. Mouneer mentions the diminishing authority of the Primates in the Communion. This is indeed a major fact of Communion politics since 2007. It needs to be addressed and put right before the provinces go ahead with adoption of the Covenant. The Primates’ Meeting, for instance, was totally left out of the approval process of the Covenant draft, and will be in the future as well, if Canterbury has its way (note approvals of the Draft are to be sorted out by ACC-15, which will meet after the next “scheduled” Primates’ Meeting in 2011).

4. In sec. 2 on the Covenant, Bp. Mouneer indicates that he is not in favour of the latest draft in toto: “There are many good aspects of the Covenant but…” This is correct. At the very least, the identity of the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” must be sorted out, as the ACI points out. How would it be responsible for a Province to adopt the Covenant with this kind of obscurity with regard to the very entity that will oversee Communion discipline?

5. In his sec. 2B, he continues to hold the position of the Primates at Dar that TEC and its representatives should not be sitting on the ACC and the Standing Committee, which they are, at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Indeed is there any doubt that Ian Douglas, who sat on the Resolutions Committee at ACC-14 had a hand in the confusion that ensued over the approval of the Ridley Cambridge Draft? I might note that it was the very overturning of the Primates’ demands at Dar that led Henry Orombi to boycott the New Orleans meeting, which was called arbitrarily by Canterbury.

6. In sec. 2C. Bp. Mouneer says he believes that sec. 4.1.5 of the Ridley Draft giving dissenting “churches” in heterodox provinces should still be in effect, but this was the very section changed by the SCAC in December. There is no record and no minutes either from the ABC’s hand-picked Covenant Working Group or the Standing Committee meeting itself, apart from Kearon’s letter and Abp. Williams You Tube address promoting the December draft. Was Bp. Mouneer was outvoted on the changes? Are we to assume that there is no place for minority reports in the Standing Committee, and resignation is the only alternative?

7. In sec. 2D, Bp. Mouneer’s. reading of the Covenant sec. 4.1.6. is interesting indeed. He seems to think that only Covenant members should be eligible to elect members of the ACC and the Standing Committee. I agree with him fully, but sec. 4.2.8 of the latest draft assumes that there will be non-Covenanting members of the ACC and Primates, and Rowan Williams has gone out of his way to speak of a “two-track” Communion, in which the non-Covenanting members will still be represented at the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting, except in cases where discipline of Covenant members is at issue.

As always, Bp. Mouneer wears his heart on his sleeve, which is quite a contrast with the bureaucrats at the Anglican Communion Office and the Archbishop of Canterbury. In my opinion, the hopeful direction which he sees for the Communion and the Covenant will only become reality when the orthodox primates take the Covenant “process” out of the hands of Canterbury and the Communion Office. There is no reason why they cannot do so. The December draft of the Covenant is not sacrosanct. It should be approved by provinces only when the problems cited by Bp. Mouneer (and the ACI) are addressed and corrected.

http://www.dioceseofegypt.org/english/sites/default/files/Bishop%20Mouneer%27s%20Resignation%20from%20the%20ACC.pdf

[The Episcopal/Anglican Diocese of Egypt] 1 Feb 2009--After much prayer and consideration, I hereby submit my resignation from the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion (SCAC). I have come to realize that my presence in the current SCAC has no value whatsoever and my voice is like a useless cry in the wilderness. Having said that, I must say that since I joined the committee in 2007 I have learnt quite a lot and made friends who may disagree with me whom I appreciate very much and I will miss.

...I have come to the sad realization that there is no desire within the ACC and the SCAC to follow through on the recommendations that have been taken by the other Instruments of Communion to sort out the problems which face the Anglican Communion and which are tearing its fabric apart. Moreover, the SCAC, formerly known as the join Standing Committee (JSC), has continually questioned the authority of the other Instruments of Communion, especially the Primates Meeting and the Lambeth Conference.

To read Bishop Anis' entire letter of resignation, click here.

By Robin G. Jordan

Over the past ten years and earlier in the late 1970s one story after another of Episcopalians that chose to leave the Episcopal Church and in recent years Anglicans the Anglican Church of Canada have appeared in the media—in newspapers and magazines, on radio and TV, and on the Internet. Some stories are told over and again. For one reason or another a particular priest and his congregation attract media attention. The priest himself may call a press conference or invite the local TV station to interview him. He may be Internet savvy and have his own web log. He may be practiced in the art of keeping himself and his congregation in the public eye, knowing he and his congregation may benefit from the continued public sympathy and support that such exposure may engender. The priest may enjoy something akin to celebrity status within the local community and outside it.

Other stories do not receive this kind of media coverage and are not as widely known. Many stories go untold, especially those of lay persons who left the Anglican Church of Canada or the Episcopal Church and joined a non-Anglican church or stopped going to church altogether. The latter may have dropped out because they were not able to find another church home or because they have become completely disenchanted with Christianity and organized religion.

The stories that draw the most attention are the success stories—the priest who takes his congregation out of the Episcopal Church, loses the church property, but lands on his feet. Generous benefactors provide him and his congregation with a new building and other help. Americans love a success story and the media knows it. The congregation that leaves the Episcopal Church, buys a building that it cannot afford, and loses the building is likely to attract less attention.

Conservative Anglican bloggers who support the Anglican Church in North America are also more likely to post the success stories. To tell the stories of the congregations that left these churches and that are struggling or the new church plants that failed would discourage the timid and slow the exodus from the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church. But a substantial number of congregations that leave these churches do struggle and many new church plants do fail.

What role does God’s grace play in the success stories? Are we to assume that the clergy and congregations in these stories the beneficiaries of God’s grace while the clergy and congregations in the struggling congregations or the failed church plants are not? How should clergy and congregations to whom God has been generous respond to his generosity? Has God been generous to them so that they can be generous to other clergy and congregations? Has he been generous to them to set an example for them to emulate? Have they been blessed so they can bless others?

The implications are that clergy and congregations that have benefited from the publicity that they have received need to do all within their power to publicize the plight of other clergy and congregations that they may in turn receive a generous outpouring of public sympathy and support. They need to be telling the stories of these clergy and congregations. They need to show their generosity to the same clergy and congregations in other ways. God has been generous to them but with a purpose. It is not that they merit or deserve God’s love and goodwill any more than these clergy and congregations. Then grace would not be grace.

God is not parsimonious in his grace. The measure of kindness and mercy He extends to us is rich and full. We should not be stingy in our generosity to others. Jesus not only taught his disciples to be generous in their benevolence, gentleness, friendliness and consideration but also in their forgiveness. The Parable of the Good Samaritan is a parable of generosity as well as of love. The one who was truly generous in that parable was the Samaritan traveler and the one to whom he was generous was a Jew, a people who hated and despised Samaritans. God’s love is a generous love and so should be our own. “Love your enemies,” our Lord taught his disciples in the Sermon on the Mount, “bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Matthew 5: 44-45 NKJV)

I have found this generous love lacking on the Internet among those who profess themselves to be followers of Christ. The use of ridicule is not uncommon, as is the use of scorn. Some purported Christians pepper their comments with unkind words and cannot conclude them without a parting dig or two. They do not conceal their contempt for those who displease them. If they treat their fellow Christians in this manner, how do they treat non-Christians? What is worse is that those around them do not take them to task for their unchristian attitudes and behavior but show no concern or applaud them. The anonymity of the Internet may in part account for why they do not keep a closer watch on their tongue but the seeming indifference or approbation of those around them is harder to explain. It suggests that they have come to accept such attitudes and behavior as the norm even for a Christian. This does not reflect well on the Christian community.

Yet strangely enough their attitudes and behavior highlight God’s grace. For God shows his love and goodwill to the congregations of which they are clergy or members. He does not withhold his mercy and kindness due to them. This does not mean that God himself condones their attitudes and behavior but “makes his sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” One is reminded of what God said to the prophet Jonah. “You have had pity on the plant for which you have not labored, nor made it grow, which came up in a night and perished in a night. And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left--and much livestock?" (Jonah 4:10-11 NKJV)

The people of Nineveh sadly, while they repented upon hearing Jonah’s call to repentance, and God spared them as Jonah feared that he would, did not keep up their repentance and returned to their wicked ways. God eventually destroyed Nineveh. We can abuse God’s generosity and it eventually will have negative consequences for us. If God is generous to us and we fail in turn to be generous to others, we will reap what we have sown.

God has been generous to me in numerous ways. With this in mind and recognizing that there are so many untold stories, I am inviting anyone who has such a story or knows such a story to submit that story to me and I will publish it on Anglicans Ablaze. The story should be limited to 2000 words or less and should be submitted to exploringananglicanprayerbookatgmaildotcom, accompanied by any photos. I do reserve the right to edit the content of all submissions and to not publish stories that I deem inappropriate for publication on the Internet. Whether these stories become a regular feature on Anglicans Ablaze will depend upon the response to this invitation.

Among the stories that also go unheard are those of Episcopalians and Anglicans who, while they do not countenance the rampart liberalism and immorality in these churches, have chosen to remain in one of them and bear witness to the orthodox faith and practice. There are also the stories of those who are concerned about what is happening in these churches but for one reason or another cannot leave. I am willing to publish their stories too. I am also willing to publish the stories of those who have never been a part of the Anglican Church of Canada or the Episcopal Church but who are—or were—a part of the Reformed Episcopal Church or one of the Anglican bodies in the Continuum.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/januaryweb-only/14-21.0.html

{Christianity Today] 29 Jan 2009--Everyone is asking: Why? Why are Muslims and Christians unable to live together in peace on the Jos Plateau? Why is there a continuing recurrence of violence? These are questions people in Nigeria and journalists from all over the world have asked me. I wish I had the answers.

The one thing I do know is that this time, as at other times, Christians once again have become the scapegoat of some evil intention to cause disharmony, separation, pain, destruction of lives and property, and disruption of normal civil life. This to me is evidence of what Jesus meant when he said, "The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly" (John 10:10).

To read the entire article, click here.

To read a related article, "Nigerian Archbishop calls on Muslims to hand back the dead" on TimesOnline, click here.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/01/christianity-lite

[First Things] 29 Jan 2009--"Once in a while comes an historical event so momentous, so packed with unexpected force, that it acts like a large wave under still water, propelling us momentarily up from the surface of our times onto a crest, where the wider movements of history may be glimpsed better than before.

Such an event was Benedict XVI’s landmark announcement in October 2009 offering members of the Anglican Communion a fast track into the Catholic Church. Although commentators quickly dubbed this unexpected overture a “gambit,” what it truly exhibits are the characteristics of a move known in chess as a “brilliancy,” an unforeseen bold stroke that stunningly transforms the game. In the short run, knowledgeable people agree, this brilliancy of Benedict’s may not seem to amount to much. Some 1000 Church of England priests may convert and some 300 parishes turn over to Rome—figures that, while significant when measured against the dwindling numbers of practicing Anglicans there, are nonetheless mere drops in the Vatican’s bucket.

But in the longer run—say, over the coming decades—Rome’s move looks consequential in another way. It is the latest and most dramatic example of how orthodoxy, rather than dissent, seems once again to have taken the driver’s seat of Christianity. Every traditionalist who joins the long and already illustrious history of reconversion to the Catholic Church just tips the religious balance more toward Rome. This further weakens a religious communion battered from within by decades of intra-Anglican culture wars. Meanwhile, the progressives left behind may well find the exodus of their adversaries a Pyrrhic victory. How will they possibly make peace with the real majority of Anglicans today—the churches in Africa, whose leaders have repeatedly denounced the Communion’s abandonment of traditional teachings? Questions like these are why a few commentators now speak seriously about something that only recently seemed unthinkable: whether the end of the Anglican Communion itself might now be in sight."

"Mary Eberstadt seems to believe that Anglicanism, 'as the world has known it in the past century,' is vanishing. She is blinded though by the British, Canadian and American versions that have been fading for the past 50 years. At the same time, Anglicanism is one of the major denominations growing like wildfire in Africa -- so much so that it is predicted it could be the second largest Christian denomination in the world, after Roman Catholicism, by the middle of the century. That brand of Anglicanism is highly evangelical and is not seeking a pope. I don't think Ms. Eberstadt does her thesis credit by making a sweeping generalization that does not hold up to scrutiny...."

To read the entire article and the accompanying comments, click here.

http://www.pastors.com/blogs/ministrytoolbox/archive/2010/01/27/a-holy-god-a-surrendered-life-a-fearful-thing.aspx

[Rick Warren's Ministry Toolbox]29 Jan 2009--"Richard Baxter once said, 'A surrendered life in the hands of a holy God is a fearful thing.'

That’s where we need to be as we lead our congregations toward total surrender to God.

What does it mean to be surrendered to God? The Bible’s word for surrender is also the word for brokenness. We know from the Bible that God uses broken vessels. It’s a divine principle."

To read the entire article, click here.

By Robin G. Jordan

The appointment of Bishop Harvey as the Dean of the Anglican Church in North America is very telling about the emerging ecclesiastical culture of the AC-NA. Those who occupy positions of leadership at the provincial level do not appear to regard themselves as bound by the rules embodied in the church’s instruments of governance. This raises questions about the kind of ethic and in turn the kind of theology that dominates the AC-NA’s emerging ecclesiastical culture. As the former Archbishop of Canterbury Donald Coggins observed, “a sound ethic can precede only from a sound theology.” [Donald Coggins, Preaching: The Sacrament of the Word, New York: The Crossroads Publishing Company 1988, 144]

The conflict between conservatives and liberals in the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church has been over moral values and doctrinal beliefs. In these two churches the abandonment of traditional morality has gone hand in hand with the abandonment of orthodox doctrine. One of the effects of these developments has been the erosion of principle in guiding conduct and a loss of respect for the “rule of law.” The result is what church leaders believe will bring about a desired end increasingly determines how they act. A large number of those occupying positions of leadership in the Anglican Church of North America are former clergy and members of the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church. They appear to have brought this attitude into the AC-NA with them.

Archbishop Duncan was very insistent as Moderator of the Common Cause Partnership and then as Archbishop elect of the Anglican Church in North America that the instruments of governance of the newly-formed church should not be too detailed, majoring in what he described as “minors.” This Archbishop Duncan claimed was a major weakness of The Episcopal Church system of ecclesiastical governance. He suggested a correlation between a church’s preoccupation with the details of its constitution and canons and its spiritual condition. A church that was genuinely spiritual would not be overly concerned with the details of these instruments of governance. Archbishop Duncan argued for what he described as a “minimalist” constitution and set of canons. Written instruments, the provisions of which were clear, detailed, and precise—important safeguards against arbitrariness in governance and abuse of power, he maintained would prove a hindrance and obstacle to mission. Rather the AC-NA should “major in the majors” as he put it. To the bystander, it sounded as if Archbishop Duncan and the others making these arguments did not want anything that might get in the way of them doing what they wanted to do. These arguments were very telling about the attitude of those making them toward constitutional government and the “rule of law” in the church. Expediency required them to accept a constitution and a set of canons but they clearly favored a form of church government which did not limit the discretionary powers of the top leaders but left a great deal to their judgment.

The comments of AC-NA members on another web log in response to the concerns expressed in this article series offer valuable insights into the AC-NA’s church culture. One comment was to the effect that a church that is “spiritual” and has “spiritual” leaders does not need rules. There was the inference that rule-making and rule-keeping are legalistic and unspiritual. Another comment took the position that it did not matter if church leaders did not follow manmade rules as long as they obeyed biblical teachings. Christ’s warning against nullifying the word of God for the sake of human tradition was cited as the Scriptural basis for this point of view.

Neither viewpoint is biblical. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians addresses problems of the Corinthian church related to the beliefs of members of that church that in having received the Holy Spirit, they were free not to follow any moral principles or code. The freedom of the Gospel, as Paul draws to the attention of the Corinthians, is not license for immorality or unprincipled conduct. In his writings Paul stresses the role of church leaders as models for other Christians. If they are immoral or unprincipled in their conduct, they set a bad example for their fellow Christians. They also risk becoming stumbling blocks not only for other believers but also for those outside the Christian community. Their conduct reflects poorly on the whole Christian community as well as themselves and their particular part of that community. It becomes the cause of reproach from outsiders and of entanglement in the snares of the devil.

These comments suggest that AC-NA leaders are fostering ethical confusion in AC-NA members and creating fertile ground in which unbiblical beliefs and values may flourish. They point to a strong element of antinomianism and a decidedly un-Anglican disregard for the “rule of law” in the ecclesiastical culture of the AC-NA.

The establishment of a Provincial Assembly shorn of any significant role in the governance of the AC-NA except that of ratifying the decisions of the Provincial Council points to another aspect of the AC-NA’s church culture. A significant number of the clergy who shaped the AC-NA’s present system of ecclesiastical governance and now hold its top leadership positions share a common dislike of a synodical form of church government and a common distrust of the laity. Even though it is self-evident that the bishops and other clergy of the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church bear the lion’s share of the responsibility for the present state of these two churches, this particular group of clergy tended to blame the synodical forms of church government and the laity of the two churches. Archbishop Duncan was very insistent that the inaugural Provincial Assembly should not try to modify the constitution and the set of canons that was submitted to it for its approval, and should avoid what he claimed to be another major weakness of The Episcopal Church’s system of ecclesiastical governance.

The AC-NA does not require that the judicatories—dioceses or other groupings of congregations—which form the church, must have a synodical form of church government. Under the AC-NA constitution and canons the outgoing bishop of a judicatory is not prohibited from choosing his successor and the successors to any auxiliary bishops of the judicatory. The AC-NA canons only require that a list of nominees or the name of the bishop elect should be submitted to the College of Bishops for appropriate action. They have very little to say about the governance of judicatories beyond requiring judicatories to have a standing committee or its equivalent to act as the ecclesiastical authority of the judicatory in the absence of the bishop, allowing judicatories to continue to operate under the provisions of the constitution and canons of their parent province, and permitting them to hold local church property in trust if they already do so or take it into trust if a local congregation gives its written consent.

One of the AC-NA’s largest founding entities, if not its largest, is the Anglican Mission in the Americas. A primatial vicar, acting on the behalf of the primate of the Anglican Church of Rwanda and responsible to him, governs the AMiA with the assistance of a council of missionary bishops. The primate and house of bishops of the Anglican Church of Rwanda chooses the missionary bishops that comprise this council. Each missionary bishop is responsible for overseeing a regional network of the AMiA. The council of missionary bishops may submit nominations for new missionary bishops. The primatial vicar may veto a nomination. He may also make nominations of his own. The council of missionary bishops may nominate a successor to the primatial vicar. The Rwandan primate and the house of bishops are not jurisdically bound to choose a new missionary bishop or primatial vicar from any of the nominees whose names are submitted to them. The AMiA has an agreement with the AC-NA that the AC-NA College of Bishops will welcome all new bishops that the Rwandan primate and house of bishop chooses. The AC-NA has no equivalent of a synod and its clergy and laity do not share with its bishops in the governance of that ecclesial body. The primatial vicar may convene and consult gatherings of AMiA clergy but these gatherings can make only recommendations. They have no legislative powers. Except in appointive positions its laity plays no role in the governance of the AMiA.

In the months before the formation of the AC-NA the provisions of the AC-NA provisional constitution and canons relating to the selection of the initial bishop for a new judicatory became the subject of heated debate on the Internet. They were open to interpretation that the College of Bishops selected this bishop from a list of two or three nominees that the new judicatory submitted to it. The guidelines for the completion of an application for the recognition of a new judicatory supported this interpretation. This writer and others drew to the attention of the Governance Task Force that the College of Bishops’ selection of new bishops represented a significant departure from a long tradition of a diocese electing its own bishop and the bishops of the province confirming the election, which went back to the early church. The ACNA finally issued a statement through one of the members of the Governance Task Force that, while the preferred method for the selection of the initial bishop of new judicatory was for the College of Bishops to select the bishop from such a list of nominees, a new judicatory could elect its own bishop and then submit the name of the bishop elect to the College of Bishops for confirmation of the election. However, the guidelines for the completion of the application form were not corrected. The language of the provisions of the proposed constitution and canons that had prompted the debate was not made clearer. The issues of what would happen if the College of Bishops rejected all nominees on a judicatory’s list and whether a judicatory could elect a successor to a bishop that the College of Bishops had selected were not properly addressed.

In the AC-NA there are two dominant schools of thought relating to ecclesiastical governance. The first school of thought is a strong advocate of prelacy. Adherents of this school of thought argue that the corrective to what happened in the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church is strong “spiritual” bishops governing the church. They downplay the contribution of bishops with prelatical aspirations to the plight of conservative Anglicans and Episcopalians in North America. It may also be said of many of its adherents as Stephen Noll once said of the Africans: they need to learn to distinguish between episcopal power and episcopal tyranny. Adherents of this school of thought are also likely to hold opinions similar to the two viewpoints described earlier in this article. A significant number of the AC-NA’s present leaders belong to this school of thought, particularly those who share a common dislike of a synodical form of church government and a common distrust of the laity.

The second school of thought favors a synodical form of church government in which ecclesiastical governance is in the hands of the church as whole, both clergy and laity together, and not exclusively in the hands of bishops or any other particular order. This school of thought sees bishops playing a limited constitutional and canonically defined role in the government of the church. It would give bishops and other church leaders much less discretionary powers than the first school of thought and would require a system of checks and balances and other safeguards to discourage arbitrariness in governance and the abuse of power. There are various shades of opinion between these two schools.

An aspect of the AC-NA church culture that deserves further comment is the secretiveness. As was noted in the preceding article, the provisional AC-NA constitution and canons were not made public until after their adoption. The lack of openness and transparency that characterized the Common Cause Leadership Council also characterizes the Provincial Council, its Executive Committee, and the other committees and task forces at the provincial level. A report of the Prayer Book and Common Worship Task Force that was released after the inaugural Provincial Assembly was given limited circulation and was not made public. The AC-NA canons make no provision for the publication of the deliberations of the Provincial Council in a journal and the only account of its most recent meetings were carefully worded press releases. What AC-NA members hear back home is what their leaders decide to tell them.

AC-NA members tend to deny the existence of problems in the AC-NA or minimize their seriousness and attack those who call attention to their existence or to their seriousness. Those in and outside AC-NA who express concerns over developments within the AC-NA are labeled as hostile to the AC-NA. There is very low tolerance for internal and external criticism even if it is constructive and friendly. These attitudes also appear to be a part of the AC-NA’s emerging ecclesiastical culture.

A final aspect of the AC-NA’s church culture that is coming out into view is the worldliness of that culture. Archbishop Duncan and its other spokesmen like to draw attention to the number of AC-NA congregations and to compare them with the number of TEC congregations. They sound like corporative executives comparing the growth of their corporation with that of their competitors. The preoccupation with being larger than the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church shows that the AC-NA, like the ACA and TEC, is a captive of the larger culture and is influenced by its values and ways of thinking. The AC-NA, like the larger Christian community in North America, is far from free of worldly influences. In this regard the difference between the AC-NA, the ACA, and TEC is one of degree.

The AC-NA does have a number of congregations that are vibrantly Christian and fully committed to the work of the Great Commission. In these congregations the spiritual gifts and natural talents of all members, young and old, are employed to bring the gospel to a lost and fallen world. The question is will these congregations grow and thrive in this kind of church culture in the long-term? Or will they be forced to seek a healthier environment in which they can carryout their ministry?

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2010/01/19/how-do-you-put-your-sermon-together-part-1/

[The GospelConnection] 26 Jan 2009--"While there are certain elements every pastor will want to incorporate (study and prayer for example), there is no one way to put a sermon together. Just like there is more than one way to skin a cat I suppose (a curious and inviting phrase that). So all I can talk about is what I do to get ready for Sunday.

In case you’re interested, here goes…."

To read the entire article, click here.

http://www.churchplantingvillage.net/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=joJMITOxEpH&b=4904071&ct=7810733

[Church Planting Village] 26 Jan 2009--"I am amazed just how often I get a call from a church planter asking me about making him a list of potential meeting places for their new church to meet! Usually, their request comes prefaced with some sort of declaration that the one they had lined up fell through and now they need a place to meet and they need it fast! A few years ago, I was coaching a church planter in the northeast and I suggested to him during the year prior to launching that he not only needed a Plan A for a meeting place but he should also have a backup plan as well. He was a good planter and had developed a backup plan. About three weeks before his launch he lost the first place they had reserved and moved to their second selection quickly and except for the need to do an additional phone and print follow-up, everything went off with little trouble. In one of the church plants that I have been a part of since I have lived in the southeast, we had a wonderful school picked out and had what we thought was a rock solid commitment and contract to use a high school. Less than 30 days before launch we were informed they were not going to allow us to use the building. Providentially, we had always had a backup plan and while it cost us a little more and we had to do some quick last minute advertising and calling of our prospects, we launched in a warehouse with a little less than one hundred people (87) and never looked back. What has always brought me a smile is that the school in less than a month had begun renting it to another church plant from another denomination. Today both new churches are doing well but God’s hand of protection spared us from getting into a facility that was just too small for our growth. Our wise pastor moved quickly to secure our second option and it allowed us to grow to well over 800 people in attendance before we ever moved out of the launch facility and on to our own property and facilities. There was a time when a church planter had few choices in deciding on the facility they would rent. Today is a whole, new ball game!

So with the idea of securing a meeting place for your new church may I suggest some places that church planters have found useful over the years? Your call to talk over the options is still welcomed, but here are some ideas that might lead you to discovering that perfect place for you and your new plant to meet...."

To read the entire article, click here.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/february/8.37.html

[Christianity Today] 26 Jan 2009--"News of the December 26 tsunami was almost immediately followed by news of donation scams, inefficient relief efforts, and good intentions gone awry. Longtime World Vision relief director Rich Moseanko sent out a list, condensed here, to help donors understand what's really needed after a major catastrophe.

1. Americans can help by collecting blankets, shoes, and clothing. The cost of shipping these items—let alone the time it takes to sort, pack, and ship them—is prohibitive. Since they are often manufactured for export to the U.S. in the very countries that need relief, it is far more efficient to purchase them locally. Cash is better."

To read the entire article, click here.

By Robin G. Jordan

What was the point of establishing rules in the form of a constitution and a set of canons by which the Anglican Church in North America was supposed to be governed if its leaders had no intention of abiding by these rules as the appointment of Bishop Don Harvey as the Dean of the Province has shown? Was it to provide window dressing for the GAFCON primates so that they would recognize the AC-NA? Was it to give the self-proclaimed new Anglican province an air of legitimacy?

The provisional constitution and canons of the Anglican Church in North America were adopted without a period of public scrutiny and comment: they were not made public until after their adoption! The period the proposed constitution and canons were open to public scrutiny and comment was grossly inadequate—a fortnight, two weeks! The two documents that were presented to the inaugural AC-NA Provincial Assembly for ratification contained a plethora of flaws and objectionable features. They were rushed through the Provincial Assembly with very little debate and with Archbishop Duncan’s insistence that no amendments to their provisions should be made from the floor. The Provincial Assembly was to either ratify each section of the constitution and canons or return it to the Provincial Council for further work without any recommendations for needed changes. The Provincial Assembly was not given an opportunity to modify the two documents.

The Anglican Church in North America has had defective instruments of governance from the outset. The canons, for example, fail to provide sufficient details as to how bishops are to be chosen; they arrogate to several decision-making bodies in the AC-NA rights, authorities, and powers that the constitution does not give them. Both documents need extensive revision. Rather than undertake this difficult task, Archbishop Duncan, the Provincial Council, and its Executive Committee have chosen to ignore their provisions.

An overview of the major problem areas of the AC-NA constitution and canons can be found on the Internet at: http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/07/sizing-up-acna-constitution-and-canons.html. A more detailed analysis of the defects and objectionable features of the AC-NA constitution with recommended changes can be found on the Internet at: http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/06/proposed-amendments-to-constitution-of.html. A similar analysis of the flaws and drawbacks of the AC-NA canons with recommended changes can be found on the Internet at: http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/06/proposed-amendments-to-canons-of.html. Additional articles on the AC-NA constitution and canons may be found on the Internet at: http://theheritageanglicannetwork.blogspot.com/.

Archbishop Duncan’s appointment of Bishop Harvey as Dean of the Province cannot be dismissed as a difference of interpretation of the ACNA instruments of governance. Article IX.3 of the constitution clearly limits the Primate of the AC-NA to performing the duties and responsibilities delineated in the constitution or provided by canon.

The argument that the AC-NA is a “spiritual church” and is therefore not bound by the “rule of law” is also unconvincing. It bears a striking resemblance to The Episcopal Church’s claim to be in the vanguard of a prophetic movement. So is the argument that AC-NA church leaders need some “flexibility,” and AC-NA members need to make allowances for the appointment, to “cut them some slack.” This argument has been used to rationalize or explain away all kinds of questionable actions on their part. Those making this argument would not make any allowances for Anglican Church of Canada or Episcopal Church leaders taking similar actions. There is clearly a double standard operating here. However, what is wrong for Anglican Church of Canada and Episcopal Church leaders is also wrong for AC-NA leaders. The fact that they are AC-NA leaders does not make their actions any less reprehensible. Indeed we should expect them to operate by a higher standard than that of Anglican Church of Canada and Episcopal Church leaders.

Church of England evangelicals concerned with the preservation of the role of the General Synod in the governance of the Church of England may wish to know that the Anglican Church in North America has no equivalent of the General Synod. While larger and more representative than the AC-NA Provincial Council, the AC-NA Provincial Assembly is merely a consultative assembly. It has no power beyond ratifying constitutional and canonical changes that the Provincial Council submits to it for its approval. An evangelical backbencher of the General Synod has put forward a private member’s motion calling for the recognition of the AC-NA. Under the provisions of the AC-NA constitution and canons, no member of the Provincial Assembly can make a motion of this kind, much less to expect it to be given consideration. They may also wish to know that the constitution and canons of the AC-NA concentrate power in the hands of a few. The AC-NA has taken a direction in ecclesiastical governance that they do not want to see the Church of England take.

Its constitution and canons, its form of ecclesiastical governance, and the attitude of its leaders toward the “rule of law” are not the only shortcomings of the Anglican Church in North America. Rather than establishing a genuine comprehensiveness which makes room for those who seek to uphold and maintain the Protestant, Reformed and evangelical character of the Anglican Church, the Common Cause Theological Statement incorporated into the AC-NA constitution as the AC-NA “fundamental declarations” aligns the church with the doctrinal positions of the heirs of the Oxford Movement and the adherents of the relatively modern “via media” view of Anglicanism. This view of Anglicanism regards it as a synthesis of Catholic and Protestant doctrine and practice. It was popularized in the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church in the twentieth century and has liberal adherents in both churches.

Anglicans outside of North America, in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, sympathetic to the plight of conservative Anglicans in North America need to carefully word any statement supporting conservative North American Anglicans. The reality is that only one segment of this group has migrated to the AC-NA. Another segment of this group has chosen for what it believes are good reasons to not leave the Anglican Church of Canada or The Episcopal Church. A third segment that left the ACA or TEC has joined other churches beside the AC-NA, including non-Anglican churches. A fourth segment that left is churchless. In the case of these last two segments in some instances this is due to the fact that the AC-NA has no congregations in the area or that the congregations which the AC-NA does have in the area are of a different church tradition. The form of church government in the local congregation or the judicatory to which it belongs may be objectionable. In other instances it is due to the problems affecting the entire church. Statements backing the AC-NA do not show support for these other segments nor recognize their continued plight.

In the Anglican Church in North America statements that do not qualify their support of the AC-NA, whether or not it was the intent of those issuing these statements, are also interpreted as endorsement of the status quo in the AC-NA. Anglicans outside of North America that support the formation of a new “orthodox” province in North America but are concerned about developments in the AC-NA, if they issue statements supportive of the AC-NA, need to qualify their support, drawing attention to what they see as problem areas in the AC-NA and calling upon the AC-NA leadership to implement needed reforms.

By Robin G. Jordan

Among the objectionable features of the AC-NA constitution is that it concentrates too much power into the hands of a small group of people, contains few if any credible safeguards against the abuse of power, and does not require any accountability of those wielding power in the government of the church. These drawbacks became evident this past December with Archbishop Duncan’s appointment of a dean of the province that under the provisions of the AC-NA constitution and canons he has no authority to appoint. (See “Recent appointment of a Dean of the ACNA raise serious constitutional questions.”) In agreeing to this appointment the Provincial Council and its Executive Committee not only condoned this unconstitutional and uncanonical act but also became accessories to it. The Archbishop, the Provincial Council, and the Executive Committee have offered no explanation for this violation of the instruments of governance of the AC-NA.

The reaction of AC-NA members has been mixed. Many are unfamiliar with the church’s constitution and canons and do not realize that the appointment was illegal. Some have tried to justify it on the basis of the growing burden of office upon the Archbishop. What is even worse is that others, while recognizing that the appointment was not constitutional or canonical are willing to tolerate such actions on the part of their leadership.

The AC-NA canons contain a provision (Title I.1.5) by which the Provincial Council might have appointed an assistant to the Archbishop. They also contain a provision (Title III.8.6) by which the College of Bishops could have, with the concurrence of the Executive Committee, created an office of Bishop for Special Missions to act as an assistant to the Archbishop, to be elected by the College of Bishops and to work under the College of Bishops’ supervision. The AC-NA leadership, however, did not avail themselves of these constitutional and canonical options but instead chose one that was neither constitutional nor canonical.

The fact that the AC-NA leadership do not view themselves as bound by the church’s constitution and canons and feel free to set them aside at will should be a cause for alarm. If they are willing to disregard these instruments of governance in one area, in what other areas are they willing to disregard them? The danger is that if AC-NA members do not raise an outcry protesting this and similar actions, the AC-NA leadership will be emboldened to operate more and more in this fashion.

Disregard for the “rule of law” is one of the major problems that besets The Episcopal Church. The “rule of law” means that the “law,” in this particular instance, the provisions of the constitution and canons of the AC-NA, “is above everyone and it applies to everyone.” Whether bishop, clergy, or laity, whatever their leadership position in the church, “no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law.” The “rule of law” is a safeguard against arbitrary governance. Where the “rule of law” prevails in an ecclesial body, a church leader cannot exercise discretionary powers beyond those specifically enumerated in the constitution and canons of that body. The “rule of law” is superior to the rule of any church leader.

The provisions of the AC-NA constitution require the Provincial Council to define the discretionary powers of the Archbishop by canon. Article IX.3 states:

“The Archbishop convenes the meetings of the Provincial Assembly, Provincial Council and College of Bishops, represents the Province in the Councils of the Church and carries out such other duties and responsibilities as may be provided by canon.”

The Provincial Council cannot simply meet and by a show of hands decide to give a particular discretionary power to the Archbishop. The Council must adopt a proposed canon specifying that power and then submit the proposed canon to the Provincial Assembly. If the Provincial Assembly does not agree with the Provincial Council that the Archbishop should have such discretionary power, it may refuse to ratify the proposal, in which case it is not binding upon the AC-NA.

The constitution and canons do not recognize the Executive Committee as having power and authority to enact legislation binding upon the AC-NA or to otherwise mandate the exercise by the Archbishop of powers beyond those enumerated in the constitution and canons. They do not give the Executive Committee such power and authority.

Under the provisions of the present AC-NA constitution and canons even if the Provincial Council, the Executive Committee and the College of Bishops unanimously agreed that it was within the discretionary powers of the Archbishop to appoint a dean of the province, such an appointment would not be constitutional or canonical as long as there was not a canon giving that authority to the Archbishop. Article IX.3 is very clear on the matter: “…and carries out such other duties and responsibilities as may be provided by canon.”

There is a great need to hold the Archbishop, the Provincial Council, and the Executive Committee accountable for their actions. But the mechanisms for that accountability are sadly lacking in the AC-NA constitution and canons. The Provincial Assembly has no real power. It cannot propose and adopt legislation, much less conduct investigations and impose sanctions.

This appointment should be a red flag to all AC-NA members who have concerns about the particular form of ecclesiastical governance that the AC-NA has adopted, its lack of safeguards and accountability, and the greatly diminished role of the laity. The threat of congregations and groupings of congregations withdrawing from the AC-NA is not going to serve as a deterrent to this kind of action. What are needed are far-reaching changes to the constitution and canons that would make the Provincial Assembly the central governing body of the AC-NA, would subordinate the Provincial Council and its Executive Committee to the Provincial Assembly, would clearly define the extent of the Archbishop’s powers, and would give the laity a much larger role in the government of the church. These changes should include provisions specifying how the constitutions and canons should be interpreted. But the most important change needs to take place in the attitude of those leading the AC-NA, that is, having agreed to conform to the provisions of the constitution and canons, they actually do so, working within the rules embodied in these instruments of governance.

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/ministry/critique/on_power_and_polity/

[sydneyanglicans,net] 19 Jan 2009--"(This really happened) Rector to new parish councillor: “I think parish councils are totally unnecessary. I like to make all the important decisions.”

When I look at the way in which many clergy manage the administrative polity of power and decision making in their parishes, my mind goes back to a rather interesting interaction in Robert Bolt’s A Man For All Seasons between Tomas Moore and his soon to be Son in law William Roper about the rule of law. Roper is impatient with Moore’s reliance on the law rather than going straight after his enemies and accused him of even giving the Devil the benefit of law.

More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down (and you’re just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

(A rather English, and may I say Anglican, attitude to the rule of law in human affairs.)

It seems to me it is too easy for clergy effectively to abuse the rule of law in their parishes for all kinds of good reasons but with long-term bad consequences."

To read the rest of this article, click here.

By Robin G. Jordan

Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America Robert Duncan has appointed Bishop Don Harvey, the retiring Moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada, the Dean of the Province of the Anglican Church in North America. Bishop Harvey's duties will be to "support the Primate by representing Archbishop Duncan at various events and meetings both within North America and internationally when the Primate is unable to attend." An examination of the constitution and canons of the ACNA, however, reveals no provision for the appointment of a Dean of the Province by the Archbishop of the Province. Article IX.3 states:

“The Archbishop convenes the meetings of the Provincial Assembly, Provincial Council and College of Bishops, represents the Province in the Councils of the Church and carries out such other duties and responsibilities as may be provided by canon.”

The ACNA Constitution recognizes no inherent appointive powers associated with the office of Archbishop of the Province. The ACNA canons do not give any appointive powers to the office of Archbishop of the Province. This raises serious questions as to the constitutionality of this appointment. In consenting to this unconstitutional act the ACNA Executive Committee and the ACNA Provincial Council also violated the constitution and canons.

The Dean of a Province is such an important office that it is normally included in the constitution of the Province. The Dean of the Province is typically elected from the bishops of the Province by his fellow bishops. The Dean of the Province carries out the duties of the Primate of the Province during a vacancy in the office of Primate, or during his inability to perform the duties of his office or his absence from the Province. He may perform certain judicial duties. The Primate may also delegate to the Dean of the Province responsibilities and functions to be exercised by the Dean of the province when the Primate is present and ministering within the jurisdiction of the Province. In the exercise of these responsibilities and functions the Dean of the Province is under the authority of the Primate. The Dean of a Province functions very much like a Vicar General during a vacancy in the office of a Diocesan Bishop or the inability of the Diocesan Bishop to perform his duties or the absence of the Diocesan Bishop from the Diocese.

Title I.1.5 of the ACNA canons give the ACNA Provincial Council authority to appoint “such other officers of the Church as it deems necessary” and to “define the duties of each officer of the Church. This section lists several officers “deputy chair” of the Provincial Council, “chancellor, secretary, treasurer,” and “registrar.” None of these offices is on the same level as that of the Dean of the Province. Title I.1.5 does not give the Provincial Council authority to delegate its appointing power to one of its members. Title III.8.6 of the ACNA canons give the College of Bishops authority to create the office of Bishop for Special Missions in consultation with the Executive Committee of the Provincial Council and to fill that office by election from a list of two or three nominees proposed by the members of the College. A Bishop for Special Missions serves directly under the College of Bishops for “a special missionary purpose.” This is not the job description of a Dean of the Province. Neither Title I.1.5 nor Title III.8.6 forms any basis for Archbishop Duncan’s appointment of Bishop Harvey as Dean of the Province.

Archbishop Duncan certainly may need an assistant to take over some of his duties especially if the strain of the office of Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North American has become too great for him. He did not issue a Christmas or New Year’s Message as Archbishop of the ACNA or as Bishop of Pittsburgh, which is unusual for a leader in his position and has led to speculation in some quarters regarding his health. However, the need for an assistant does not justify the blatant disregard of the ACNA constitutions and canons by Archbishop Duncan, the ACNA Executive Committee, and the ACNA Provincial Council. This appointment sets a very bad precedent and shows a willingness on the part of the ACNA leadership to walk in the footsteps of their TEC counterparts.

The ACNA Provincial Council at its December meeting should have directed the Governance Task Force to draft for its consideration at its next meeting amendments to the constitution and canons making provision for the election of a Dean of the Province, delineating his duties, and identifying who would perform them during a vacancy in his office, his inability to perform them, or his absence from the Province. A special meeting of the Provincial Council should have then been called to adopt the proposed changes and a special meeting of the ACNA Provincial Assembly to ratify them.

Archbishop Duncan exceeded his constitutional authority in appointing Bishop Harvey as Dean of the ACNA and the Executive Committee and the Provincial Council exceed their constitutional authority in consenting to the appointment. Their actions suggest that the ACNA leadership has not freed itself from the influence of the ecclesiastical culture of the TEC. They are willing to take extra-constitutional measures when it suits their purposes. Despite what is described as "the need to support the Primate and ease what was becoming an overwhelming engagement schedule." their actions are not justifiable. The ACNA Provincial Council can at this stage still redeem itself and advance the cause of constitutional ecclesiastical governance in the ACNA by withdrawing its consent to this appointment and modifying the ACNA constitution and canons in a constitutional manner. Will the Anglican Church in North America be a shining example of constitutional church government? Or will the ACNA become another TEC in which the leadership give the nod to the constitution and canons of the Province when it serves their purposes to do so?

http://acl.asn.au/a-prophet-confronts/#more-5086

[Anglican Church League] 13 Jan 2009--Charles Raven’s latest column –

“if you try to keep the light and darkness together, righteous and immoral together, to say we are a church, it’s disparaging the meaning of covenant” – Bishop Moses Tay

In his recent interview with the Christian Post Moses Tay, onetime Archbishop of Singapore, brings a sharp prophetic insight to bear on the Anglican Covenant and warns that it is a ‘whitewash’. ‘It cannot be of God’ he says ‘because if you try to keep the light and darkness together, righteous and immoral together, to say we are a church, it’s disparaging the meaning of covenant’.

To read more, click here.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2010/01/06/10-ways-to-encourage-a-missionary/

[The Gospel Coalition] 13 Jan 2009--In an effort to learn how we can best encourage missionaries, I emailed some and asked how they would most like to be served and encouraged. This list is drawn from their responses, including many direct quotes.

To read more, please click here.

http://www.rep-am.com/news/local/459949.txt

[Waterbury Republican American] 11 Jan 2010--A local spiritual leader's ties to Tanzania are shaping his ministries, both here and in the African nation.

The ties between the Rev. Bryan Bywater, of New Hope Anglican church, and Anglicans in Africa also help illustrate the powerful bond between conservative Anglicans in the United States and the church in Africa.

Bywater, who retains an affiliation with the Tabora Diocese in Tanzania, was ordained rector of New Hope on Saturday during a service in the auditorium at Swift Middle School. He has been the interim rector for the church, which formed after splitting from Christ Episcopal Church in 2008, for more than a year.

The breakaway from Christ Episcopal Church was part of a major rupture in the Episcopal Church of North America as conservatives rebelled against the ordination of homosexual priests and other trends in the church.

In the past decade, Africa has become a spiritual center for many Anglicans who have divorced themselves from the national Episcopal Church over divergent views on homosexuality and biblical interpretation, said Frank Kirkpatrick, a professor of religion at Trinity College in Hartford, and author of the book "The Episcopal Church in Crisis: How Sex, the Bible and Authority are Dividing the Faithful."

When dozens of congregations, like Christ Church in Watertown, broke with the national church, their leaders surrendered their religious authority as Episcopalians, he said. African dioceses, which have led the more conservative wing of the international Anglican Communion, continued to recognize the worshippers and consecrate former Episcopalian priests to lead them.

But for Bywater, his spiritual connection to Tanzania is the result of a personal journey, rather than a political one. He said that unlike other priests who are recognized by an African diocese, he is actually an ordained priest within an African diocese.

"My heart is in Africa," he said. "(But) my feet are in America."

Visit Bryan Bywaters' blog, Restless Heart Ministries at http://restlessheartministries.blogspot.com/

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/six-churches-attacked-in-muslim-protests/story-e6frg6so-1225817854306

[The Australian] 11 Jan 2010--Another two churches were firebombed yesterday, taking to six the total of attacks in three days of unrest following a court decision allowing Christians and other non-Muslims to use "Allah" to refer to God.

Hundreds of worshippers whose parish church was partly gutted in a firebomb attack last week gathered at a makeshift prayer hall for their Sunday service and called for national unity and an end to violence.

A Molotov cocktail was hurled at the All Saints Church in Taiping town in central Perak state early yesterday before it had opened, said state police chief Zulkifli Abdullah. He said the building was not damaged. Also yesterday, a bottle of kerosene was thrown into St Louis Catholic Church, which wasn't damaged.

Four churches were hit by petrol bombs on Friday and Saturday. All except the Metro Tabernacle, whose parishioners moved their services, suffered little damage, and no one was hurt. The other three held normal services yesterday.

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/ministry/technology/churches_need_to_catch_up/

[sydneyanglicans.net] 11 Jan 2010--Next time someone doesn’t come to your church, ask them what role your church website played in them deciding not to come.

Of course, this isn’t possible because you can’t speak with people who visited your website (or couldn’t find it) and concluded then and there that your church (or church full stop) isn’t for them.

There was a time when it was really dumb for a business not to advertise in the Yellow Pages. This is a time when it’s really dumb for a church not to have a decent web presence.

Decent doesn’t mean expensive.

It doesn’t mean technically complicated.

It doesn’t mean bells, whistles, podcasts, videos and Twitter streams.

It means having a presence on the internet to communicate at least the basic details about your church. When and where the church meets, what happens, and who is welcome. Think of it as a business card that’s available 24/7/365 for anyone in the world (but more likely, people in the surrounding suburbs), with internet access, to learn more about your church.

Basically, it’s about caring for the people who are considering coming to church.

And this is an area where many churches need to catch up.

http://acl.asn.au/lectionary-or-books-of-the-bible/

[Anglican Church League] 11 Jan 2010--The Diocese of Tasmania website has posted an article by David Roger-Smith on planning a preaching programme. Especially helpful for those whose practice is to preach on Lectionary readings –

“If you’ve never preached through or helped preached through a biblical book, it might seem a bit daunting, but we would encourage you to have a go. Start with small steps. Devote one school term this year to preaching through a biblical book rather than from the Lectionary readings.”

Download it as a PDF file here from the updated Preaching page.

http://acl.asn.au/recife-doubles/

[Anglican Church League] 11 Jan 2010--“Recent statistics show that the Diocese of Recife, under the Primatial Authority of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America, continues to grow. The number of confirmed members and regular communicants has more than doubled since its traumatic axing from the liberal Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil (IEAB) five years ago.

In 2005 the diocese had 1,488 communicants, today there are 3,240. The number of baptized members is 2,010 and the total membership of the community stands at 5,250 members.

Over the past 5 years Bishop Robinson Cavalcanti has confirmed 2,025 people (407 in 2009), 90% of whom were newcomers to the Anglican church.

In 2005, 32 clergy were excommunicated by the Brazilian Province, today, thanks to the hard work of 6 diocesan training institutions the number of clergy in the diocese stands at 60, in whose care are 46 congregations and social projects in 9 Brazilian States. Despite the fact that the Diocese of Recife is currently facing l awsuits brought to bear by the Brazilian Province (which is demanding property), its story has been one of growth in the face of material uncertainty.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6980059.ece

[Times Online] 9 Jan 2009--The Church of England is to consider recognising a new conservative church in the US in a move that will place further pressure on the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, as he struggles to keep his fracturing Communion in one piece.

The General Synod will debate a private member’s motion next month calling for the Church of England to declare itself “in communion” with the Anglican Church in North America, formed in opposition to the pro-gay liberals in the official Anglican body in North America.

The synod, dominated by evangelicals, could pass the motion by a 50 per cent majority, adding to the pressure on the primates and bishops to recognise the new church.

The motion, put down by Lorna Ashworth an evangelical from the Chichester diocese, comes after The Episcopal Church in the US elected a lesbian priest, Mary Glasspool, to be a suffragan bishop in the Los Angeles diocese.

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/ministry/theology/preaching_our_theology/

[sydneyanglicans.net] 9 Jan 2009--“A Calvinist on your knees and an Arminian in the pulpit” has been the counsel to young ministers for many years.

It is the thoughtless advice of pragmatism, declaring theology to be irrelevant to the work of ministry.

The short hand terms ‘Calvinist’ and ‘Arminian’ refer to the interplay of God’s will and the human will. To grossly oversimplify for the sake of this article - in the matter of our salvation and in preaching, the Calvinist emphasises the sovereignty of God whilst the Arminian emphasises the ultimate responsibility of the human.

I am not talking here of one sermon but generalising (with all the strengths and weaknesses of arguing this way) about the preaching agenda and pattern of two theological systems. In any one sermon it may be impossible to determine if the preacher is Arminian or Calvinist, though the theologically discerning can usually pick it. But over time the real theology of the regular preacher is demonstrated – even sometimes against his own profession. For many a preacher has not worked out how to practice his own theology – but rather follows the pattern of the day.

The “Calvinist on knees and Arminian in pulpit” saying appears to take the best from both theological systems. Unfortunately, instead of complimenting the two systems on their strengths, the saying insults both. It is an insult to say that Arminians do not depend upon God in prayer or that Calvinists do not preach challenging sermons.

Athbhliain faoi mhaise dhuit! A prosperous new year to you!

Due to circumstances beyond my control I will not be posting any articles during the first eight days of the New Year.

Let me take this opportunity to wish you, "Sláinte agus saol chugat! Health and long life to you!" "Go dte tu an cead! May you live to be a hundred!"

"Siochan liat. Peace be with you."

By Robin G. Jordan

Less than 48 hours from now we will be celebrating the passage of 2009 and the arrival of 2010. Among the events of 2009 that have captured public attention within the North American Anglican community are the formation of the Anglican Church in North America in response to the GAFCON Primates’ call for a new Anglican province in North America to uphold orthodox doctrine and practice. The ACNA, if one listens to its propaganda, offers a “safe harbor” for Anglicans “traditionalists” who cannot for reasons of conscience remain in the Anglican Church of Canada or The Episcopal Church.

Even before the ACNA was formed in late June of 2009, it became quite clear from the provisional constitution and canons of the ACNA and then the proposed constitution and canons of that ecclesial body that only Anglican “traditionalists” of a certain type would be able to anchor in the safety of that harbor. Despite the claims that the ACNA is a church that is “truly Catholic, truly evangelical, and truly Pentecostal,” ACNA “comprehensiveness” does not extend to conservative evangelicals who embrace the Protestant and Reformed beliefs and principles that have historically distinguished classical evangelical Anglicanism and are articulated in the following statement:

“1. We accept the doctrine of the Church of England as set forth in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion understood in their plain, natural and intended sense.

2. More particularly
(i) We worship the one God as He has revealed Himself to us in Jesus Christ and in the Holy Scriptures In his divine nature, he is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite, immortal and immutable. He is wholly good, trustworthy and holy in all his ways. He has revealed himself to be a Trinity of three co-equal and co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, subsisting in an eternal relationship of mutual love. Each person manifests the fullness of the Godhead, and yet is distinguished from the others by incommunicable attributes which are revealed in their particular work. To the Father belongs; the plan of salvation, which he entrusted to the Son to fulfil. To the Son belongs his incarnation as the man Jesus Christ, and the saving work which he accomplished in his human nature. To the Holy Spirit belongs the task of creating and preserving the church as Christ's bride and body.

(ii) We receive the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments in their intended literal sense as the inspired and unerring Word of God the sole sufficient and perspicuous rule of Christian faith and practice and the final court of appeal in all controversies relating thereto and we admit post-apostolic traditions only so far as they are compatible with the teaching of the New Testament. The Old Testament is to be interpreted in the light of the New, and all parts of the New Testament are of equal and apostolic authority No part of Scripture is to be interpreted in a way which contradicts or excludes any other part.

(iii) We acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ as our only Priest and Mediator who took our place on the cross and by his sacrificial death paid the price for our sins, thereby satisfying the demands of the Father's justice and reconciling us to God. Through his death alone, without further priestly intervention or offering of sacrifice on our behalf we gain full access to God and acceptance with Him by faith. We believe that Christ's atoning sacrifice of Himself offered and accepted once-for-all is a finished work which can under no circumstances be repeated, prolonged, supplemented or re-represented and we repudiate all views of the Ministry and the Lord's Supper which imply the contrary.

(iv) We affirm that according to the New Testament the Christian Ministry is not a sacerdotal ministry but was instituted for the purpose of preaching, teaching and pastoral oversight. We reject all practices (such as the Eastward Position and the use of eucharistic vestments at the Lord's Supper) which imply a sacerdotal character of the Ministry. We reject also all theories of the sacraments which imply that the ministerial action invariably conveys grace.

(v) We affirm that a due exercise of Christian discipline is a mark of the faithful Church and that the government of the Christian community properly belongs under God to the Church as a whole, both clergy and laity together, and not exclusively to bishops or to any other particular order.

(vi) We affirm that the true unity of Christ's Church is a unity in faith, doctrine, and love and not of ministerial orders or external uniformity. We hold that the Lord's people should openly express this unity in particular at the Lord's Table as well as in other ways of witness and worship. Moreover while approving the threefold ministry of the Church of England we deny that non-episcopal orders are necessarily defective and constitute a barrier to reunion.

(vii) We affirm that men and women are equal as human beings created in the image and likeness of God and redeemed by the blood of Christ We also affirm that God created male and female differently, in order for them to be complementary to each other. This complementarity is specially to be seen in the marriage relationship and in the roles given to men and women in the family of the church. Thus matrimony is the lifelong union between one man and one woman, and sexual relations outside that context are sinful in God's eyes. Furthermore, within the church there is a divinely appointed order in which headship roles are given to the male, not for the purpose of domination over the female, but in order to protect and nourish the entire body of Christ The ministry of men and women is equally valid in God's eyes, but the Church must take care to study and to obey Scripture with regard to preserving the complementarity of roles.” [Doctrinal Basis of the Charity, Memorandum of Association of the Latimer Trust, on the Internet at: http://www.latimertrust.org/download/basis.pdf, accessed on December 30, 2009 at 10:15 AM]

The waters of the ACNA “safe harbor” are not friendly to conservative evangelicals who seek to uphold and preserve such beliefs and principles. Their “religion” is regarded as “too narrow,” that is to say, it does not accede to the doctrines and practices of Anglo-Catholic traditionalists or to the broad views of a number of ACNA clergy and members who define themselves as “evangelicals.”

This second group sits very loosely to the beliefs and principles that have historically set classical evangelical Anglicanism apart from other schools of thought claiming to be Anglican. Indeed they tend to view such beliefs and principles as being a relic of the past and therefore not relevant to today’s church. While conservative evangelicals are unequivocal in seeing Anglicanism, the Thirty-Nine Articles, and themselves as Protestant, this particular group of self-identified “evangelicals” is apt to subscribe to a view of the Anglican tradition that Edward Bouverie Pusey, a leader of the Oxford movement, first put forward in the nineteenth century. In this view Anglicanism is a via media, or middle road, between Catholicism and Protestantism.

This view gained considerable popularity in The Episcopal Church in the twentieth century. The convergence movement was particularly drawn to it, as was the Ancient-Future movement. It continues to greatly influence thinking in the ACNA.

In their efforts to form a synthesis of contradictory and conflicting Catholic and Protestant beliefs and principles, the adherents of this view are neither faithful to the Catholic tradition nor the Protestant tradition, much less to the Bible. One result is that there is a lack of congruency between the message of the sermon and the message of the liturgy on Sunday mornings.

Conservative evangelicals who drop anchor in the ACNA “safe harbor” do so at their own peril. They will not be able to hold onto their beliefs and principles if they wish to shelter there but will be required to accept without reservation the Common Cause Theological Statement. This statement gives only token authority to the historic formularies of the Church of England. It countenances John Henry Newman’s fanciful ahistorical reinterpretation of the Thirty-Nine Articles in a Rome-ward direction and mandates a view of bishops that initially came to the fore in the Church of the England and the then Protestant Episcopal Church with Newman’s first Tracts for the Times. This view asserts that the historic episcopate is absolutely essential to the church.

They will also be expected to conform to the teachings of the canons of the ACNA that are implicitly if not explicitly Anglo-Catholic in their doctrine in a number of places where in a genuinely comprehensive church the wording would not be aligned with the doctrinal position of any particular school of thought but would be unambiguously neutral.

A small number of Continuing Anglican Churches make the claim that they are a “safe harbor” for conservative evangelicals, asserting that they are maintaining the Protestant, Reformed and evangelical character of the Anglican Church. Yet these ecclesial bodies use the 1928 Book of Common Prayer that was compiled when Anglo-Catholicism and Broad Church liberalism were at the height of their influence in the Protestant Episcopal Church. Their clergy wear stoles and eucharistic vestments for the Lord’s Supper, and adopt the Eastward Position for the Prayer of Consecration. They fail to see the contradiction between the claim that they make, the Prayer Book that they use, and the practices that they follow.

These churches suffer from other problems beside a lack of congruity between doctrine and practice. One of them has a dismal record of retaining its clergy and may no longer have any congregations. None of these churches offer a real “safe harbor” for conservative evangelicals. Rather they themselves give the appearance of being greatly in need of safer anchorage.

In the New Year conservative evangelicals need to make up their minds about what they are going to do to rectify this state of affairs and do it. Waiting to see what others do is not a formula for bringing about change. It is time to take matters into their own hands.

Conservative evangelicals who are in the ACNA need to organize to defend and advance the Protestant and Reformed beliefs and principles of the Anglican Church in that church body. Those who are outside the ACNA need to form a viable alternative jurisdiction to the ACNA, in which the Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical character of the Anglican Church is maintained. The two groups need to network with each other to encourage, help, and support each other and to further their common goals.

As the Chinese proverb tell us, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. It is time to take that first step. The door is open and the path lies ahead. Let us not linger inside the doorway but step resolutely through it, and begin the journey. As Paul wrote Timothy, “…God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind…” (2 Timothy 1:7 NKJV). Let step forward boldly into the bright sunshine of a new day.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2009/12/30/bible-reading-plans-2/

[The Gospel Coalition] 30 Dec 2009--Crossway makes available about 10 Bible reading plans. That link allows you to access them in a number of ways.

Here’s an overview of a few plans (some from Crossway, some from elsewhere).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6970934.ece

[Times Online] 30 Dec 2009--Traditionalists are up in arms after a diary manufacturer dropped a series of historic names for the Sundays before Lent.

The Prayer Book Society, whose patron is the Prince of Wales, has called for a boycott of Letts’ diaries, which have replaced Septuagesima, Sexagesima, Quinquagesima and Quadragesima with the appropriate number of “Sundays before Lent”.

Like Ash Wednesday, these are moveable feasts in the Anglican year. The Roman Catholic Church eliminated the terms in the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s.

The society has accused Letts of throwing out centuries of tradition by dropping the names. Its members are also alarmed that the number of Sundays “after Easter” has been replaced with “of Easter”.

http://www.challengeonline.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=236

[The Christian Challenge] 30 Dec 2009--Editor's Note: To read this article, scroll down to the center of the page.

Introduction

There were three major traditionalist/conservative reactions to the 1976 General Convention of The Episcopal Church (TEC)* in Minneapolis, or, more specifically, to its approval of women priests and bishops and of the first reading of a new Prayer Book (a more radical break with its predecessors than in past such cases). The first was to go to Rome, the second was to stay within TEC and fight these new innovations from there, and the third was to leave and form a new and more orthodox “continuing” body. These three approaches are still being used and thus are relevant today.

Those of the Roman orientation had produced a Pro-Diocese of St. Augustine of Canterbury by 1978, which was a non-starter. But they found some welcome via the Roman Church’s 1980 Pastoral Provision, under which they founded six “Anglican Use” Roman Catholic parishes by 1983; there are nine now.

The “stay within” crowd was found in the Evangelical Catholic Mission (ECM), which then became the Episcopal Synod of America (ESA), and then the (present-day) Forward in Faith, North America (FIF-NA). They continue to work within TEC but now more and more in the new Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), formed in 2008-09 in opposition to the homosexual agenda but still tolerating women priests (but not bishops) and the 1979 Prayer Book.

Most of those leaving as a body following the ‘76 convention did so after a September 1977 Congress in St. Louis had given them a theological document, The Affirmation of St. Louis, which declared the existence of a new body – interestingly also called the Anglican Church in North America! - and after that body proceeded to organize new dioceses whose bishops-elect were consecrated in Denver in January 1978. A constitution and canons also were developed at the Dallas 1978 First Synod of what was the Anglican Church in North America going into the meeting and the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) coming out of it. The problems of this body and those related to it, which have split and re-split and ingested new elements since 1978 and which we shall call “the Continuum,” will be the focus of this paper.

One of these (widely-defined) Continuum elements, the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) – an international fellowship that includes among its 15 provinces the Anglican Church in America (ACA) and the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (ACCC) - should be noted here for following all three courses of action at the same time. Stemming from the original ACC in part, the TAC follows the separate organization approach. But in 2002 it also entered into communion with the “stay within” FIF-NA (which did, however, ratify The Affirmation of St. Louis the same year) and - without rescinding this agreement - petitioned Rome for some sort of mutual recognition in 2007. (It still has received no definitive reply.)

Another manifestation provides continuity and a sort of baseline for the post-1976 Continuum against which the rest might be related. It consists, first of all, of the late James O. Mote, the first bishop elected by the Continuum, and his parish, St. Mary’s, Denver, the first congregation to leave TEC after the ‘76 General Convention; it is still the cathedral of the Diocese of the Holy Trinity, a founding part of what became the Anglican Catholic Church. When I visited this parish in the 1960s, incidentally, I found it the most spiritually active that I had ever witnessed; and the ACC’s Trinitarian notes that it still has three Masses daily!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/25/AR2009122501711.html

[The Washington Post] 26 Dec 2009--It's been a good year for the Rev. J.I. Packer, one of the world's best-known theologians. In March, the Anglican priest and Regent College professor won Bible of the Year and Book of the Year honors for editing the English Standard Version Study Bible. He also released two of his own books -- "Praying: Finding Our Way Through Duty to Delight" and a year-long devotional using his seminal work, "Knowing God."

Packer, listed as one of Time magazine's "25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America" in 2005, sat down with the Bee of Modesto, Calif., at the Christian Book Expo in Dallas this year to talk on a wide range of subjects, from growing up in England to C.S. Lewis's impact on his life to becoming embroiled in the Anglican/Episcopal dispute. Here's what he had to say....

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/life/daytoday/why_i_am_a_calvinist_and_you_should_be_too/

[sydneyanglicans] 26 Dec 2009--In love He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will, to the praise of His glorious grace… (Ephesians 1:4-6)

Like all the most fervent Calvinists, I began my spiritual life with a profound hatred for the doctrines linked to his name. But the Spirit, inexorably it seems, subdued my will to the plain teaching of Scripture - that God is sovereign over this world, and that He chooses those whom He will save, according to His own good pleasure and grace.

As a young Christian I was captivated by the message of the cross, and many other doctrines of Christianity too. But predestination seemed a hateful thing to me, an ugly blot on an otherwise beautiful landscape. I believed in free will - more, I believed in the absolute sovereignty of the human will. Though a Christian, a part of me still wanted to be “captain of my fate” and “master of my soul”.

Actually, I was not comfortable with God’s sovereignty over anything at all. The idea that God was the author of history was alien to me. I was content with Him sticking His fingers into the mix every now and again, but I rejected the idea that He ran the whole show.

How blind I was! I knew full well at the time that I was struggling to put to death numerous sins of the flesh. But it never occurred to me that my mind, also, was inclined to rebel against the will of God, and that it too might have patterns and habits that would painfully clash with the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

My resistance to the idea of predestination was just such a clash. My rebellion against “Calvinism” (as these doctrines of grace are commonly called) was really a rebellion against God; it was a desire to “hold out” on Him, and reserve one final piece of myself for myself. Looking back, I’m struck by how immature my thinking was - I was like a child, stubbornly insisting on my own way.

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/news/communion/the_saints_go_marching_in/

[sydneyanglicans.net] 26 Dec 2009--The world held its breath for Pope Benedict XVI to declare Mary MacKillop to be in line for sainthood over last weekend. The technical term in the Roman Catholic Church is canonisation, the culmination of a three-step process. The first step is to determine whether the person’s life possesses “heroic virtue”. Once so determined, the title Venerable is applied (as is now the case for the late Pope John Paul II). In Mary MacKillop’s case she became Venerable in 1992. Then follows the search for attestation of a miracle. Once confirmed the subject is beatified and the Venerable becomes Blessed. Again this happened for Mary MacKillop in 1995. The final step to sainthood is the attestation of a second miracle. This was the Pope’s recent announcement, which enables Mary MacKillop to be canonised and receive the title of Saint.

Now no one wishes to belittle Mary MacKillop’s achievement in Australia—the founding of a religious order and her work among the poor with the establishment of an orphanage, a women’s refuge and a home for older women. Those achievements can be celebrated at home and abroad and no-one should complain. It is not the woman but the theology behind this move with which Anglicans would disagree. Firstly, to award such a person with sainthood for these achievements and two alleged miracles is to misunderstand what the Bible describes as the qualifications of a saint.

Put simply, anyone whose sins have been forgiven by God, through faith in Jesus Christ, is a saint. Through God’s Holy Spirit, faith in Jesus makes us whole, indeed “holy”. It is not the achievements of a person’s life, but rather the gift of God through Christ, that makes us saints. Anyone looking at the letters of the Saint Paul can see how he writes to ordinary Christians as “saints”. It is not some rarefied title, but the humbling appellation that reminds us we belong to God and in his sight we are “holy”.

Nollaig faoi shean is faoi mhaise duit, a prosperous and enjoyable Christmas.

May God fill your hearts and homes with joy and peace this Christmastide, and may blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit be upon you and your loved ones, and remain with you always. Amen.

http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2009/12/the-new-season-the-emerging-shape-of-anglican-mission/

[The Anglican Communion Institute] 23 Dec 2009--Advent now shifts into the manifestation of God’s good will in the Nativity feast. So too the church takes its self-scrutiny and penitence, and turns in hope to the gift of God’s own and new life among us.

The final text of the Anglican Covenant has now been sent out for adoption by the churches of the Communion. The slow process by which this text and its official dissemination for action has occurred has frustrated some, yet its persistent progress forward to this point at last puts the lie to the naysayers and early eulogists of the Covenant’s purpose. Joined to the restarting of the Anglican-Roman Catholic international dialogue, to be focused on substantive matters of ecclesiology and moral decision-making, what seemed merely slow now appears to be the visible sign of a tectonic shift in global Anglicanism and Christianity itself. It is one in which the Episcopal Church in the United States has placed itself on the far side of a widening channel separating the ballast of Christian witness, Catholic and Pentecostal, from marginal spin-offs of liberal Protestantism in decline.

And so some stock-taking is in order. I would like to speak as honestly as I can about the Episcopal Church, of which I am and remain a member, as we enter this new decade. The purpose of doing so is not to provoke response or to encourage reactive apathy. Honesty is necessary, simply and straightforwardly, for anyone who seeks God’s will, and surely that is all of us, and especially those of us who are Anglicans in America and in the Episcopal Church.

http://www.icm-online.ie/resources/articles/68-anglicanism-a-protestant-and-reformed-confession.html

[Irish Church Missions] 14 Dec 2009--In his book, Richard Hooker and the Authority of Scripture, Tradition and Reason (Paternoster, 1997), Nigel Atkinson demonstrates that Richard Hooker (1554-1600), regarded by Anglicans as one of its foremost theologians, was not someone who believed that the doctrine and teaching of the Church of England was a via media between the teachings of Roman Catholicism and the Reformed teachings of Geneva. Indeed, Atkinson demonstrates that Hooker was as convinced of the Reformed doctrines of the Reformation as his Puritan opponents. This is important in that many today, following in the footsteps of John Henry Newman and John Keble, who represented the High Church Oxford Movement in the 19th century, still mistakenly believe that Anglican doctrine is a half-way house between Rome and Geneva. Though the views espoused by the Oxford Movement and kept alive in the High Church tradition are regarded by many as normative Anglicanism, the historical truth is that these views are alien intruders into the classical Anglicanism that arose in the sixteenth century. If we want to discover the definitive characteristic of Anglicanism in terms of its doctrine and teaching, then we must go back beyond the Oxford movement of the nineteenth century to the title deeds of Anglicanism that were written by the Reformers in the sixteenth century.

Commenting on this foundational period within Anglicanism, Canadian Anglican, Dyson Hague, in his book Through the Prayer Book (London, 1932) writes:

‘England’s church arose at the Reformation from the deadly sleep of mediaevalism with two books – the Bible and the Prayer Book…The Church of England was not born at the Reformation…but it was born again….It was the old church with new life. It stood then and it has stood ever since with two books: one, the secret of its transformation, the Bible; the other, the expression and exponent of its re-formation, the Prayer Book.’

"The title of this work explains its object. It is to demonstrate the essential Protestantism of the Book of Common Prayer, and to give to loyal Churchmen a
series of reasons for their honest attachment to the Church of England. The word Protestant is a term of which no Churchman should be ashamed ; and he who sneers at her Protestantism, may well he suspected of disloyalty to the Church. No one can read the history of the Reformation without recognizing the fact that the Church of England is nothing if not Protestant. Not only her Articles, but all the services of the Prayer Book were drawn up by Protestants in the true sense, and intended for the establishment of Protestantism. While we rejoice in the catholicity of the Church of England, and recognize with gladness the fact that she is a true branch of the one holy catholic Church, which she herself has defined to be the blessed company of all faithful people, we also know that her very being is essentially and continuously a living protest against the falsities of Rome, and not only that, but against all
forms of error, practical and doctrinal, Unitarian, Socinian, Pelagian, Arian.

The Church is Protestant, not merely in that she presents a powerful disclaimer both in her Articles and liturgy against the perversions of Popery, but Protestant equally in her standing protest against other forms of error which, by negation or subtraction, have perverted the truth. It is, however, in the sense of protest against Romanism, or Popery, Roman corruptions in doctrine, and Romish trivialties in ritual, that that word Protestant is mainly employed in this work."

With these words Dyson Hague begins the Introduction to his classic work on the Book of Common Prayer, The Protestantism of the Prayer Book, first published in 1890. The Protestantism of the Prayer Book is available on the Internet in PDF format at http://www.archive.org/details/cihm_05141 .

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200006/ai_n8926029/

[The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society] 14 Dec 2009--The author of this book is the dean of the Cathedral Church of the Advent (Episcopal) in Birmingham, Alabama. He argues convincingly that Anglicanism rests historically within the Protestant and Reformed tradition of Christianity, admitting that it has often appeared more Apostolic and Catholic. This two-sided face of the church stems from the period of Queen Elizabeth I and remains still today. The main issue the author wishes to resolve is whether Anglicanism presents an antithesis between these two views or a synthesis, a via media or "third way." He believes the third way approach sells short the Anglican church, despite the fact that it is the prevailing view of many defining it today.

The English Reformation (like the European) was a change in religious conviction based on the affirmation that justification is by grace through faith. Like Luther, the early English reformers held that the believer was able to love God freely because one was declared righteous and forgiven by God's decree. The English Reformation was more than a change of form from papal to monarchical; it was one also of substance, lasting one hundred seventy years (1520-1690). It resulted in a Protestant Reformed church and nation.

Why then is Anglicanism today not squarely identified with Protestantism but instead as a church of the via media? The author provides six reasons: (1) the difficulty of distinguishing Puritan dissent from Protestant Anglican self understanding; (2) the fear of being labeled a Calvinist despite the Calvinistic tone of many of the Thirty-nine Articles; (3) the charge that Protestantism is inflexible, intolerable, too systematic, self-righteous, and moralizing; (4) a popular belief that Anglicanism should be accommodating, unwilling to confront contradiction, and always seeking a "golden mean"; (5) a Catholicizing preference that emphasizes the incarnation over the atonement; and (6) the charge that Protestantism secularizes while Catholicism provides "real" religion. All of these objections leave the Anglican church more with praxis than principle. In addition, the Prayer Book has undergone so many revisions that one cannot turn to it today to settle the issues.

http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/12/07/newsnote-when-gracious-restraint-fails-the-real-anglican-tragedy/

8 Dec 2009--The election of a second openly-homosexual bishop in the Episcopal Church hardly came as a surprise. Given the actions of the church in its General Convention this past summer, the question was clearly not if there would be more openly-gay bishops, but when. The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles answered that question on Saturday, electing the Reverend Mary D. Glasspool of Baltimore as an assistant bishop. She is expected to be consecrated as bishop on May 15 in Los Angeles.

Ms. Glasspool was elected on the seventh ballot, winning 153 clergy votes and 203 lay votes. Her election followed the election of another woman as a fellow assistant bishop for the diocese. More significantly, her election followed the seismic events of 2003, when the Reverend V. Gene Robinson was elected bishop of New Hampshire -- the first openly-homosexual bishop in the entire Anglican world.

Bishop Robinson's election set off a cataclysm in the Anglican Communion. That worldwide body of Anglicans appealed to its American church, the Episcopal Church, to respect the concerns of other churches and to establish a moratorium on the election of openly homosexual persons as bishops and the blessing of same-sex unions.

Anglican churches in the so-called "Global South" responded to the election of Bishop Robinson with outrage and conservatives in the Episcopal Church withdrew, forming the new Anglican Church in North America [ACNA]. Over the past two years, a significant number of churches and dioceses have withdrawn from the Episcopal Church to join the new ACNA or another conservative Anglican body.

Archbishop of Syndey

"The election (yet to be confirmed) of a partnered lesbian as Bishop in the Episcopal Church (TEC) is sad but not surprising.

Confirmation of this election will make clear beyond any doubt whatsoever that the TEC leadership has chosen to walk in a way which is contrary to scripture and will continue to do so.

This settled path that the TEC chooses is contrary to the expressed will of the majority of the Anglican Communion.

Further, it confirms the rightness of GAFCON in producing the Jerusalem Declaration and establishing the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA).

The aim of the FCA is to recognise and give fellowship to those who wish to remain faithful to God’s revealed word and also to defend and promote biblical teaching throughout the Communion.

It is all the more urgent that those who share the aims of the FCA should associate themselves with the movement and express their disapproval of actions which are contrary to scripture and contrary to historic Anglicanism.

Further, this gives the Archbishop of Canterbury every reason to act decisively and dissociate from the Episcopal Church and to recognise the Anglican Church of North America."

Archbishop of Canterbury

"The election of Mary Glasspool by the Diocese of Los Angeles as suffragan bishop elect raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole.

The process of selection however is only part complete. The election has to be confirmed, or could be rejected, by diocesan bishops and diocesan standing committees. That decision will have very important implications.

The bishops of the Communion have collectively acknowledged that a period of gracious restraint in respect of actions which are contrary to the mind of the Communion is necessary if our bonds of mutual affection are to hold."

http://www.evangelicals.org/news.asp?id=1080

[EV News] 7 Dec 2009--Yesterday the Diocese of Los Angeles voted to elect Mary Glasspool as its next Bishop. Glasspool teaches the acceptability of homosexual practice, asserts to be a homosexual and lives with here female 'partner'. The election has to be ratified by the wider episcopal Church but in July the previous moratorium on such people being elected was lifted so ratification looks likely.

This is another clear symptom of a deeper problem, that the majority of episcopalians in the US have abandoned apostolic Christianity. Their new religion puts their own ideas of morality and equality above the Christian belief in faithfulness to the revealed will of God.

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/news/communion/the_blessing_of_god/

[sydneyanglicans.net] 5 Dec 2009--One of the most significant activities of ministers of the gospel is their opportunity to bless people in the name of Christ. Of course the act of blessing is not restricted to ministers, in that every Christian should bless others. They should bless (rather than curse) even their enemies (Luke 6:28) and they should bless God (James 3:9).

The concept of blessing in the mouth of a minister carries with it special weight. In the Old Testament the priests of Aaron’s line had a special blessing for the people (Numbers 6:24-26). Their blessing placed God’s name upon the Israelites and conveyed God’s blessing to them (Numbers 6:27). Thus in our liturgies the blessing of the minister holds a significant place in the life of the people of God. The presbyter is charged at his ordination with the words: “whose sins you forgive they are forgiven; whose sins you retain they are retained.” Of course the minister has no inherent power to forgive sins, any more than he has an inherent power to bless. Rather it is in the office of elder in the church of Christ, a minister of God’s word and sacraments, that authorises him to bless in the name of the triune God. The blessing is no trite mantra, nor a merely human device. It is nothing less than the blessing of God almighty, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/life/daytoday/baptise_those_babies/

[sydneyanglicans.net] 4 Dec 2009--Sometimes I feel like more of an Anglican than the men in white robes (Anglican presbyters I mean, not the KKK). On more than one occasion I’ve heard ordained Anglicans murmer that believers baptism is more biblical than infant baptism, and I’ve even seen some Anglican churches “dedicating” rather than baptising infants.

The baptism debate - troubled waters within Christianity. Plenty of ink has already been spilled over the exegetical arguments, so I don’t plan to revisit those. Instead, I want to draw your attention to a couple of the theological implications of infant baptism, implications which are very practical.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091201/students-feel-closer-to-god-after-high-school-research-shows/index.html

[The Christian Post] 4 Dec 2009--Post-high school years have often been cited as a season when most students struggle in their Christian faith and leave the church. But recent research shows that that might not be the case.Fuller Youth Institute released findings on Tuesday showing that two to three years after finishing high school, students said they were feeling "closer to God."

Over 400 students were asked the open-ended question "Since leaving high school, what’s changed about the way you view God?" Among the 14 different responses given, the top three categories of change were all positive changes.

Feeling closer to God, believing that God is bigger than they once thought, and having a greater understanding that God is with them and for them were the largest categories of responses.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6680422/Traditional-carols-are-nonsense-says-bishop.html

[Telegraph] 4 Dec 2009--Away in a Manger cannot be sung “without embarrassment”, Once in Roy al David’s City is “Victorian behaviour control”; and O Come, All Ye Faithful is misleading, said the Bishop of Croydon, the Rt Rev Nick Baines.

He blamed the much-loved carols for adding to confusion over the season’s real meaning and turning Jesus into a figure as fictitious as Father Christmas.

While others defended the traditional songs as “joyful” and “triumphant”, the bishop complained that the carols have contributed to the story of Christ’s birth being seen “as just one more story alongside the panto and fairy stories”.

In a new book published by the Church of England, Why Wish You a Merry Christmas, the bishop argues that carols encourage images of Christmas that have more to do with Victorian sentiment than the Biblical account of Christ’s birth.

By Robin G. Jordan

I combed through Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today, the GAFCON Theological Group’s exposition of the Jerusalem Declaration, and I found no mention of “apostolic succession” in the Catholic sense of the transmission of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit (including the power to transform bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood, to give the water in the font the power to regenerate, to absolve sins, and to confirm and ordain) through the laying-on-of the hands of a bishop in a personal line of succession that can be traced back to the apostles.

I did come across the following passages that appear to preclude this particular doctrine. The first is taken from the GAFCON Theological Group’s exposition of Clause 3: The rule of faith:

“The Church is apostolic because it rests on the foundation of the apostolic witness to Christ. The teaching of the apostles of Christ is the treasure of the Church which shapes its life and witness.” [p. 34]

The second is taken from their exposition of Clause 4: The doctrine of the Church:

“The Holy Spirit empowers the church to serve its Lord, Jesus Christ, and equip it to participate in Christ’s own mission. The Holy Spirit convicts people of sin, empowers them for service, comforts them and reveals God’s truth to them. The particular work of the Holy Spirit can be seen gloriously in the history of revivals, charismatic renewal and mission in many parts of the world. The work of the Holy Spirit in the church does not imply that he is subject to the institution of the church, nor that he is a possession of a particular part of the church (my emphasis). The Holy Spirit is greater than the church, and is at work in the world, directing people to Jesus (John 16:13-15). On more than one occasion the New Testament speaks of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Jesus (Acts 16:7; Romans 8:9).” [p. 37]

The third is also taken from the GAFCON Theological Group’s exposition of Clause 4:

“We are apostolic because our life together is founded on the faith of the apostles, and we are called, like them, to go into the world with the good news of Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18-20).” [p. 39]

The following is the GAFCON Theological Group’s exposition of Clause 7: Clerical orders.

“1. What do we mean by ‘ministry’ in the church?

“We affirm that Christ himself is the chief minister and source of all ministry within the Church. He is the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls (I Peter 2:25). He called a people to himself, instituted the sacraments and gave the Church authority and mission, orientation and goal. He exemplified and defined ministry as service in his teaching (Mark 10:45) and by taking a towel to wash the feet of his disciples (John 13:4-5). Christian ministry is not the sole possession, nor the sole responsibility of those who have been ordained. Ordained ministry is set in the context of the ministry of all believers.

“We affirm lay ministry, not only in a clearly ecclesiastical context, such as the ministry of Readers, teachers, and evangelists, but also the ministry which takes place in the workplace and the local community. In fact ministry is the service of God that is undertaken every hour of every day. There is a priesthood of all believers inasmuch as we all have direct access to God through Jesus Christ, and we are all called to witness, to evangelise, and to serve him in all our activities.

“It is the task of ordained ministers ‘to prepare God’s people for the works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up’ (Ephesians 4:12). The gifts distributed by the Holy Spirit to each member of the body are to be used ‘for the common good’ (I Corinthians 12:7). It is by working together, proclaiming Christ and living as his faithful and loving disciples, that the various orders of ministry function properly.

“2. What do we understand about the ordained ministry?

“Before and after his resurrection, Jesus Christ provided for the care and nourishment of his Church by giving his word to his apostles (Matthew 28:18-20; John 17:20) and then, on the day of Pentecost, by pouring out his Spirit (John 14:15-17; Acts 2:32-33). From the earliest days of the Christian Church, it has been a vital concern to recognise those whom God has called and gifted to serve and lead his people (Acts 6:1-7; 13:1-3).

“The historic threefold order of bishop, priest (or presbyter) and deacon is a particular expression of these New Testament concerns. This order became widespread in the early years of the Christian Church and was retained at the time of the English Reformation; it is still the pattern to which Anglicans are committed, in obedience to Scripture and out of respect for history.

“The Anglican Ordinal (which has been bound within the Book of Common Prayer since 1552) sets out the qualities and responsibilities of each of these orders of ministry, and provides a form of recognition that those so ordained are called and gifted by God. It reminds all bishops, priests and deacons that those they serve are the precious body of Christ, and they are responsible to him for the faithful discharge of their ministry.

“Bishops are called to be the chief pastor in their diocese, to teach the Christian faith, to banish error, to live a godly life and be gentle with the flock, properly to administer the sacraments, and to lead in mission. Bishops uniquely are to ordain and send out others in ordained ministry.

“Priests are called to be ‘messengers, watchmen, and stewards of the Lord: to teach and to premonish, to feed and provide for the Lord’s family; to seek for Christ’s sheep that are dispersed abroad, and for his children who are in the midst of this naughty world, that they may be saved through Christ for ever.’

“Deacons are called to serve and assist the Church’s ministry.

“Each minister is to provide an example of Christian living to other people. And, since ministry is a precious gift, each minister is accountable for it. There is a rightful dignity to the ordained ministry, but this is never merely a human pride. It is the dignity of the cross-bearing servant, faithfully following the master.

“Ordained ministers are always and only ministers of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (my emphasis). This gospel is entrusted to them (I Timothy 1:12-14), and they are accountable to the Lord for their faithfulness to it. We acknowledge, as a part of our Anglican heritage, that no ordained minister is beyond accountability within the body of the church. In extreme cases, where, for example, there are clear breaches of the requirements of the Ordinal, the person concerned, though ordained or consecrated, forfeits the rights and dignity of the office which has been entrusted to that person. Nevertheless, it must be stressed that such a verdict may not be reached quickly, lightly or without considerable prayerful thought and widespread consultation.” [pp. 48-50]

I do not see in this commentary any suggestions of a Catholic view of apostolic succession, ordination, and the sacraments. On the other hand, it is consistent with how evangelicals in the Anglican Church have historically viewed ordained ministry.

The UK Anglo-Catholics for the most part did not attend GAFCON. The US Anglo-Catholics who did attend the conference returned home, complaining that the Jerusalem Declaration was too evangelical in its theological content. They had sought to make the declaration more Catholic in its doctrine and had been thwarted in their efforts. The dissatisfaction of US Anglo-Catholics with the Jerusalem Declaration, as I have stated elsewhere, prompted the former Episcopal, now Anglican Bishop of Fort Worth Jack Iker to reassure those in the ACNA that the Common Cause Theological Statement, not the Jerusalem Declaration, would determine the direction of the ACNA. The Common Cause Theological Statement accommodates Anglo-Catholics on a number of key issues—Holy Scripture, the ecumenical Councils, bishops, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Thirty-Nine Articles. At the ACNA Provincial Council meeting that preceded the inaugural ACNA Provincial Assembly that ratified the proposed ACNA constitution and canons including a modified version of the Common Cause Theological Statement, the Anglo-Catholic members of the ACNA Provincial Council opposed any changes in the language of that modified version of the Common Cause Theological Statement that would have made it more acceptable to evangelicals. They claimed such alterations would lead to the unraveling of the fragile détente between Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals in the ACNA. It was on Bishop Iker’s motion that the ACNA Provincial Assembly voted to accept the modified version of the Common Cause Theological Statement with only one slight change. It altered the numbering of the clauses in the theological statement to reflect the removal of the affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration from Article I of the ACNA constitution and its placement in the Preface to that constitution.

In the Jerusalem Declaration the signatories of that declaration emphatically announce that its fourteen clauses are the tenets, or doctrines, underpinning Anglican identity. In its constitution, however, the ACNA relegates its affirmation of the Jerusalem Declaration to the to the introductory remarks prefixed to that document, giving it only a token place in the ACNA. It identifies as “characteristic of the Anglican Way and essential for membership” in the ACNA the “seven elements” in the modified version of the Common Cause Theological Statement incorporated into its constitution. As Bishop Iker observed in the same interview in which he reassured Anglo-Catholics in the ACNA that the Common Cause Theological Statement would be determining the direction of the ACNA, the Common Cause Theological Statement differs in wording and emphasis from the Jerusalem Declaration. Bishop Iker dismissed these differences as “slight” but a comparison of the two documents shows that he in so characterizing the differences is indulging in understatement and minimizing the substantial differences between the documents.

More recently, Philip Ashey, the chief executive officer of the American Anglican Council, announced that the AAC is forming a North American chapter of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and this chapter would be a “ministry partner” of the ACNA. Under the provisions of the ACNA canons to be a ministry partner of the ACNA, an organization must subscribe without reservation to the “seven elements” of the modified version of the Common Cause Theological Statement incorporated in the ACNA constitution. The Rev. Ashey also presented a vision of the North American FCA chapter that is quite different from the vision of the Global Anglican Future Statement for that organization. Instead of functioning as an independent “renewal movement” in the Anglican ecclesial bodies in North America, in the ACNA and the Continuing Anglican Churches, as well as the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church, in the vision that the Rev. Ashey articulated, the FCA in North America would be ancillary to the ACNA and would carry out its objectives.

While the ACNA may have been formed in response to the GAFCON call for a new province in North America to uphold orthodox faith and practice, there appears to be a real disconnect between the ACNA and GAFCON, in terms of doctrine and vision of the role of the FCA. The GAFCON Primates have recognized the ACNA as “genuinely Anglican” and a number of Anglican ecclesiastic organizations involved in GAFCON and the FCA have followed suit. But what is troublesome to people like myself is how they can extend such recognition to the ACNA when it is evident that a substantial part of the ACNA does not accept the Jerusalem Declaration’s view of what underpins Anglican identity and rejects the Global Anglican Future Statement’s vision of the FCA.

One possible explanation is that they are choosing to give the ACNA the benefit of the doubt and to apply the principle of charitable assumption in hopes that such generosity will encourage the ACNA to move closer to the positions articulated in the Jerusalem Declaration and the Global Anglican Future Statement. But this is like rewarding a child for only partially completing a task when the goal for the child to complete the task. Having been rewarded for doing the task in part, the child will have no incentive to finish it.

Another explanation that is in circulation is that the GAFCON Primates and those involved in GAFCON and the FCA have no other choice but to extend their recognition to the ACNA since denying that recognition would play into the hands of the liberals in the Anglican Church of Canada, The Episcopal Church and other provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion. While there may be some truth to this view, unqualified recognition of the ACNA takes away any incentive on the part of the ACNA to change the doctrinal positions adopted in its constitution and canons. It conveys the message to those within the ACNA that these positions are acceptable. Should the Church of England’s House of Bishops and subsequently its General Synod recognize the ACNA and call for its admission as the thirty-ninth province of the Anglican Communion, as GAFCON and FCA supporters are urging, the C of E Bishops and General Synod will eliminate any motivation on the part of the ACNA to move closer to the Jerusalem Declaration and the Global Anglican Future Statement’s vision for the FCA.

There are also those within the ACNA, as well as outside that ecclesial body, who are prepared to spin such unqualified recognition as unqualified acceptance of the ACNA doctrinal positions. This may not accurately represent the position of those extending recognition to the ACNA but it is open to that interpretation. A number of Anglican leaders associated with GAFCON and the FCA have privately expressed reservations about the ACNA but have not gone on record, in part out of desire to maintain a united front against the liberal element in the Anglican Communion and in part out of fear that their public statements might be used to harm the movement to establish a new province in North America to uphold orthodox faith and practice. Their reticence, however, also creates the false impression that they accept the present direction of the ACNA.

A third explanation is that the supporters of GAFCON and the FCA outside of North America who have extended recognition to the ACNA naively believe that the ACNA actually accepts the tenets set forth in the Jerusalem Declaration and the vision of the FCA articulated in the Global Anglican Future Statement. They are not sufficiently informed about the real situation in the ACNA or dismiss any information that does not support how they wish to perceive the ACNA. This explanation is certainly applicable to a large segment of the ACNA.

In all likelihood all three explanation apply. In any event unqualified recognition of the ACNA is contributing to the persistence of an undesirable situation in the ACNA.

To rectify this situation, the following plan of action commends itself.

First, GAFCON and FCA supporters outside of North America need to thoroughly investigate conditions within the ACNA and to qualify their recognition of the ACNA, affirming the ACNA where it does adhere to the tenets of the Jerusalem Declaration and the Global Anglican Future Statement’s vision for the FCA and calling for change where it does not. They also need to issue periodic reports on the progress of the ACNA toward greater adherence to the Jerusalem Declaration and the Global Anglican Future Statement’s vision for the FCA.

Second, Anglicans and Episcopalians in Canada and the United States joining the FCA need to establish a FCA chapter in North America that is independent of the AAC and the ACNA and any other Anglican ecclesiastical organization or ecclesial body in their part of the North American continent. The FCA in North America will not fulfill the vision of the FCA as a renewal movement articulated in the Global Anglican Future Statement if it is tied to any existing organization or body and subordinated to its purposes.

Third, a credible alternative to the ACNA needs to be launched in North America in response to the GAFCON call for the formation of a new province to uphold orthodox faith and practice. As the only horse in the race the ACNA can amble along as it pleases. A second horse in the running, which more closely adheres to the tenets of the Jerusalem Declaration and more fully embraces the Global Anglican Future Statement’s vision of the FCA, would draw attention to the ACNA’s failings in these two areas as well as its other shortcomings. It would raise doubts as to whether the ACNA is truly representative of all North American Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice. It would provide some motivation for the ACNA to move closer to the Jerusalem Declaration and the Global Anglican Future Statement’s vision for the FCA or drop out of the race.

Fourth, within the ACNA itself a movement is needed to bring the ACNA into greater conformity with the Jerusalem Declaration and the Global Anglican Future Statement’s vision of the FCA at all levels. Congregations and dioceses or other groupings need not only to incorporate the Jerusalem Declaration into their doctrinal statements along with the Thirty-Nine Articles but also in practice to conform to their teaching. They need to adopt the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and liturgical services in contemporary English based upon the 1662 Prayer Book and discontinue their use of the 1928 Prayer Book, the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book, any contemporary English liturgical services based upon these two service books, the 1979 Prayer Book, and the 1985 Canadian Book of Alternative Services. They need to join with Anglicans and Episcopalians outside the ACNA in establishing an independent FCA.

http://markdthompson.blogspot.com/2009/11/articles-once-more.html

[Theological Theology] 23 Nov 2009--The Thirty-nine Articles provide the only secure anchor for an authentic Anglican identity. This is after all the foundational doctrinal statement of the reformed church of England, drafted by the reforming bishops, endorsed by the lay members of the church in parliament, and situated as the touchstone of Anglican theology and practice ever since. Whatever other categories, principles or documents may be presented as integral to the heart of Anglicanism, the simple fact is that the Articles tell Anglicans who they are.

The Articles were never intended to be exhaustive. They are not a comprehensive systematic theology, an Anglican answer to Calvin's Institutes or Melanchthon's Loci Communes. Nevertheless, they do provide the contours of Anglican polity, Anglican practice, and the Anglican commitment to biblical doctrine. They do not claim to be the final authority — that final authority was and is Scripture itself, the word of God written (Article 20) — but they do have a subsidiary authority. Insofar as they are in fact a faithful expression of biblical truth, they rightfully test all contemporary claims to the Anglican inheritance.

One of the freshest and most exciting developments in recent Anglican theology is a return to a serious and respectful study of the Articles. A number of studies have been published in the past few years and are about to be published over the next year or so, all of which seek to expound the doctrine of the Articles as a powerful force in the renewal of Anglican identity worldwide. The Articles do not present us with a moribund theology, one bound irretrievably to discredited epistemological and ontological commitments. Here is a lively confession of trust in Christ which still has the capacity to challenge us to greater fidelity to God's self-revelation in Christ and through the inspired Scriptures. Here is an antidote to fearful, sloppy thinking. The failure of courage that has characterised so much Anglican theology in the last two centuries — as one conviction after another has been surrendered in the doomed attempt to win favour with the world around us — need not determine the future. The 39 Articles are once again the cutting edge!

However, not all references to the 39 Articles today take them seriously on their own terms. Current attempts to revive Newman's interpretation of the Articles lack integrity today just as they did in Newman's time (even he could not sustain it in the long run). Attempts to read an Arminian theology into them, when plainly this is at best anachronistic and at worst a reading of them that is determinedly 'against the grain', must also fail. The suggestion that they are an historical document locked into the debates and concerns of the sixteenth century but without any real relevance to the twenty-first, fails to account for (1) the express intent of the authors; (2) the reaffirmation of the Articles in 1662, one hundred and ten years after they were drafted, when very different circumstances prevailed. The current Archbishop of Canterbury, who at one time assented to the Articles at his own ordination, has recently stated that the differences between Rome and the Anglican Communion — even the controversial ones such women's ordination and the acceptance of homosexuality — are merely secondary matters that ought not delay continued ecumenical advance, simply reaffirms his highly intelligent muddle-headedness.

Are the Articles open to revision? In principle the answer must be 'yes', since they claim to be completely dependent for their authority on the teaching of Scripture. If it can be shown that at one point or other they contradict the teaching of Scripture, then the Articles must give way to Scripture. But the Articles must not be bent to any contemporary ecclesiastical, political or social agenda. They stand over against contemporary theologizing as a check on our hubris and idiosyncracies and as a challenge to our own blind spots. It would need an extraordinary consensus, and a clear demonstration that the changes were drawing us closer to the teaching of Scripture and not further from it, if there was any any substantial revision today.

What is more, as legal argument in the nineteenth century established beyond doubt, the Articles interpret the Book of Common Prayer and not the other way around. Liturgical practice must flow out of theological conviction, not vice versa. Some of the official pronouncements from such bodies as the highly politicised Anglican Communion Office continue to peddle the argument that our theology is derived from the Book of Common Prayer or from the Ordinal. Of course these too are our foundational documents, alongside the 39 Articles. But each of these has a particular function, and the doctrinal standard is the 39 Articles. A failure to recognise this has brought in its wake a host of problems.

The need of the moment is for the obfuscation of the establishment to be replaced by the clarity, boldness and rich edification of Anglicanism's foundational doctrinal statement. This can only result in the future health of this ailing denomination, as Christ crucified, risen and regnant takes his proper place amongst us, which will always be demonstrated by a thoroughgoing submission to the word by which he rules.

http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2009/11/anglicans-anglicants-and-anglicuckoos.html

[The Ugley Vicar] 20 Nov 2009--There is a moment in the otherwise-dire Once Upon a Time in Mexico, where Johnny Depp’s character asks a henchman, “Are you a Mexican, or a Mexican’t?”

I want to steal that idea to say how tired I am of the Anglican’t. You know the kind — the member of the Church of England (often one of the clergy) who hasn’t got a good word to say about it. Bishops are useless, Archdeacons execrable, the parish system an obstacle to gospel ministry, the parish quota an imposition, the priesthood unspeakable, the sacraments unnecessary, the Prayer Book a relic and modern liturgy a waste of space.

Now of course, there are many things wrong with some, if not all, of the above. But oddly enough, when you go to other parts of the Anglican Communion than our own, they have the same structures yet they are growing healthy churches in expanding dioceses.

I said to someone just the other day, it is rather like comparing armies. They all have footsoldiers and generals. They all have a bit of gold braid and a bit of ‘square bashing’ — but they vary hugely in their effectiveness and performance. The key is not having generals or getting rid of lance-corporals. It is in what you do with these things.

In the same way, such problems as the Church of England has are not because of bishops, parish boundaries, or any of the other things per se about which Anglican’ts complain.

So enough with the constant whingeing. If you think its that bad, why not go somewhere else? There are other boats, and there are plenty of fish out there to catch. And hey, it might actually be more fun.

But then we come to the Anglicuckoos.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6607984/Archbishop-of-Canterbury-claims-differences-between-Anglicans-and-Roman-Catholics-are-not-that-great.html

[Telegraph] 19Nov 2009--Dr Rowan Williams challenged Catholic doctrine by claiming that even the dispute over whether women can be priests should not be a serious dividing issue between the two major Christian denominations.

He held up the Anglican Communion, which has been driven to the brink of collapse over homosexuality in recent years, as an example of how a family of churches can remain connected despite the differences between them.

The archbishop made his provocative comments at the Gregorian University in Rome, at a meeting to celebrate the centenary of Cardinal Willebrands, a former president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

It is Dr Williams’s first trip to Rome since the Vatican’s surprise announcement of a new way for groups of Anglicans disaffected by the liberal direction of the church to convert to Catholicism.

He will meet Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday to discuss the implications of the creation of Personal Ordinariates, which could see hundreds of thousands worldwide enter into full communion with Rome while retaining parts of their former Anglican heritage.

Dr Williams, who had no part in the development in the scheme and was only given two weeks’ notice of its announcement, described it as “the elephant in the room” during his address on Thursday afternoon.

He admitted it represented an “imaginative pastoral response to the needs of some” but insisted it did not “break any fresh ecclesiological ground”.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091118/can-the-church-beat-starbucks/index.html

[Christian Post] 19 Nov 2009--It used to be an easy decision. You go to church on Sunday mornings and save the coffee shop for Tuesday night small group. But things are not so clear anymore. Indeed, over the last several years the church and Starbucks have increasingly moved into each other’s territory. And this leads to the question: will the church go the way of the UK’s Coffee Republic and other bankrupted chains, or will it win out against the titan from Seattle?

Starbucks’ move into the church’s territory began in the mid-nineties when the decision was made to market Starbucks as the so-called “third place” between home and work: the place to be yourself and reassert your identity in community. Unfortunately this brought it into inevitable conflict with the church which had long been vying for the coveted status of third place.

As Starbucks moved into direct competition with the church, it intentionally began to market its products as part of a total experience which could imbue meaning and purpose into the dismal lives of the weary suburbanite. This is how Howard Schultz (Starbucks CEO) put it: “In the ethical vacuum of this era, people long to be inspired. […] When five million people a week seek out a Starbucks store and wait in line for an espresso drink, when customers return several times each week, they’re not just coming for the coffee. They’re coming for the feeling they get when they’re there.”

Coffee as a way to fill an “ethical vacuum”? Clearly this spelt danger for the church which was also in the business of filling ethical vacuums, but had nothing more interesting than tepid coffee and bland pasta dinners (the latter only on the condition that you agree to watch an Alpha course video).

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091118/boys-wearing-skirts-to-school-what-s-going-on/index.html

[The Christian Post] 19 Nov 2009--"Clothes are never a frivolity -- they always mean something." Thus spoke James Laver, a famous costume designer and interpreter of fashion. He is right, of course. Clothes always mean something, which is why The New York Times gave major attention to an issue facing many schools: "Can a Boy Wear a Skirt to School?"

The article, right on the front of the "Sunday Styles" section of the paper, announced, "When gender bends the dress code, high schools struggle to respond." The story reveals a confusion over gender that goes far beyond the dress code.

As Jan Hoffman reports, high schools generally have very specific rules about clothing these days. Boys are forbidden to wear muscle shirts and saggy pants, and girls cannot wear midriff-exposing tops or skirts that are too short. But what happens when a boy wants to wear a skirt?

"In recent years, a growing number of teenagers have been dressing to articulate - or confound - gender identity and sexual orientation," Hoffman reports. "Certainly they have been confounding school officials, whose responses have ranged from indifference to applause to bans."

This is no longer an issue limited to isolated examples. Districts across the country have reported teens who have attempted to cross the gender line in dress. Many of these cases have captured media attention, with highly publicized controversies. In other cases, the challenges have been more quiet.

The cases are, to say the least, both interesting and troubling. Boys are making news for wearing skinny jeans, makeup, wigs, and skirts. Girls are bending gender in their own way by, for example, wearing a tuxedo for the school picture or to a school event.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2009/11/18/an-interview-with-gerald-bray-what-questions-should-we-ask-of-a-biblical-text/

[Between Two Worlds] 19 Nov 2009--Gerald Bray is Research Professor at Beeson Divinity School at Samford University, and director of research for the Latimer Trust. This fall he is Scholar in Residence at Union University. He has taught theology for 30 years, is the author of numerous books, and is the editor of IVP’s Contours of Christian Theology series, penning its inaugural volume on The Doctrine of God. He is also the other of a large volume introducing the history of Biblical Interpretation. (Just to give you a sense of his learning and global interests, he is fluent in French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Greek and Russian.)

He’s graciously answered a few questions for us on the basic questions to ask when interpreting Scripture.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gtibIsQjU1z-o7OWqKZkEbcUA5sgD9C26M5G0

[The Associated Press] 19 Nov 2009--The split over gay clergy within the country's largest Lutheran denomination has prompted a conservative faction to begin forming a new Lutheran church body separate from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

Leaders of Lutheran CORE said Wednesday that a working group would immediately begin drafting a constitution and taking other steps to form the denomination, with hopes to have it off the ground by next August.

"There are many people within the ELCA who are very unhappy with what has happened," said the Rev. Paull Spring, chairman of Lutheran CORE and a retired ELCA bishop from State College, Pa.

At its annual convention in Minneapolis in August, ELCA delegates voted to lift a ban that had prohibited sexually active gay and lesbian pastors from serving as clergy. The new policy, expected to take effect in April, will allow such individuals to lead ELCA churches as long as they can show that they are in committed, lifelong relationships.

Opponents, led by Lutheran CORE, said that decision is in direct contradiction to Scripture.

At a September convention, Lutheran CORE members voted to spend a year considering whether to form a new Lutheran denomination. However, its leaders said Wednesday that a heavy volume of requests for an alternative from disenfranchised congregations and churchgoers prompted them to hasten the process.

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/life/culture/scripture_alone_what_it_is_and_what_it_aint/

[sydneyanglicans.net] 19 Nov 2009--One of the greatest and most enduring slogans of the Reformation is sola scriptura (‘scripture alone’). The slogan brilliantly encapsulates the Protestant insistence that the church and its traditions are to be subject to Scripture, and not the other way around.

The Reformers insisted that human traditions, even under the Holy Spirit’s guidance (as far as that could be discerned), did not have authority to supplement, augment or overturn Scripture. To establish saving truth, what was needed was a return to the authoritative sources – to the Scriptures themselves.

And this was not something over which Church authorities had a monopoly. The Bible was addressed to every Christian. Every Christian possessed the Holy Spirit, and may read the Scriptures and come to faith in Christ.

But let’s be careful here. I often hear even experienced and well-trained Christians confuse sola scriptura with solo or nuda scriptura. That is: ‘scripture alone’ is confused with ‘scripture only’ or ‘scripture undressed’....

http://www.gafcon.org/news/primates_statement_on_vatican_offer/

[GAFCON] 10 Nov 2009--We have received the Archbishop of Canterbury’s letter informing us of the Pope’s offer of an ‘Apostolic Constitution’ for those Anglicans who wish to be received into the Roman Catholic Church. We believe that this offer is a gracious one and reflects the same commitment to the historic apostolic faith, moral teaching and global mission that we proclaimed in the Jerusalem Declaration on the Global Anglican Future and for this we are profoundly grateful.

We are, however, grieved that the current crisis within our beloved Anglican Communion has made necessary such an unprecedented offer. It represents a grave indictment of the Instruments of Communion whose very purpose is to strengthen and protect our unity in obedience to our Lord’s clear command. Their failure to fully address the abandonment of biblical faith and practice by The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada has now brought shame to the name of Christ and seriously impedes the cause of the Gospel.

The Primates Council of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GAFCON/FCA) is convinced, however, that Anglicanism has a bright future as long as we remain grounded in the Holy Scriptures and obedient to our Lord Jesus Christ’s call to reach the lost and make disciples of all nations teaching them to observe the whole Gospel. We also believe that there is room within our Anglican family for all those who hold true to the ‘faith once delivered to the saints’. We would like to encourage those Anglicans who are considering this invitation from the Roman Catholic Church to recognize that Anglican churches are growing throughout the world in strength and offering a vibrant testimony to the transforming work of Christ.

We are convinced that this is not the time to abandon the Anglican Communion. Our Anglican identity of reformed catholicity, that gives supreme authority to the Holy Scriptures and acknowledgement that our sole representative and advocate before God is the Lord Jesus Christ, stands as a beacon of hope for millions of people. We remain proud inheritors of the Anglican Reformation. This is a time for all Christians to persevere confident of our Lord’s promise that nothing, not even the gates of hell, will prevail against His Church.

+Peter Abuja,
Chairman,
GAFCON/FCA Primates Council

November 10, 2009

http://www.evangelicals.org/news.asp?id=1074

[Church Societ] 9 Nov 2009--According to its own doctrinal standards and history, the Church of England's true nature is that of a Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical and catholic (in other words, universal) church. Orthodox Anglicanism is therefore defined by reference to these characteristics only, which are set out in the Thirty-nine Articles and the Church of England's submission to the over-arching authority of Scripture alone. Church Society seeks to defend and promote these defining characteristics, especially the Gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone which is at the heart of the message and mission of the Church of England.

While acknowledging the correct stand taken by Anglo-Catholics against theological liberalism (the features of which do not represent true, Biblical Anglicanism), it should also be noted that the true doctrine of the Church of England does not embrace any of the teachings or practices which characterise the Church of Rome. For instance, the Church of Rome is fundamentally flawed in its claims about its own nature and authority and in its teaching about the means of salvation.

A proper rejection of theological liberalism should therefore not be accompanied by a turning to the Church of Rome and its unbiblical teachings and practices. Rather, both theological liberalism and the unscriptural teachings and practices of the Church of Rome are contrary to the Bible and to the historic doctrines of the Church of England as a Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical and catholic church.

The longing of Church Society is that all Anglicans, whether in England or elsewhere, would see and understand both the destructive nature of theological liberalism and the false nature, teachings and practices of the Church of Rome.

We grieve that the Church of England, along with our nation, has fallen so low in its spiritual and moral condition. We pray that God would pour out His Spirit on both church and nation.

We rejoice that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone and we pray that the Church of England will return to full adherence to its doctrinal standards, acknowledging the supreme authority of the Bible as God's Word and seeking to shape its teaching and practices by what He has revealed.

The statement was agreed by the Council at its meeting on 4 November 2009.

Church Society exists to uphold biblical teaching and to promote and defend the character of the Church of England as a reformed and national Church. For further information visit www.churchsociety.org

Further information relevant to this statement can be found here.

By Robin G. Jordan

In one vision of the Anglican Church in North America the ACNA is primarily seen as a rescue operation. The ACNA offers an alternative ecclesiastical structure to which disaffected Episcopalians can flee from an increasingly liberal and heretical Episcopal Church and where they can find a safe refuge from the encroachment of modernism, postmodernism, and pluralism. This particular vision of the ACNA places little or no emphasis upon real evangelism and church planting. Its main concern is Episcopalians who are no longer well disposed to The Episcopal Church. Its principal focus is persuading such Episcopalians to leave The Episcopal Church and joined the ACNA. Its notions of starting a new church are limited to reconstituting a former Episcopal congregation or a large segment of one into a new ACNA church and to gathering smaller groups of former Episcopalians and enfolding them into an ACNA church.

In this vision church growth is seen in terms of numerical growth from former Episcopal congregations and former Episcopalians joining the ACNA. Those who embrace this vision like to point out that the ACNA is growing through the addition of new congregations while The Episcopal Church is declining. They generally downplay the fact that the new congregations are largely made up of the recently unchurched—former Episcopalians. The growth of the ACNA is principally due to the migration of churchgoers from one denomination to another, what is known as “transfer growth.”

This kind of growth cannot be compared to the kind of growth that the global South Anglican provinces have been experiencing. In these provinces the main concern is the segment of the general population that is not Christian and have never been churched. (This is an increasingly growing segment of the general population in Canada and the United States along with the formerly churched—those who were at one time churchgoers but now no longer regularly attend a church.) Their focus is upon reaching and evangelizing this population segment, discipling new believers, helping them to become mature Christians, equipping and releasing them for the work of gospel ministry, and enfolding them into new churches with the same focus—fulfilling the Great Commission. These provinces are not just throwing out a lifeline to Episcopalians drowning in one small backwater; they are braving the open seas to save all whom they can reach with the life preserver of the gospel, often at great danger to themselves.

While rescuing Episcopalians may be one of the ACNA’s subsidiary purposes, it is not its chief purpose. This purpose is articulated in its constitution, in Sections 1 and 2 of Article III.

1. The mission of the Province is to extend the Kingdom of God by so presenting Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit that people everywhere will come to put their trust in God through Him, know Him as Savior and serve Him as Lord in the fellowship of the Church. The chief agents of this mission to extend the Kingdom of God are the people of God.

2. The work of the Province is to equip each member of the Province so that they may reconcile the world to Christ, plant new congregations, and make disciples of all nations; baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything commanded by Jesus Christ.

The danger in seeing the ACNA as primarily a rescue operation to Episcopalians is that those who adopt this view of the ACNA are at high risk of loosing sight of the central task of the Church—the fulfillment of the Great Commission. Rather than measuring the growth of the ACNA in terms of how many new congregations the ACNA can form from disaffected Episcopalians who have left The Episcopal Church or who can be persuaded to do so, leaders and members of the ACNA need to measure it in terms of gospel growth. They need to keep a close eye on “conversion growth.” This is growth arising from non-Christians becoming believers, accepting Christ as their Saviour and Lord and beginning a personal relationship with him. Conversion growth, however, is only one facet of gospel growth. They also need to keep track of how many converts are moving along the path from new believer to mature follower of Jesus Christ, how many have been equipped and released for gospel ministry work, and how many are engaging in that work, and how many people in each of these categories are being enfolded in new Great Commission churches. The data collected in relation to these critical indicators will give a much better picture of the ACNA’s growth and vitality than the number of former Episcopal congregations reconstituted as ACNA churches or the number of ACNA churches formed from groups of disaffected Episcopalians.

Relying upon The Episcopal Church as a source of new members for the ACNA has its drawbacks. Episcopalians are likely to bring a lot of unwanted baggage with them into the ACNA—attitudes, expectations and ways of thinking that may actually hamper or hinder the ACNA congregations in their efforts to spread the gospel and make disciples of unchurched people groups in Canada and the United States. This includes preconceived notions of how church is done. They have been immersed in an ecclesiastical culture that emphasizes the power of the sacraments over the need for personal conversion and faith, denigrates the authority of the Bible and the Anglican formularies, and fosters an anti-gospel and anti-evangelistic identity. Even conservative or orthodox Episcopalians have not escaped its influence.

Reaching and evangelizing the unchurched with little or no church background or previous churchgoing experience may be more challenging than gathering Episcopalians looking for a new church home and enfolding them into a new church. For the diocese it involves reorienting and reorganizing to serve the local congregation. For the local congregation it entails placing making disciples of Christ first and foremost above everything else, mobilizing all its resources to accomplish this one end, and paring away all groups, organizations, and programs that do not contribute to its accomplishment. For individual Christians means moving out of one’s comfort zone and mingling with non-Christians, becoming friends with them, and committing oneself to an ongoing relationship with them even if that relationship does not bear fruit in the form of a profession of faith in Jesus Christ and a commitment to follow him as his disciple.

The kind of growth that comes with faithfulness to the Great Commission is God-given growth. It is the kind of growth that endures for all eternity. It adds more living stones to the edifice that God himself is building—to that temple in which his Spirit dwells. It is this kind of growth for which we as Christians should always strive, going about the business of sharing the good news of Jesus Christ and making disciples as our Lord has commanded us to do and leaving the rest in God's hands.

http://acl.asn.au/help-and-encouragement-in-sharing-the-gospel/

[Anglican Church League] 7 Nov 2009--“Paul E. Little’s book How to Give Away Your Faith was first published in 1966, a few years before the popular evangelist was killed in a tragic car accident. Since his untimely death, his wife Marie has overseen two revisions of Little’s book (1988, 2008). It is sometimes described as ‘the classic guide to evangelism,’ perhaps because of the way in which the book addresses practical issues surrounding personal evangelism.”

– Trevin Wax offers some good reasons to dust off your old copy – or perhaps to get a revised edition. At The Discerning Reader.

Of course, Chappo’s Know and Tell the Gospel, written for Australian conditions, is essential reading!

http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/11/religion-of-peace-and-gospel-of.html

[Anglican Curmudgeon] 7 Nov 2009--We are living in strange times. Black is said to be white, and white is proclaimed black, and the objective reality is lost in the scramble by each to charge the other with falsehood or bias.

The "religion of peace" makes more headlines these days than even the Catholic Church:

Al Qaeda publishes a circular on its favored Websites which urges Muslim jihadists everywhere to attack "simple targets", including "crusaders" (i.e., Westerners, whose countries are attempting the re-occupation of Muslim lands), with readily available weapons and explosives: get the Stratfor article (fascinating, but published only for subscribers) by email, free, from this link.

Not one week after Al Qaeda's urging jihadists everwhere to take up arms to maintain the purity of Islam, we get this: Fort Hood Muslim psychiatrist (see also this report) who admires suicide bombers guns down 12, and wounds 31. (One of the critically wounded has since died, so the tally is now 13 dead and 30 wounded.)

Earlier, a namesake of the Fort Hood terrorist murdered (fragged) two fellow officers.

Earlier still, an Islamic terrorist gunned down three people at the El-Al counter at the Los Angeles International Airport.

And just after that attack, a man calling himself John Allen Muhammad and his sidekick, Lee Malvo, terrorized the Washington D.C. area with sniper attacks that killed ten people and critically wounded another three. Their arrest prevented their plan to recruit more jihadists and train them in Canada for a mass attack they believed would bring down the Great Satan -- America. (Muhammad's execution is scheduled for next Tuesday, according to the link just given.)

And the attacks by Muslims against Christians are increasing to a level not seen before in modern times.

Meanwhile, the people who demand that they be included are all for exclusion....

http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/11/5/former-tec-dioceses-welcome-congregations

[The Living Church] 7 Nov 2009--As two former Episcopal dioceses hold conventions this weekend, they are beginning to incorporate congregations from across the nation.

The Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh will vote on welcoming Harvest Anglican Church, Homer City, Pa.; Church of the Transfiguration, Cleveland, Ohio; HolyTrinityChurch, Raleigh, N.C.; and St. James Church, San Jose, Calif.

The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (Southern Cone) plans to receive St. Gabriel’s Anglican Church, Springdale, Ark., as a new mission station. It also will welcome two existing parishes: St. Matthias’ Anglican Church, Dallas; and Church of the Holy Spirit, Tulsa, Okla.

On Oct. 30, the Episcopal Diocese of Tennessee went to court against St. Andrew’s Church, Nashville, which left the Episcopal Church in 2006 and has since announced its affiliation with the Diocese of Quincy (Ill.).

The Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin (Southern Cone) has welcomed three neighboring California parishes — St. Andrew’s in the Desert, Lancaster; St. David’s, San Rafael; and Santa Maria de Juquila, Seaside — and Jesus the Good Shepherd, Henderson, Nevada.

In the context of the Anglican Church in North America’s constitution [PDF], such an elastic definition of diocesan borders is a feature and not a bug.

“Congregations and clergy are related together in a diocese, cluster, or network (whether regional or affinity-based), united by a bishop,” the ACNA’s constitution says. “Dioceses, clusters or networks (whether regional or affinity-based) may band together for common mission, or as distinct jurisdictions at the sub-Provincial level.”

http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/the_church_of_uganda_and_the_anti-homosexuality_bill/

[Global South Anglican] 7 Nov 2009--The Church of Uganda is studying the proposed “Anti-homosexuality bill” and, therefore, does not yet have an official position on the bill. In the meantime, we can restate our position on a number of related issues.

1. Our deepest conviction as the Church of Uganda is that, in Christ, people and their sexual desires are redeemed, and restored to God’s original intent. Repentance and obedience to Scripture are the gateway to the redemption of marriage and family and the transformation of society. (Position Paper on Scripture, Authority, and Human Sexuality, May 2005)

1.The House of Bishops resolved in August 2008 that “The Church of Uganda is committed at all levels to offer counseling, healing and prayer for people with homosexual disorientation, especially in our schools and other institutions of learning. The Church is a safe place for individuals, who are confused about their sexuality or struggling with sexual brokenness, to seek help and healing.”

2.The Church of Uganda upholds the sanctity of life and cannot support the death penalty.

3.In April 2009, Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi said, “I am appalled to learn that the rumours we have heard for a long time about homosexual recruiting in our schools and amongst our youth are true. I am even more concerned that the practice is more widespread than we originally thought. It is the duty of the church and the government to be watchmen on the wall and to warn and protect our people from harmful and deceitful agendas.”

4.“Homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture.” (Resolution of the 1998 Lambeth Conference of Bishops.) Homosexual behaviour is immoral and should not be promoted, supported, or condoned in any way as an “alternative lifestyle.” This position has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the House of Bishops and the Provincial Assembly of the Church of Uganda.

5.We cannot support the blessing of same-sex unions or the ordination of homosexuals (Resolution of the 1998 Lambeth Conference of Bishops), and we will oppose efforts to import such practices into Uganda. Again, this position has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the House of Bishops and the Provincial Assembly of the Church of Uganda.

Rev. Canon Aaron Mwesigye

Provincial Secretary

Church of Uganda

P.O. Box 14123

KAMPALA

+256 772 455 129